Veterans Groups Sue Bush Administration Over Delayed Benefits Claims

November 10, 2008 – Coming on the heels of the discovery that veterans’ benefit claims forms may have been shredded in regional offices nationwide, two veterans’ organizations have filed a lawsuit against the Department of Veterans Affairs. They’re attacking a related and, they say, similarly egregious problem: the time it takes for the VA to make a decision on a disability claim.

Clogged with more than 600,000 pending claims, the VA takes an average of more than six months to make a decision—70 percent more time than it took four years ago, the claimants allege. That means that disabled veterans can’t access their disability pay when they’re transitioning back into civilian society and need help the most, say critics.

If the claim is denied, an appeal takes even longer—an average of four years. Some stretch into decades. In comparison, private healthcare groups usually process claims in less than three months, including appeals.

In response, the Vietnam Veterans of America and the Veterans of Modern Warfare filed a preliminary injunction in a D.C. district court today against the VA. The two organizations, which together represent about 60,000 veterans, are asking for the VA to adhere to a time limit: 90 days to decide initial claims for disability benefits and 180 days to resolve appeals.

If those standards can’t be met, the suit asks that veterans receive interim benefits equivalent to what a veteran on a 30 percent disability rating would receive, or $356 per month for a single veteran without dependents. That’s not much, the groups say, but can be a “lifeline” for veterans attempting to adapt to civilian society.

“America has a covenant with its veterans. It always has,” says Charles Figley, an expert in post-traumatic stress disorder who has declared his support for the motion. “Young men and women raise their right hand; they swear to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States, put themselves in harm’s way, and serve their country in whatever way they are asked to do. In return, America has promised that if they are injured in their service to the United States, they will be cared for.”

The VA referred questions to the Department of Justice, which did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

One veteran who says he’s been scarred by the system’s inefficiency is Bobby O’Daniel, a Marine Corps veteran. He returned from the 1991 Gulf War with depression, fatigue, aches, and diminishing vision that kept him from holding down a job or maintaining relationships, he says. At the age of 21, he knew his body shouldn’t be feeling this way.

But when he filed for disabilities benefits, he waited more than a year for the decision. And it rated him as having a 10 percent disability—at the time, about $87 per month. That led to “13 years of anger and frustration” as he appealed the decision, he says, not to mention the “shame in having to ask for something deserved that I had already earned.” His case is still ongoing.

Today’s lawsuit isn’t the first to target what’s seen as the inefficiency of the disabilities benefits system. A class action suit by Veterans for Common Sense and Veterans United for Truth last year went after the VA on a number of fronts, from charges that it made benefits decisions too slowly to that it failed to adequately augment its PTSD services. The suit was unsuccessful. Robert Cattanach, a partner at the law firm representing veterans in the current case, says that this one has a better chance of succeeding because it’s more focused.

Critics within government also have aired their concerns. In recent years, the Government Accountability Office has published at least four critical reports about the VA disabilities system, stating in 2007 that the benefits program was “in urgent need of attention and transformation” and “was poorly positioned to provide meaningful and timely support” for disabled veterans. Congressional statutes mandate that the VA resolve claims in a timely manner, but they don’t set deadlines.

Former VA Secretary Jim Nicholson says that during his tenure from 2005 to 2007, he pushed for a system that would expedite claims and allow interim benefits. “It didn’t have enough support inside the administration or on the Hill,” Nicholson says. “It was just such a dramatic departure from the way things were done.”

Veterans are hoping, however, that the judge will recognize that a dramatic change is needed—and that a lawsuit may be the only way to do it.

“We are bringing this suit as a last resort,” says Donald Overton, executive director of Veterans of Modern Warfare. “Everyone knows that the delays are terrible, but nothing has changed.”

Posted in Gulf War Updates, Veterans for Common Sense News | Tagged | Comments Off on Veterans Groups Sue Bush Administration Over Delayed Benefits Claims

Obama Urged to Review Use of Private Firms in War

November 15, 2008 –  The Obama administration should move away from using private contractors in active battle areas in Iraq and Afghanistan and dramatically step up oversight, a Washington think tank urged on Friday.

The U.S. military has long used private contractors in fighting its wars, but Washington’s reliance on non-uniformed civilians has sharply increased over the past five years, the New America Foundation said in a new report.

It said the ratio of military personnel to private contractors is now around one to one, and some experts believed there are more contractors than troops in Iraq, compared to 50 to one during the 1991 Gulf War, according to the report.

Experts say the number of contractors could rise further in coming years as the U.S. military reduces its presence in Iraq, and most agree that better oversight is long overdue.
After the Democrats took control of Congress two years ago, lawmakers worried by reports of corruption and other abuses began examining the use of private contractors in Iraq, including the Army’s use of a sole-source no-bid contract with KBR Inc, a former unit of Halliburton Co, which was once headed by Vice President Dick Cheney.

The issue got even more attention in September 2007 after bodyguards from the U.S. security firm Blackwater Worldwide opened fire in a Baghdad traffic jam, killing 17 Iraqi civilians and wounding 24 more while escorting a convoy of U.S. diplomats under a contract with the State Department.
The guards from the North Carolina-based private security firm say they acted lawfully and fired in self-defense, but an Iraqi government investigation said there was no provocation. The U.S. government is still investigating.

Even critics of the Pentagon’s increased use of private contractors concede that the trend is unlikely to be reversed completely, but they are particularly concerned about the use of armed private contractors to protect military troops and equipment.

The New America Foundation cited what it called “a government-wide abdication of responsibility” in overseeing private contractors, holding them accountable, and integrating them into military planning and force structure discussions.

The group urged the new administration to expand current federal law to govern the actions of contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan, beef up training, and better vetting of non-U.S. employees hired by private contractors.

Congress should also identify “red-lined” activities, such as interrogation, that should not be outsourced, it said.

Blackwater founder and chief executive Erik Prince attended the group’s news conference, and briefly introduced himself, but declined to answer any questions on the issues.
Human Rights First, another nonprofit group, also blasted the U.S. government’s “broad failure” to oversee contractors and hold them accountable, saying it had hurt the United States’ reputation as a world leader.

Kevin Lanigan, director of the human rights group’s law and security program, said he was hopeful the new administration would address the issue quickly, given Barack Obama’s interest in contractor reforms during his time as a senator.

“We can’t put the toothpaste back in the tube, but … a new administration provides us an opportunity” to quickly address some needed reforms, Lanigan said.
Tara Lee, an attorney and expert on national security law, also spoke at the news conference, defending the use of private contractors and noting that private companies often provided language skills and others services the military could not.

She warned that efforts to increase the liability of contractors in war zones could prompt companies to withdraw.

She said she was particularly troubled by a new agreement that would let Iraq prosecute not only defense contractors, but U.S. military personnel if they commit serious crimes in Iraq.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates last month said the final draft agreement, which creates a legal basis for American troops to stay in Iraq after a United Nations mandate expires at the end of this year, would protect U.S. troops.

Posted in Gulf War Updates, Veterans for Common Sense News | Tagged | Comments Off on Obama Urged to Review Use of Private Firms in War

Another Soldier’s Death in Medical Barracks in Arizona

November 13, 2008 – For the second time this year, a soldier has been found dead in a medical barracks at Fort Huachuca. And it may be awhile before answers are available in either case.

The body of Pvt. Paul Muse, 22, a native of Oklahoma, was discovered Saturday morning in the fort’s Warrior Transition Unit, which provides medical and mental-health support for soldiers wounded in action or troops recovering from other medical conditions.

A non-commissioned officer found Muse unresponsive in his room and called 911. The soldier was pronounced dead at the scene, a news release said.

Less than 10 months ago, another 22-year-old soldier was found dead in the same medical unit in a similar scenario.

The lifeless body of Pfc. Eli Baker of California was discovered in his room by a non-commissioned officer on Jan. 28, a Monday morning. Baker also was declared dead at the scene.

Fort Huachuca, about 75 miles southeast of Tucson, announced the second death on Wednesday, five days after it occurred.

Officials said the delay was because they couldn’t immediately verify when Muse’s family had been notified, because the fatality fell on a weekend that was followed by the Veterans Day holiday.

The latest death is under investigation, a process that may take several months, officials said.

The probe into January’s death was recently completed, but is still under review and won’t be made public until Baker’s family is told of the findings. When that might happen wasn’t clear on Wednesday.

Chis Grey, a spokesman for the Army’s Criminal Investigation Command, which is responsible for such inquiries, said it’s not unusual for deaths to take many months to investigate because Army detectives are extremely thorough as they search for answers.

“We treat every death as if it was a homicide,” Grey said. “We want to make sure we find out exactly what transpired.”

Warrior Transition Units are fairly new creations and several, including the one at Fort Huachuca, are being reviewed for possible closure, The Associated Press recently reported.

The units were set up at dozens of Army posts around the country last year in the wake of controversy over conditions at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C., and concerns over follow-up care for veterans wounded in action.

The AP report said up to half of soldiers who ended up in the new units did not have medical problems serious enough to warrant them being there, and that most did not have combat injuries.

It isn’t clear why the two soldiers who died in Fort Huachuca’s Warrior Transition Unit were assigned to the medical barracks, but it appears that neither had battlefield injuries.

Muse, the soldier who died Saturday, enlisted in 2006 and had never been to war. Before being assigned to the medical unit on Oct. 6, Muse was a nodal network systems operator maintainer with the 40th Signal Battalion in Fort Huachuca’s 11th Signal Brigade.

Baker had recently finished boot camp and was still in training when he died.

Fort Huachuca spokeswoman Tanja Linton declined to comment Wednesday on whether there were any common links in the two deaths. She said it was premature to draw conclusions because the probe into the second fatality had just begun.

Posted in Veterans for Common Sense News | Comments Off on Another Soldier’s Death in Medical Barracks in Arizona

Crackdown Begins on ‘Personality Disorder’ Separations

November 14, 2008 – Under pressure from Congress and following the Army’s lead, the Department of Defense has imposed a more rigorous screening process on the services for separating troubled members due to “personality disorder.”

 The intent is to ensure that, in the future, no members who suffer from wartime stress get tagged with having a pre-existing personality disorder which leaves them ineligible for service disability compensation.

Since the attacks of 9/11, more than 22,600 service members have been discharged for personality disorder.  Nearly 3400 of them, or 15 percent, had served in combat or imminent danger zones.

Advocates for these veterans contend that at least some of them were suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) or traumatic brain injury but it was easier and less costly to separate them for personality disorder.  By definition, personality disorders existed before a member entered service so they do not deemed a service-related disability rating.  A disability rating of 30 percent or higher, which most PTSD sufferers receive, can mean lifelong access to military health care and on-base shopping.

Over the last 18 months, lawmakers and advocates for veterans have criticized Defense and service officials for relying too often on personality disorder separations to release member who deployed to Iraq, Afghanistan or other another areas of tension in the Global War on Terrorism.

A revised DoD instruction (No. 1332.14), which took effect without public announcement August 28, responds to that criticism.  It only allows separation for personality disorder for members currently or formerly deployed to an imminent danger areas if: 1) the diagnosis by a psychiatrist or a PhD-level psychologist is corroborated by a peer or higher-level mental health professional, 2) if the diagnosis is endorsed by the surgeon general of the service, and 3) if the diagnosis too into account a possible tie or “co-morbidity” with symptoms of PTSD or war-related mental injury or illness.

Sam Retherford, director of officer and enlisted personnel management in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, said adding “rigor and discipline” to the process when separating deployed members for personality disorder is “very important,” considering what is at stake for the member.

Last year several congressional hearings focused on overuse of personality disorder separation after The Nation magazine exposed apparent abuses in a March 2007 article.  It described the experience of Army Specialist Jon Town.  In October 2004, while Town stood in the doorway of his battalion’s headquarters in Ramadi, Iraq, an enemy rocket exploded into the wall above his head, knocking him unconscious.

When he came to, Town was numb all over, bleeding from his ears,  and had shrapnel wounds in his neck.  For two years he struggled with deafness, loss of memory and depression before the Army, in September 2006, separated Town after seven years’ service.  He was separated for a pre-existing personality disorder and without disability benefits.  Writer Joshua Kors suggested there might be thousands of veterans like Town, separated administratively to save the services billions of dollars in benefits.

Last year, moved by this story and others, the Senate adopted an amendment to the fiscal 2008 defense authorization bill from now president-elect Barack Obama (D-Ill.), Kit Bond (R-Mo.) and Joseph Liberman (ID-Conn.).  It directed Defense officials to report on service use of personality disorder separations, and the Government Accountability Office to study how well the services follow DoD own rules for processing such separations.

The Army meanwhile reviewed its own use of personality disorder separations for more than 800 soldiers who had wartime deployments.  That review quickly found some “appalling” lapses, said an official, including incomplete files and missing counseling statements.  A few months ago the Army tightened its own rules for using personality disorder separations.

In June, the Defense Department reported to Congress that it would add “rigor” to its personality disorder separation policy, previewing the changes implemented in late August.  The Navy strongly had opposed the changes because it frequently uses personality disorder separations to remove sailors found too immature or undisciplined to cope with life at sea.

Requiring their surgeon general to review every personality disorder separation from ships deployed in combat theaters would be too burdensome, the Navy argued.  But Defense officials insisted on the changes.

The DoD report in June showed the Navy led all services in personality disorder separations.  For fiscal years 2002 through 2007, the Navy total was 7554 versus 5923 for the Air Force, 5652 for the Army and 3527 for the Marine Corps.  The Army led in personality disorder separations to members who had wartime deployments, with a total of 1480 over six years.  The Navy total was 1155, the Marine Corps 455 and the Air Force 282.   

DoD said it found “no indication” that personality disorder diagnoses of deployed members “were prone to systematic or widespread error.”  Nor did internal studies show “a strong correlation” between personality disorder separations and PTSD, brain injury or other mental disorders.

“Still, the Department shares Congress’ concern regarding the possible use of personality disorder as the basis for administratively separating this class of service member,” the report said.

In late October, GAO released its findings based on a review of service jackets for 312 members separated for personality disorder from four military installations.  It said the services were not reliably compliant even with the pre-August regulation governing separations.  For example, only 40 to 78 percent of enlisted member separated for personality disorder had documents in their files showing that a psychiatrist or qualified psychologist determined that their disorder affected their ability to function in service.

Posted in Veterans for Common Sense News | Tagged , | Comments Off on Crackdown Begins on ‘Personality Disorder’ Separations

Tammy Duckworth, Iraq War Veteran, a Leading Contender for VA Secretary

November 13, 2008 – Those searching for tea leaves about Barack Obama’s favored picks for his Cabinet should look no further than the president-elect’s Veterans’ Day photo op. Joining Obama at a wreath-laying ceremony in Chicago was Tammy Duckworth, a former National Guard helicopter pilot who lost both legs in combat in Iraq and now directs the Illinois Department of Veterans Affairs.

Duckworth, who ran unsuccessfully for Congress in 2006, has surfaced as the leading contender for secretary of Obama’s Department of Veterans Affairs, several veterans advocates said. Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin and Rep. Rahm Emanuel recruited her for the ’06 race for Henry Hyde’s seat and Obama did an ad for her. She lost to Peter Roskam.

“Tammy is an incredibly inspiring leader and she has the potential to be our generation’s Max Cleland,” said Paul Rieckhoff, director of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America. “She’s been innovative, empathetic, intelligent, aggressive and forward-looking.”

Cleland, a former Democratic senator from Georgia and decorated Vietnam War hero who lost three limbs in combat, headed Veterans Affairs under President Carter, and some say he is in the mix to return there under Obama. Another contender is said to be Arnold Fisher, head of Fisher House Foundation, a leading veterans’ charity.

But veterans advocates say Duckworth’s diverse background — she was born in Bangkok in 1968 and raised in Hawaii — and advocacy on behalf of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans makes her a compelling choice. The group Disabled Veterans of America is singing her praises, as is Sen. Daniel K. Akaka (D-Hawaii), chairman of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee.

Duckworth has not been shy about her interest in the job, telling CNN this week: “When my commander in chief calls, I’ve always run for my helicopter and executed the mission I was given. And I would be deeply honored if President-elect Obama were to call.”

Another option for Duckworth could be succeeding Obama in the Senate; she is among the leading contenders for the post, which Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich will fill after Obama steps down.

A dark horse candidate to head the V.A. is the incumbent secretary, James Peake, appointed by Bush in 2007. A Peake aide, speaking only on the condition of anonymity, said her boss “has not yet made any plans, and his focus is on the transition.”

Posted in Veterans for Common Sense News | Comments Off on Tammy Duckworth, Iraq War Veteran, a Leading Contender for VA Secretary

Editorial Column: Care, Benefits for Vets Should be Top Priority

November 11, 2008 – George Washington once said, “The willingness with which our young people are likely to serve in any war, no matter how justified, shall be directly proportional as to how they perceive the veterans of earlier wars were treated and appreciated by their country.”

Our first president had it exactly right. On this Veterans Day, as we continue to fight wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is more important than ever to honor our nation’s heroes by providing them the care and benefits they deserve.

In the 110th Congress, we have begun to live up to the promises made to our veterans. In 2007, we passed the single largest increase for veterans’ health care in the 77-year history of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). That means more money for post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), traumatic brain injury (TBI) and prosthetics. We followed that up with additional funding this year.

Unfortunately, 17 of the last 19 VA budgets have been late. This is inexcusable. Funding for our veterans should take first priority.

I have introduced the Assured Funding for Veterans Health Care Act to make VA health care a mandatory spending item within the federal budget, like Social Security and Medicare. It currently has 127 co-sponsors. I am also supporting efforts to authorize appropriations for VA health care one year in advance of the start of the fiscal year. In other words, VA health care would have a one-year advantage over other programs, ensuring it is timely, sufficient and predictable. I am hopeful that next year we can finally improve the system for disbursing VA health-care funds.

In June of this year, Congress achieved another victory for our veterans by passing a new GI Bill of Rights. After World War II, Congress saw a need to help veterans rebuild their lives, for the benefit of both the individual service member and the nation as a whole. That original GI Bill offered veterans the chance to attend college, purchase a home and contribute to a slowly rebuilding American economy. Now we have extended that same opportunity to Iraq and Afghanistan veterans, including Reservists and National Guardsmen.

I am very proud that Congress passed legislation to reduce the immoral backlog of 800,000 VA disability claims. The Veterans Disability Benefits Claims Modernization Act, which President Bush signed last month, instantly pays partial claims for severely wounded veterans, completely overhauls the prehistoric ratings schedule that has contributed to the size and scope of the backlog, and repairs the flawed and broken system of processing claims.

The president also signed my legislation to improve mental health care for veterans and their families. Previous law allowed the VA to provide professional counseling, consultation, training and mental health services to the immediate family members of veterans being treated for service-connected conditions when such services are deemed necessary for the veteran’s treatment.

However, with respect to other veterans, the statute stated that the VA may only provide such services when they are initiated during a period of hospitalization. My legislation – the Mental Health for Heroes’ Families Act – eliminated that hospitalization requirement. Now we can end the nitpicking about how a veteran was injured or where they were treated and offer these services to each and every family that needs them.

There is much more to do in the weeks and months ahead. We must help veterans who are sleeping on the street or contemplating suicide. We must build more polytrauma units and improve access to mental health care. And we must hold the VA accountable for providing benefits in a timely fashion. I will continue to use my seat on the House Veterans Affairs Committee to ensure that we honor our veterans in deeds, not just words.

Congressman Phil Hare, D-Rock Island, is a member of the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee and served six years in the U.S. Army Reserves.

Posted in VA Claims Updates, Veterans for Common Sense News | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Editorial Column: Care, Benefits for Vets Should be Top Priority

Obama Administration Can Act Quickly to Restore Openness

Washington, DC, November 12, 2008 – The Obama administration can act quickly after taking office in January to reverse the secrecy trend of the last eight years and restore openness in the executive branch,
according to a set of new proposals posted online today by the National Security Archive. More than 60 organizations joined the recommendations, which call on President-elect Obama to restore efficiency and openness to the Freedom of Information Act process, reform the classification system to reduce overclassification and facilitate greater declassification, and ensure that presidential records are handled in accordance with the law and Congress’ intent.

“President-elect Obama can make a difference on Day One in the way his administration relates to the public,” explained the Archive’s general counsel Meredith Fuchs. “Secrecy got out of control in the last eight years, but a few focused directives will go a long way towards reopening the government.”

A diverse coalition of groups convened by the National Security Archive developed the three proposals. If adopted, the recommendations would establish the needed framework for accountability, integrity, and
greater effectiveness in the federal government. The proposals call on the president-elect to take the following actions during his first days in office:

* Issue a memorandum on the Freedom of Information Act that establishes a policy of maximum possible public disclosure of government records and directing an attorney general memo that reinstitutes the presumption of openness under FOIA, calls on agencies to use technology to engage with and inform the public, and commits to creating a more collaborative and less adversarial relationship with the public on issues involving access to information.

* Revoke President Bush’s executive order on the Presidential Records Act, which undermined the PRA by purporting to create new constitutional privileges for the family members and descendents of former presidents
and for former vice presidents; commit to working with NARA and Congress to ensure necessary oversight for the transfer and processing of the Bush presidential records; and establish a policy for the new administration to preserve all presidential records of administrative, historical, informational, or evidentiary value.

* Issue a presidential directive rejecting prior abuses of the classification system and tasking the relevant executive branch agencies to develop a new executive order on classification that will reduce overclassification, add internal mechanisms to prevent classification abuses, ensure consideration of the public interest throughout the lifecycle of classified information, and improve the declassification process and information sharing.

Visit the Web site of the National Security Archive for more information about today’s posting and to read the full text of the new proposals:  http://www.nsarchive.org

Posted in Veterans for Common Sense News | Comments Off on Obama Administration Can Act Quickly to Restore Openness

“Guantanamo and Its Aftermath” Details Shattered Lives of Detainees

November 11, 2008 – Detainees released from U.S. detention in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba and Afghanistan live shattered lives as a result of U.S. policies in the “war on terror,” according to a new report by the Human Rights Center and International Human Rights Law Clinic at the University of California, Berkeley.

The report, “Guantánamo and Its Aftermath: U.S.
Detention and Interrogation Practices and Their Impact on Detainees,” based on a two-year study, reveals in graphic detail the cumulative effect of Bush Administration policies on the lives of 62 released detainees. Many of the prisoners were sold into captivity and subjected to brutal treatment in U.S. prison camps. Once in Guantánamo, prisoners were denied access to civilian courts to challenge the legality of their detention. Almost two-thirds of the former detainees interviewed reported having psychological problems since leaving Guantánamo.

Download the full report

This report provides the first systematic glimpse into the world of former detainees once held in U.S.
custody in Afghanistan and Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. The primary objective of the study was to record the experiences of these men, assess their treatment in detention, and explore how the conditions of their incarceration affected their subsequent reintegration with their families and communities.

Using semi-structured questionnaires, researchers interviewed 112 people from July 2007 to July 2008. Of these, 62 were former detainees residing in nine countries who had been held in U.S. custody without trial. Another 50 respondents were key informants, including former and current U.S. government officials,
representatives of nongovernmental organizations, attorneys representing detainees, and former U.S.
 military and civilian personnel who had been stationed in Guantánamo or at detention facilities in Afghanistan.

Researchers compared this interview data to media reports about former Guantánamo detainees, relevant documents released by the Department of Defense, and reports by the U.S. government, independent organizations, and the media.

The report recommends establishing an independent, nonpartisan commission to investigate and publicly report on the detention and treatment of detainees. The commission should have subpoena power to compel witnesses and gain access to all classified  materials concerning apprehension, detention, interrogation, and release of detainees taken into U.S. custody.

About the Authors

The lead authors for the study are Laurel Fletcher, Director of the International Human Rights Law Clinic and
Clinical Professor of Law, and Eric Stover, Faculty Director of the Human Rights Center and Adjunct Professor in the School of Public Health and School of Law. The authors have conducted numerous studies pioneering the use of empirical data collection in emerging areas of international human rights and humanitarian law.

Professor Fletcher has expertise designing and implementing an interdisciplinary, problem-based approach to human rights research, advocacy, and policy. She works in international criminal and humanitarian law as well as globalization and migration. She has conducted field work on grave human rights violations in countries including Bosnia, the Dominican Republic, Haiti, and the United States. Professor Fletcher has extensive experience interviewing survivors of gross human rights violations as legal counsel, investigator, and researcher.

Professor Stover has extensive research experience conducting fieldwork with victims of gross human rights violations in over a dozen countries, including the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda.

During the wars in Croatia and Bosnia he led several
medico-legal investigations of mass graves as an Expert on Mission to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in The Hague. He also conducted a survey of mass graves throughout Rwanda for the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda in 1995. He is the author of an award-winning book, The Witnesses: War Crimes and the Promise of Justice in The Hague. Since 2006, he has investigated the relationship between human rights violations and the spread of infectious disease in Burma and its border regions.

The study was conducted in partnership with the Center for Constitutional Rights 

Posted in Veterans for Common Sense News | Tagged , | Comments Off on “Guantanamo and Its Aftermath” Details Shattered Lives of Detainees

Combat Veterans Face Higher Mortality Rates

November 11, 2008, Oklahoma City – Of all the obstacles facing soldiers when they return home from a war-zone deployment, dying in a car crash may not appear to be at the top of the list.

Overall, combat veterans were 25{cd9ac3671b356cd86fdb96f1eda7eb3bb1367f54cff58cc36abbd73c33c82e1d} more likely to die from post-conflict, injury-related deaths than their counterparts who served in the military during the same time period but who did not see combat. Amanda Demanda – Car accident attorneys fighting for their clients and helps them for the best justice.

But a recent study by an Army medical researcher shows veterans returning from a war zone are more than 25{cd9ac3671b356cd86fdb96f1eda7eb3bb1367f54cff58cc36abbd73c33c82e1d} more likely to die in a car accident than their military counterparts who didn’t see combat.

Dr. Joseph Knapik (kuh-NAP’-ick) presented his findings today during a seminar at the University of Oklahoma’s College of Public Health.

Knapik analyzed the findings of a host of studies on combat veterans from Vietnam and the first Gulf War.

He says the studies show combat veterans are more likely to speed and less likely to use seat belts or wear motorcycle helmets.

 

Posted in Gulf War Updates, Veterans for Common Sense News | Tagged | Comments Off on Combat Veterans Face Higher Mortality Rates

Bush, Out of Office, Could Oppose Inquiries

November 12, 2008 – When a Congressional committee subpoenaed Harry S. Truman in 1953, nearly a year after he left office, he made a startling claim: Even though he was no longer president, the Constitution still empowered him to block subpoenas.

“If the doctrine of separation of powers and the independence of the presidency is to have any validity at all, it must be equally applicable to a president after his term of office has expired,” Truman wrote to the committee.

Congress backed down, establishing a precedent suggesting that former presidents wield lingering powers to keep matters from their administration secret. Now, as Congressional Democrats prepare to move forward with investigations of the Bush administration, they wonder whether that claim may be invoked again.

“The Bush administration overstepped in its exertion of executive privilege, and may very well try to continue to shield information from the American people after it leaves office,” said Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat of Rhode Island, who sits on two committees, Judiciary and Intelligence, that are examining aspects of Mr. Bush’s policies.

Topics of open investigations include the harsh interrogation of detainees, the prosecution of former Gov. Don Siegelman of Alabama, secret legal memorandums from the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel and the role of the former White House aides Karl Rove and Harriet E. Miers in the firing of federal prosecutors.

Mr. Bush has used his executive powers to block Congressional requests for executive branch documents and testimony from former aides. But investigators hope that the Obama administration will open the filing cabinets and withdraw assertions of executive privilege that Bush officials have invoked to keep from testifying.

“I intend to ensure that our outstanding subpoenas and document requests relating to the U.S. attorneys matter are enforced,” said Representative John Conyers Jr., Democrat of Michigan and chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. “I am hopeful that progress can be made with the coming of the new administration.”

Also, two advocacy groups, the American Civil Liberties Union and Human Rights First, have prepared detailed reports for the new administration calling for criminal investigations into accusations of abuse of detainees.

It is not clear, though, how a President Barack Obama will handle such requests. Legal specialists said the pressure to investigate the Bush years would raise tough political and legal questions.

Because every president eventually leaves office, incoming chief executives have an incentive to quash investigations into their predecessor’s tenure. Mr. Bush used executive privilege for the first time in 2001, to block a subpoena by Congressional Republicans investigating the Clinton administration.

In addition, Mr. Obama has expressed worries about too many investigations. In April, he told The Philadelphia Daily News that people needed to distinguish “between really dumb policies and policies that rise to the level of criminal activity.”

“If crimes have been committed, they should be investigated,” Mr. Obama said, but added, “I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of Republicans as a partisan witch hunt, because I think we’ve got too many problems we’ve got to solve.”

But even if his administration rejects the calls for investigations, Mr. Obama cannot control what the courts or Congress do. Several lawsuits are seeking information about Bush policies, including an Islamic charity’s claim that it was illegally spied on by Mr. Bush’s program on wiretapping without warrants.

And Congressional Democrats say that they are determined to pursue their investigations – and that they expect career officials to disclose other issues after the Bush administration leaves. “We could spend the entire next four years investigating the Bush years,” Mr. Whitehouse said.

But if Mr. Obama decides to release information about his predecessor’s tenure, Mr. Bush could try to invoke executive privilege by filing a lawsuit, said Peter Shane, a law professor at Ohio State University.

In that case, an injunction would most likely be sought ordering the Obama administration not to release the Bush administration’s papers or enjoining Mr. Bush’s former aides from testifying. The dispute would probably go to the Supreme Court, Mr. Shane said.

The idea that ex-presidents may possess residual constitutional powers to keep information secret traces back to Truman.

In November 1953, after Dwight D. Eisenhower became president, the House Un-American Activities Committee subpoenaed Truman to testify about why he had appointed a suspected Communist to the International Monetary Fund.

Truman decided not to comply and asked his lawyer, Samuel I. Rosenman, for help. But there was little time for research.

Edward M. Cramer, a young associate at Mr. Rosenman’s law firm, recalled being summoned with two colleagues to their boss’s office at 6 p.m. and told to come up with something. The next morning, they helped dictate Truman’s letter telling the panel he did not have to testify – or even appear at the hearing.

“I think, legally, we were wrong” about whether Truman had to show up, Mr. Cramer, now 83, said in a phone interview from his home in New York.

But the committee did not call the former president’s bluff. It dropped the matter, and Truman’s hastily devised legal claim became a historical precedent.

In 1973, President Nixon cited Truman’s letter when he refused to testify or give documents to the committee investigating the Watergate scandal.

Mr. Cramer recalled, “Nixon used it, and we said ‘Oh, Jesus, what have we done?’ “

The first judicial backing for the idea that former presidents wield executive privilege powers came in 1977, as part of a Supreme Court ruling in a case over who controlled Nixon’s White House files. The decision suggested that Nixon might be able to block the release of papers in the future. But it offered few details, and Nixon never sought to do so.

In 1989 and 1990, judges presiding over criminal trials related to the Iran-contra affair blocked requests by defendants to make former President Ronald Reagan testify and release his diaries.

But the Supreme Court has never made clear how far a former president may go in trying to block Congressional demands for documents and testimony – or what happens if a president disagrees with a predecessor about making information public.

“There is no relevant precedent on the books,” Mr. Shane said.

Posted in Veterans for Common Sense News | Comments Off on Bush, Out of Office, Could Oppose Inquiries