MAMMA - M+others Aligned for Military & Murder Accountability

Most Sincerely,

Jan Beimdiek

cc: Senator Rod Grams
--------------------------------------------------

Though the 'crime' factor was clearly a large piece of the puzzle, the 'BIG' picture was still out of focus. Many of the contended criminal activities that had surfaced in the cases could only be considered as 'petty' crimes. Why would anyone murder someone to cover up such activity? More importantly, WHY would the military deliberately abet such cover ups? How could they condone one soldier killing another soldier? Weren't they all members of the same team? Wasn't killing limited to the battlefield and sworn enemies of the United States? In the past, in the days when the military was 'establishing' their honor rather that 'tarnishing' it (the USS Indianapolis, the USS Iowa, Tailhook, sinking a fishing boat with school children on board etc. etc), to answer those questions would have been a simple matter. Today, such is not the case.

The DoD and the military have run amuck! (As if you hadn't noticed! *smile*) They have become a self-governing entity and sadly, America, failing to learn from history, seems convinced that only Germany could have produced a Hitler, only Iraq could have produced Saddam, only......(you get the picture!). There are many problems, but the military simply ignores them. They whip out the flag, wave it around and start invoking the names of the men and women who have lost their lives in defense of all that the flag stands for (MAMMA has dubbed this the Red Badge of Courage Syndrome) and PUFF.....NO PROBLEM! You and I KNOW better! An unaddressed problem isn't just going to go away! The military, of ANY country, with it's mantra of 'follow orders and don't ask questions' is fertile ground for EVIL and the U.S. Military now ranks at the top of the evil list!

The military decided that it was no longer prudent to trust that in time of war they could just recruit 'patriotic' citizens into the military and plan on winning. So, back in the 70's, the military placed a 'request' for a program to up the kill ratio in the military. (They also put in a 'request' for their bioengineering department and the world got AIDS! Isn't it a military tactic to deplete the population of a country that is to be conquered?) Anyway, a task force, including Lt. Col. Dave Grossman, was assembled and "Killology" (a word coined by Grossman) was developed and implemented. Simply put, the mind's governor, that prohibits members of a species from killing it's own kind, is circumvented.

When Grossman retired, he started working at Arkansas State University's Psychology Dept. and was among the first on the scene at the Jonesboro "school shootings". Can you guess what he found? If you guessed "Killology", You WIN! But guess what??? The world is LOSING!!!

In truly "military" containment fashion he distanced the 'school shootings' from 'killology' by 'asserting and assuring everyone 'that 'killology' has safeguards. By using the term "virus of violence' he redirected people's attention to other possible causes, namely the well established and quite accurate perception that TV, movies and video games provoke violence. Is it merely a coincidence that the case histories from 'getting into the minds of serial killers', a part of 'killology's' development, are today's movies? Is it merely a coincidence that military simulators, geared to make killing come automatically, are today's video games?

Have you seen any good movies, lately? Have you been playing any 'war game' videos? We've ALL been exposed to 'killology' and the fact that we all haven't turned into 'rampage killers' (a term used by the NY Times for their series on this 'phenomena' - and Timothy McVeigh would fit here) speaks volumes. A descriptive analogy would be to label 'killology' as chickenpox and lump 'school shooters' and 'rampage killers' under the label of shingles. We all know what an outbreak of chickenpox is like. Reactions range from naturally immune all the up to FATAL! Could this account for increased 'Road Rage'? Could it account for an acceptance that murder has become a daily occurrence, unworthy of outrage? Is this why life has been devalued and people desensitized to death? Given the FACT that the military's own safeguards have FAILED, as evidenced by the growing number of 'questionable' deaths, the implications and ramifications are staggering!

The bottom line is that the military has research work on this field and some how this EVIL needs to be exposed and expunged from society. With this goal in mind, MAMMA has undertaken the Project of exposing 'Killology'! You can visit our project page by simply clicking on the link at the bottom of this page. We pray that you will think long and hard about this matter and consider offering your help in accomplishing this vital goal!

Back to 'Class List'

JOURNALISM 101: An introduction to the concept that a journalist is the 'eyes and ears' of the public and society's 'guard dog'.

Assignment: Through the use of 'examples'...give depth and dimension to the phrase:
“That's news to me!”. Be prepared to 'debate' the current controversies that surround the issue of whether or not journalists are perceived by the public as 'trustworthy'.

According to the 'New Webster's Dictionary of the English Language', “news” is defined as: “current information about something that has taken place, or about something not known before; recent intelligence regarding any event, esp. as presented by news media such as the papers, radio or television.”

Humans, by nature, are a 'social' and 'curious' creature. People have always been aware that events, even those occurring far away from them, could and often did impact their lives. From time in memorial, with the 'majority' dependent on a 'few'; a 'Roman Messenger', a 'Town Crier', a 'Pony Express Rider', etc. for accurate sharing, the 'news' has always been a priority.

With the advent of 'newspapers', radio and TV, the process of 'broadcasting' the news was speeded up, but news 'gathering' was hard pressed to keep pace. The information, used to develop a 'story' was slow to 'trickle' in and a 'fast breaking' story, with a 'reporter on the scene', was often 'old' news in some areas before it even made the 'news' in other areas. To put that in perspective...think “Trend”.

EXAMPLE:
In years past, for whatever reasons, most 'trends' that 'swept' or 'filtered through' the country, originated with 'trendsetters' on the East or West Coastlines of the United States. Take, for example, a 'trendy' hairstyle that originated in a Hollywood Salon, by the time that 'new' hairstyle became the 'rage' in New York City, it was already considered as 'old' fashioned by stylists in Hollywood. An exception to this filtering type 'rule of thumb' would be a hairstyle, that is made 'popular' by an instantly recognizable celebrity, as exemplified by Dorothy Hammil's perky hair cut.

When the 'news' involved events that were considered 'monumental' or involved an
'issue' that was seen as a 'problem' for society, no expense was spared to get 'reporters' to the scene and great care was taken to 'uncover' and 'verify' all of the 'facts' before anything was released to the public. This practice, even if it meant that the 'story' was slow to develop, earned the public's 'respect' and 'trust' for those, who took of the task of being the 'eyes and ears' of the people. The public quickly realized that media 'exposure' of any 'disputed' issue would pressure those involved to seek resolution and 'redress' of the situation and came to view the media as the 'vanguard' of 'truth'.

When the 'Information Highway' entered the picture, 'News', from around the world,
started 'flooding' in 24/7 and the media started 'picking' and 'choosing' which events
warranted their attention. With so much 'news' available to them, if a 'story' turned out to be slow in it's development, they deemed it as 'old' news and moved on to newer 'important' issues. This practice has shaken the public's confidence in the media as some issues, long believed to have been 'laid to rest' have resurfaced and seem 'worse'. To put that in perspective...think “Celibacy”.

EXAMPLE:
About 30 years ago, there was a spattering of reports of 'child' molestation by Priests. The 'media' were upon the issue like dogs going after a bone. As the 'accused' were draped behind the 'white collar' and standing beside a 'Crucifix', the media found themselves being 'assured', by the church's 'hierarchy' that there were a 'few' errant priests, but that the 'situation' had been handled in accordance with 'Church Law'. As a blanket of silence feel over the 'issue', that pitted a child's word against that of a man of God, the media moved on to other things.

Thirty years later, those children have 'grown up' and have found others, who were
likewise 'violated'. In today's 'enlightened' society, when seeing past the 'cross' and the 'cloth' is acceptable, the 'issue' is again 'news'. In an April 26, 2002, Boston Globe article, Ellen Goodman wrote: (quote) “Ever since the scandal broke over Boston, I've had a refrain running through my head: 'What's celibacy got to do with it?' It's not set to the tune of the Tina Turner rock song, but of a Bach cantata. [After all, as the wind of sexual abuse shakes more priests out of the trees, it has become routine to wonder: What's behind all this?” and “The issues facing the Catholic Church have been divided into at least two parts. One is, simply and horrifically, criminal abuse of minors by a growing roster of priests. The other is a hierarchy that protected itself instead of its children, forwarding danger from one parish to another. [The first debate is about broken vows, the second about a closed, restricted circle.” (end quote)

Strangely, those same words could and should be being used in the 'scandalous' issue of questionable military deaths. The cantata that should be running through peoples' heads would go: 'What's patriotism got to do with it?' For some reason the people, in the media, seem unable or unwilling to look past the 'uniform' and the 'flag'. This, in spite of the fact that more and more things, are coming to 'light' that proves a long history of the military lies and cover ups! A most notable event being the 'disclosure' of evidence that proves that, 60 years ago, the military not only knew about, but may have provoked 'Pearl Harbor'!

Unfortunately, most problems involving the government and/or the military are a 'time' thing as both have learned to use 'time' like a weapon. Additionally, they've learned to call into question, the 'patriotism' of any 'individual' who dares to 'dissent' with any of their 'rulings'. Such 'dissenters' are mocked and belittled and the term 'Conspiracy Theory' starts popping up all over the place with the inference that only a 'nut' would doubt anyone in their government. Given the 'history' of 'governments' and the fact that it takes as 'few' as two to conspire on anything...isn't it more likely that only a 'nut' would NOT question anyone in their government?

The military has a homicide problem. More and more military families are getting their
'loved one' shipped home in a 'body bag' and finding themselves seeking 'redress' of
questionable 'manner' of death rulings. The military starts 'tooting' the Uniform Code of Military Justice and intimates that any military death has undergone a 'thorough'
investigation in accordance to set 'Policies and Procedures', when, in fact, 'deceased'
military members aren't subject to UCMJ. By the 'time' a family has 'proof' of wrong
doing...the military and DoD have used the (very effective) tactic of 'Repeat it often
enough and it becomes the truth'! By repeatedly 'assuring' every 'official' that approaches them that 'Everything that could be done WAS done' and that 'The family is distraught and in denial, unable to accept the truth'...the 'officials' start to believe it and as they are 'very busy' people...they don't have 'time' to deal with such an 'imagined' problem! Family, friends and even strangers start telling these families that they should go to the media for help, but there's a bit of a 'time' problem. To put this in perspective...Try thinking in terms of a 'Whirlpool', out in the 'middle' of a lake, where there's nothing to grab on to and the water is deep!

Immediately following the 'untimely' death of a 'young' person, especially if the death
was violent, the media seems to sense 'blood in the water' and are all over it! At first, the family is also taken in by 'assurances' from the military, the DoD AND 'officials', who PROMISE that everything that can be done WILL be done. The family, not wanting to 'do' or 'say' anything that might hinder or hamper the 'investigation' of the death of their loved one generally 'shy' away from the media.

With the passage of 'time'...the 'officials' are buried under a pile of other constituents' problems and the media people have a 'full plate' of 'new' news to cover. When the family comes to realize that NOTHING has been done and try to go to the media, they find themselves in that 'whirlpool' as the media isn't interested unless an 'official' is looking into it and the 'official' isn't interested as they aren't under pressure from the media! After years of 'treading' water, in such a 'whirlpool'...most families just plain wear out and 'drown'!

What does it take to 'prove' that there's a 'problem' here? Take a 'look' at the
'Situations' posted at this site!. With a 'problem' such as this, it isn't a matter of ending with the note "...and nothing has changed!", it's more a matter of this 'problem' will just getting WORSE! Please, before you find yourself caught is such a 'whirlpool', take a stand and speak out against this 'injustice'. Speak out on behalf of the 'Victims' (Dead service members, who can't speak for themselves, AND their families, who NOBODY seems willing to LISTEN to) because it's their word against the word of someone wearing a 'uniform' and standing behind a 'Flag! Thank you!

Back to 'Class List'

ANATOMY 101: An in-depth look at the military's ability to successfully avoid accountability in cases of fatal training accidents.

Assignment: Every 'Life Altering' incident has the potential of being a 'teaching' experience that can benefit others. With that in mind, take an actual military 'training accident' that was fatal and 'dissect' it. Try to determine what, if any, 'lessons' were learned from the 'incident' and what, if any, 'lessons' could have or should have been learned. If there was a 'failure' to learn any major 'lessons', through the 'course' of the 'experience', try to project the possibilities and probabilities of any major ramifications that could result.

Following, is an 'accounting' of an 'incident' that Cpl. Chris Miller, USMC, included in a letter, sent to his family, about 2 weeks into his 'Boot Camp' training at Camp Lejeune. Had he been writing a 'paper', the title would've been: The Anatomy of Military Manslaughter (AKA: A 'Fatal' Training Accident!) (Or something similar to that! OK?)

Generally, when a person is asked to 'evaluate' a situation, they're told to consider all aspects and ask themselves: "What's wrong with this picture?" OK? Normally, it boils down to asking: 'What's here that shouldn't be here' (An example would be 'signs' of forced entry at an 'accident' scene.) Anyway, as you read Chris' 'Testimony'...ask yourself: What is not being mentioned that should be mentioned? OK? That said...here is Chris' account:

****************************************************

"Yesterday we had Hitting Skills III we Boxed other platoons. That's been the best thing so far. I beat another guy's butt pretty bad, because I psyched him out, I was yelling & growling at him. I had him scared before the Fight started. We went three rounds. I bloodied his nose in the 2nd and it was worse in the 3rd. It was Fun. But a recruit in our Platoon hit a recruit from another platoon, his name is Womble. Womble hit him in back of head and the guy went down then he popped back up and started hitting the ref, and then went down again and he never got back up. He was unconscious and vomiting. Ambulance came and then a while later a helicopter landed on the field to Life Flight him. A priest came and talked to us last night. That kid is in a coma and has a 50/50 chance of living. When the punch hit him a blood vessel popped in his head causing the brain to swell. They operated and removed a blood clot in his brain. Womble been real upset and we've been praying for that recruit and Womble because he really don't know how to deal with it. This is Womble's first time in the US. He's from Brazil."

************************************************

OK..........did you notice:
1) While Chris mentioned a 'Ref', there isn't any mention of an 'instructor'.
2) While the term 'Boxed' was used, there wasn't any indication of 'protective' gear: gloves, headgear etc.
3) Though the word 'Fight' was stressed, the overview seems more like a 'free for all'.

On Feb. 11, 1997, Chris wrote: "We got some bad news today. That Recruit I told you about. Well they took him off Life Support we're going to have a service for him tomorrow. The family came to the Base. They're not upset at the Corps. They took him off because he was brain dead."

*****************************************************

As you can see...it's obvious that what's missing in the 'summary' of this 'accident', is any type of accountability! Womble had every reason to be concerned...in the 'private sector' even in professional boxing matches (or sparring practices that are properly 'trained' and where 'protective gear' is used)...charges are filed any time there is serious injury, and 'manslaughter' is the charge that's leveled in the event of a death!

As for the 'family' "not being upset at the Corps"...
The Marine Corps has a LONG History of Honor and Pride that's espoused in their phrase: 'Semper Fi'! (Always Faithful) However, as soon as it started looking like the recruit wasn't going to live and possible charges of 'Unintentional Manslaughter' and/or 'Negligent Homicide' loomed, the 'best interests' of the 'Corps' became the priority! The words; 'cover up' probably weren't included in any discussions of the 'incident', among the people, 'tasked' to 'deal with it'. However, when they started weighing what constitutes 'justice' for only 'the one', when the 'consequences' would involve ramifications for the 'entire' Corps, it became a matter of taking 'defensive measures' to 'protect' the Corps! (In other words..."Let's see if we can 'wiggle out' of this mess!"). What seems to have been forgotten is the fact that any 'sacrifice' of 'integrity' puts the 'Corps' on a slippery slope of erosion in what should be a balanced field of 'right and wrong'. Such decay of ethics in the military can and already has brought 'dishonor' to itself!

{Because Chris was not 'privy' to details of that family's visit, what follows is based on the personal experience of this writer, as well as on the 'shared' experiences of other families, including the family of Cpl. Christopher Miller! (Visit the 'Situations' section of this site to learn more about Chris' untimely and 'questionable' death.) We believe that it's safe to 'bet the farm' that when the recruit's family arrived at Camp...the Corps practically 'killed' them with kindness!}

When the family arrived at the Base, they were greeted with 'wave' after 'wave' of expressions of 'Deepest Sympathy' and 'Condolences' for their 'LOSS'! (The phrase 'their loss' is a 'key' element of the strategy of 'sidestepping' any responsibility in the incident.) Interspersed with these sentiments were frequent expressions of total 'disbelief' that such an 'accident' could have happened! (The stress being placed on the idea that this was 'nothing' other than an accident.) And a Casualty Assistance Claims Officer (CACO) was immediately assigned as a 'guide' to the base and to 'help' them with the 'Thousand and One' details involved in the 'Final' arrangements of a 'young' person whose death was so unexpected and to answer their questions.

Following a 'guided' tour of the base, an 'inspection' of the 'accident' scene and (possibly??) meeting the visibly shaken and 'sorrow filled' Mr. Womble, who has been instructed not to 'talk' to the family, it's time to start on the 'paper work'. The CACO then produces a three ring binder, that's about three inches thick and filled with instructions and 'guidelines' for mandated 'Policies and Procedures' involved with a military fatality. The family is 'swamped' with forms that require monumental and permanent 'decisions' and soon they feel like they are drowing in a sea of 'red tape' and still unanswered questions. Strangely, though the CACO is calm, cool and collected...a 'beacon' to stay 'focused' on as they navigate through funeral arrangements, internment arrangements, getting a headstone, shipping the loved one's belongs home, payment of the newly enforced 'insurance policy' (one of many...'see how the military takes care of it's own' statements) etc. etc. etc., he/she is unable to answer any of the family's questions about the 'incident' itself! Continued emphasis is placed on a mandated and 'thorough' investigation. The family is 'urged' to be 'patient' and assured that every detail of the 'incident' (accident or 'suicide') will be clarified in the 'Final' reports.

While it's unarguable that the CACO is invaluable to the family, intimidated by the military's self created 'red tape', he/she is just as invaluable in keeping the 'incident' focused as an 'accident' (or 'suicide'). Instead of answers, a family's questions, (basic requests for information on; "WHAT HAPPENED?" and "HOW?") merely garner a myriad of 'assurances'...that there are stringent 'safety' protocols incorporated into all 'training' exercises, that 'accidents', like this, just never happen, that every detail of the 'accident' will be looked into, that there will be a 'complete' autopsy to rule out 'drug' use or a previously undiagnosed condition (one of 'many' innuendoes that the 'victim' or the family's inadequate? health screening may have contributed to the death) and that the family will get a full report that will answer every one of their questions! With the 'promise' that there will be a 'through' investigation of the 'incident' the family is 'dispatched' home with instructions to 'get on with their life' while they 'wait' for the results...and wait they do!

As months slip by, and the family tries to 'carrying on' with a 'hole' in their lives and an aching pain from missing their 'loved one'. Through it all, the CACO is there soothing them, 'helping' them with any 'problems' that 'pop up', encouraging them to accept their 'loss' and adjust to this 'different' life and find 'closure'. And always there's the CACO 'assuring' them that 'everything' is being 'taken care of', even noting that the fact that it's taking so long is 'proof' of a 'thorough' investigation. When 'reports' start filtering in, the military sort of 'holds it's breath' (though not really...they know that their findings, no matter how ludicrous, will 'hold'...the very bases for the saying: "There's three ways to do anything, the 'right' way, the 'wrong' way and the 'military' way!" ...which, in the military is the only way!) until it's determined if the family will accept or reject the 'official' ruling on the 'matter'. This leads to two possible senarios:

1) If the family (trusting...always trusting in the realization that 'accidents' happen(?), people do commit 'suicide' and future preventative measures will be implemented), grateful and feeling indebted for all the 'help' afforded them, accepts the reports (after all...nobody wearing that proud uniform and waving 'old Glory' is going to LIE! right??) and doesn't question them...everything is fine and thatÕs the 'end'! There's a 'sigh' of relief as the 'issues' of responsibility and accountability have, once again, been 'sidestepped'! Unfortunately, the only lesson learned is how to sweep things under the rug!

2) If the family isn't satisfied with the reports or starts questioning the reports themselves, then there's a 'problem'...it isn't allowed to 'question' anything in the military! Once again, the family is 'deluged' with 'assurances' that it's the military's intent to answer ALL questions involved in the death of any servicemember. But, this time around the family is 'peppered' by intimations of being ungrateful and having a 'problem' in accepting the 'truth' (AKA being in denial). The 'waiting game' resumes, but there's less 'help' and more and more pressure is placed on the already 'stressed' family to 'accept' the military's version...like it or not! If the family still refuses to accept that 'justice' has been served...it's back to 'square one'! (Some of our visitors, who have been through 'Boot Camp'...where any 'questioning' by a recruit results in having to restart their training, may recognize this very effective military tactic.) There is, however, a 'limit' to the number of 'square one' cycles that the military will 'allow' before the matter is CLOSED! (period!) This leaves the family 'outraged' by such 'injustice' and 'heartsick' with the knowledge that other families are 'vulnerable' to this 'heinous' experience. Unfortunately, the military has 'learned' to manipulate that outrage. They portray the family as 'distraught' and in denial and dipict themselves as a maligned benevolent entity, innocent of any 'wrong doing'. Additionally, it's frustrating for the family to realize that there's another 'accident' just waiting to 'happen' and a growing number of murders, who have gotten away with murder, being discharged into an unsuspecting society.

The 'Situations' section of this site contains example after example of the second scenario. A sampling includes:
1) A 20 year old Guardsman, run over by a 5 ton truck while he slept.
2) A 19 year old Airman, blown up by an unexploded ordinance at a 'cleaned' site.
3) A 26 year old Army member, shot with 'live ammo' during a field exercise 'game'.
4) A 21 year old Navy corpsman whose death is clearly a 'murder' not an 'accident'!
5) A 24 year old Marine whose death is clearly a 'murder' not a 'suicide'!
Even as the number of 'individual' military family tragedies continues to grow, so too grows the number of fatale international 'incidents'...the result of the military taking their little 'innocent' act (aka the US military can do no wrong) on the road where it's met with mixed reviews, but seems to be 'playing' the military's theme song: Might makes Right! A sampling from the growing list of World Stages where the 'feature' presentation was complete with fatalities includes:
1) A live-fire training exercise 'accident' in the Culebra.
2) A Navy jet 'accidentally' severing the 'guidewire' of a gondola in Italy.
3) A Submarine surfaced, 'accidentally' sinking a Japanese ferry in the Pacific.
4) 2 FA-18 Hornet jets 'accidentally' dropped 500 pound bombs off target in Puerto Rico.
5) US Fighter 'accidentally' bombed Canadian troops in Afghanistan.

Life is precious and 'survival instincts' are a 'built in' commodity. Mankind has always prided itself in 'learning' from mistakes, especially those that pose a threat to 'Life or Limb'. From the onset of civilization and the formation of 'communities', the 'safety' of the citizenry has been 'tasked' to the 'powers that be'! When a 'set of circumstances' culminates in the 'loss' of a life (aka 'accident'), every aspect of the 'incident' is to be evaluated and scrutinized to insure that it doesn't happen again! With an 'eye' on preventing any 'repeats', the 'powers that be' have always made every effort to assign 'levels' of 'responsibility' to each 'factor' of what (or in some cases who) caused the death of any 'individual'. In 'events' where it was determined that a 'who' (by direct 'action' or failure to act) was a 'factor' in the death of another being, deterring consequences have been established and this 'process' has worked well in saving lives.

Because the military has 'learned', so well, how to shirk their responsibilities in this process, WE (all of us) have a very real and major problem. For various reasons, the moralities of which will not be touched on here, the military has devalued 'life' and has 'no problem' thinking in terms of people being 'expendable'. The military's ability to 'sidestep' accountability and/or consequences any time that a tragedy...like a 'fatal' training accident...presents itself must be stopped ASAP! It's tragic when even one 'precious' life is lost to and 'unforeseen' mishap...it's unconscionable when additional lives are recklessly endangered when a lesson isn't learned the first time! Tell that to your elected officials and tell them that you want this 'madness' stopped before your family becomes a 'statistic'!

Back to 'Class List'

HISTORY SYMPOSIUM: a collection of expressed opinions contributed by a variety
of ‘Guests’ on the topic: Iraq.

Symposium Agenda...

1. Opening Remarks.

2. Introduction of ‘Guest’ Presenters.

3. Presentations.

4. Concluding Remarks.

********************************************************

WELCOME...to MAMMA’s History Symposium!

- My name is Jan Beimdiek and I am the Directing CEO of MAMMA.

- MAMMA is a growing gathering of common everyday people, who have learned, the
hard way that TRUTH and JUSTICE are on the ‘endangered species list’ in America!

- WE don’t want them to become extinct...Do you?

- The Art of ‘Friendly Persuasion’, known today as Diplomatic Relations, has had quite a
history.

- Starting with the cavemen, who lacked verbal skills...the guy with the biggest ‘CLUB’ had the most to eat and ‘won’ every argument!

- Though life expectancy was very short, at some point it was extended by people, who
learned to keep their ‘wits’ about them...thus developing what is known today a ‘common
sense’.

- ‘Older’ men soon realized that ‘age’ had it’s benefits and it’s drawbacks...though their
‘sage’ advice was sought out and held in esteem, their ‘weakened’ bodies were no match
for younger men with BIG clubs!

- The ‘clubs’ got bigger and bigger...and finally got SO BIG...that people not only feared
being clobbered, but even the ‘owners’ feared using them...and an uneasy PEACE reigned!

- Now...the turmoil, swirling more around Iraq and less around the 9-11 attack, is challenging that ‘Reign’!

- The presentations in this symposium...come from citizens, who know that going back to the ‘cave’ is not an option they can live with.

- Their thoughts and views of historical FACTS are presented to encourage you to THINK and speak out...before that treasured ability becomes extinct!

- In noting that ‘Silence’ implies consent...Let’s get started!

******************************************************

- Our first ‘Guests’ are Mr. Alan Stang and Mr. Mike Clausen, Jr.!

Alan Stang has been a network radio talk show host and was one of Mike Wallace's first
writers. He was a senior writer for American Opinion magazine and has lectured around
the world for more than 30 years. He is also the author of ten books, including, most recently, Perestroika Sunset, surrounding our Government's deception in the POW/MIA arena.

Raymond "Mike" Clausen, a Marine veteran, who served our country in Vietnam and continues living the motto; "Saepe Expertus, Semper Fidelis, Fratres Aeterni" ("Often Tested, Always Faithful, Brothers Forever"). Mike, years ago, recognized and appreciated Alan's ability to combine a lot of Historical facts in an orderly fashion. Inspired by an 1872 John Hay quotation: "The Evils of Tyranny are rarely seen but by him who resists it." and holding fast to the belief of "Death Before Dishonor", Mike 'reformats' Alan's writings and passes the 'articles' along.

You will note that this presentation is a part of a 'series'. You needn't feel like you've walked in, in the middle of a conversation...please visit their forum at: http://www.etherzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/YaBB.cgi and also check out the Related Articles:
World Government Frenzy (Part I) at: http://www.etherzone.com/2002/stang092002.shtml
World Government Frenzy (Part II) at: http://www.etherzone.com/2002/stang092702.shtml .
Your comments and questions will be welcomed by:
Alan Stang, who can be reached at: stangfeedback@hotmail.com and
Mike Clausen, who can be reached at: mohbstrmc@i-55.com

At this point it is a pleasure to introduce:
WORSE THAN JAPAN ROOSEVELT WAS A TRAITOR ...by Alan Stang and
presented in reformatted form by Mike Clausen, Jr.

**************************************************************

- Our second ‘Guest’ is Mr. Jay Bookman!

Jay Bookman writes for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. This symposium offering was first published: Sunday, October 6, 2002, in the Albany Times Union in Albany, NY. Any comments or questions you have on this material will be welcomed by Jay Bookman, who can be reached at: jbookman@ajc.com and on that note, it's another pleasure to introduce:
MANIFEST DESTINY AMERICAN EMPIRE? IRAQ IS STEP ONE ...written and presented by Jay Bookman.

****************************************************************

- Our next ‘Guest’ is Mr. Thomas Flocco!

Tom Flocco has quite an Academic and Professional background. on both Academic and
Professional levels.

On the Academic level:
School of Music, West Chester University, B.S. - Music Education (1967)
Graduate School of Education, Temple University (Summer School - 1969)
Graduate School of Education, Villanova University, M.A., Admin. (1970)
Graduate School of Education, University of Pennsylvania, (International Ed.) (1970-1973)

On the Professional level:
Teacher in Lower Merion School District, Pennsylvania (1972 - date)
Independent Investigative Journalist (1998 - date) with AmericanFreePress.net,
Scoop.co.nz, WorldNetDaily.com, From the Wilderness Publications (copvcia.com),
NewsMax.com, NarcoNews.com, JudicialWatch.org (All his work is Archived.)

Holder of both the U.S. Army Commendation Medal and the U.S. Army Achievement
Medal, Mr. Flocco has a long history of National Activism and Co-Founded
UnansweredQuestions.org. Launched on June 10, 2002, with a National press conference
on the theme: "9/11 and Public Safety: Seeking Answers and Accountability", Mr.
Flocco's burning question is: "Will Congress Permit Bush 43 to Place Soldiers in Harm's
Way, With Questionable Protective Equipment, Against Same Chemical Weapons that
Bush 41 Officials Allowed to be Shipped Illegally to Iraq?"

Please, note...for this presentation, you will be linked directly to Mr. Flocco's site at:
www.tomflocco.com . If you have any comments or questions they will be welcomed by
Tom Flocco at: Tom@TomFlocco.com and you are reminded that new stories will be
added daily and Part II of this one will be coming soon. Now, off you go to review:
IRAQ HAS A LOT OF NERVE! ...created and presented by Tom Flocco.

***************************************************************

- The final presentation of this ‘Symposium’ comes from the office of Texas Congressman Ron Paul.

It is the responsibility of every concerned citizen , of any FREE society, to ask Hard questions and Demand answers from those who 'Represent' the 'masses' (AKA you!) The founders of this Great Nation were very wise men. They formulated a ‘Government’ that consists of Three Branches, acting as a ‘Check and Balance’ system that ensures that Democracy will endure. No ‘branch’ can ‘legally’ usurp the ‘Powers’ entrusted to any of the others and none can ‘relinquish’ theirs! (That would be like a ‘mother’ turning in her ‘motherhood badge’!) This ‘talk’ about President Bush considering his ‘option’ to ‘suspend’ the Constitution...is just that TALK !

Hell-O??? He’s claiming that it’s a Constitutional right for the President to suspend the Constitution. If he ‘suspends’ the Constitution...that ‘declaration’ that empowered him...then, from ‘whence’ does any of his power come? Does America have a KING? Does America want a DICTATOR? (This is like those who ‘think’ it’s only illegal if you get caught!)

With that in mind...we present this material as a 'guideline' and urge you to THINK and
question why it seems that our:
CONGRESS BECOMES IRRELEVANT IN THE WAR DEBATE ...attributed to Texas Congressman Ron Paul’s Office.

**************************************************************

- In closing this Symposium, I have a few personal thoughts I’d like to share with you.

- My son and a growing number of other young men and women (our children!), who
served their country and what it so ‘Proudly Hails’, lie in graves with assaulted dignities
and sullied names and CRY for Justice!

- When I sit by Scott’s grave, it’s strange...how frequently my thoughts echo the words,
spoken by Christ, to a group of women, on his way to the Cross: “Weep not for me, but
weep for yourselves and for your children”!

- PEOPLE...WAKE-UP!

- President Bush claims we can’t wait for a ‘smoking gun’...if we do we Iraq might send
a mushroom cloud.

- People, who live in ‘Glass Houses’...shouldn’t throw rocks!

- If we don’t wait, because of a ‘might’ from Iraq...most likely we will get a mushroom cloud from a country that already has nuclear weapons!

- My mother always told me...God gave you a brain, USE IT!

- I’m urging you to do just that...THINK! and then, remembering that ‘Silence’ implies
consent...SPEAK UP!

- Demand the TRUTH and make it clear that you expect people working to ‘Govern’ this
Nation...to DO THEIR JOB!

- Trust me!...you do not want to sit beside the grave of your 'child' asking 'WHY' and crying for an extinct 'Justice'!

- Thank You...May God (continue to) Bless America!

***************************************************************

WORSE THAN JAPAN

ROOSEVELT WAS A TRAITOR

By: Alan Stang

For a couple of weeks we have been looking at Washington's use of war to submerge
our nation in world government.

We saw that there was no sensible reason for the United States to enter World War I,
but that the Wilson Administration colluded with the English to embroil us by means of a trick.

We saw that in the aftermath of the war, the conspirators failed to arrange world government because the U.S. Senate, then still dominated by Americans, failed to go along.

Twenty years passed and they had another chance. Europe was now embroiled in World War II. Remember that the war began on September 1st, 1939, when international socialist dictator Joe Stalin and National Socialist dictator Adolf Hitler,allies and treaty partners, invaded and dismembered Poland.

Franklin Roosevelt had been Assistant Secretary of the Navy when the Wilson Administration and Winston Churchill tricked us into World War I.

Now he was President and he lusted to get the nation into war again. Roosevelt provoked Hitler by waging war without declaring it.

For instance, he provided destroyer escorts to English convoys and threatened to sink any U-boats (German submarines) that showed themselves.

Roosevelt was hoping to provoke an incident he could use as an excuse to declare war.

Meanwhile, he was running for re-election in 1940 and made the following pledge: "I say to you fathers and mothers, and I will say it again and again and again, your boys will not be sent into foreign wars."

Remember that Woodrow Wilson's re-election slogan in 1916, when he was conspiring to trick us into World War I, was "He Kept Us Out of War." Now, in 1940, in the infamous "again and again" speech, world government conspirator Franklin Roosevelt was telling the same lie.

The problem was that Hitler was too smart to take the bait. He ordered his commanders not to respond to Roosevelt's provocations.

Roosevelt found the solution in the Tripartite Treaty, concluded between Germany, Italy and Japan, on September 28, 1940, which obligated any of the three to treat an attack on the other two as an attack on itself.

This meant that if Roosevelt could provoke Japan to attack the United States, he would
indirectly get the war he wanted with Germany.

A diplomatic "incident" would not be enough. Such was the sentiment against war among the American people at the time, that only a major catastrophe could have changed their minds.

The people had been tricked into World War I. Many of those people were still alive and adamantly opposed our entry into another war that had nothing to do with us. So, Roosevelt had to continue the pretense that he was a mere innocent bystander.

On June 22, 1941, Socialist gang leader Hitler attacked Socialist gang leader Stalin
and the usual gang war broke out.

Before that date, remember, the two socialist monsters had been allies; the communists here had been pushing the line that we should stay out of the war.

The day after the attack, they were screaming that the United States should help the Soviet Union. Roosevelt was now even more frantic to embroil us in the war, because he revered Stalin and all things Communist.

Roosevelt launched the infamous Lend-Lease program, in which the United States sent enormous amounts of military equipment to "Uncle Joe."

Roosevelt also imposed an oil embargo on the Japanese. Japan is of course a small island country that has no oil. The embargo was designed to bring the Japanese to their knees.

Indeed, Roosevelt ordered Admiral J.O. Richardson, commander of the Pacific fleet, to
impose a blockade that would have prevented Japan from using the western Pacific.

Of course, this would have been war; fearing for his fleet, Admiral Richardson refused and was fired, which was just as well, because had the Japanese attacked, he would have been blamed.

You will find a concise description of all this in a helpful book, The Unseen Hand by Ralph Epperson (Publius Press, Tucson, 1985)

After many months of such provocation to which the Japanese did not respond, they finally hit Pearl Harbor on December 7th, 1941.

According to the party line, the attack was a "complete surprise." We had "done nothing" to provoke it. We are mere "innocent bystanders." December 7th was a "day of infamy." Franklin Roosevelt finally had his war.

How big a surprise was Pearl Harbor? The answer is that Roosevelt knew the attack
was coming;

·    He knew where and when it was coming;
·    wanted it to come;
·    encouraged it;
·    did nothing to prevent it;
·    kept our commanders on the scene in the dark about it;
·    failed to warn them it was coming;
·    did everything he could to make it as horrific as possible and then blamed our commanders for it.

As he read the dispatches about the thousands of Americans killed at Pearl, the aircraft destroyed, the battleships sunk, the men entombed on the Arizona, all sacrificed in behalf of world government and the Soviet Union, the treasonous monster must have felt the intense satisfaction one feels after months of hard work pay off in success.

It was Roosevelt, much more than the Japanese, who gave us the "day of infamy."

The present status of Pearl Harbor research is revealing. The party line immediately after the attack was to conceal all this. By now, so much slime has oozed out, so many facts, so much testimony, that the treasonous monster's advocates have reversed course.

Now, they admit that Roosevelt arranged Pearl Harbor, but argue that he had to do so for our own good.

You see, we were too stupid to realize that we should have been in a war, so Roosevelt
had to trick us into it.

A recent book along these lines you really should look at is Day of Deceit, by Robert Stinnett (New York, Simon & Schuster, 2001), who prints new information that proves
Roosevelt did it, but who also speaks of the treasonous monster's "magnificent contributions to the American people.

His legacy should not be tarnished by the truth." According to Stinnett, "the Pearl Harbor attack was, from the White House perspective, something that had to be endured in order to stop a greater evil--the Nazi invaders in Europe who had begun the Holocaust and were poised to invade England."

But the Allies knew nothing about the Holocaust until after Pearl Harbor, and the plan to exterminate the Jews wasn't hatched at Wannsee until after the attack.

How did the traitor Roosevelt arrange it? Here are a few examples. Again, you need to look at the books we have mentioned, among others.

·    U.S. Navy intelligence had long since broken the Japanese "purple" code, so they knew what the Japanese were doing.
·    Reading the Japanese messages required a "magic" machine, only a few of which were built. ·    One was installed in London for Churchill; but our commanders at Pearl were denied a machine, so the only thing they knew about Japanese movements was what Washington told them.
·    Admiral Husband E. Kimmel had replaced the fired Admiral Richardson. Again, he knew nothing specific about the coming attack, but to protect the fleet he sent his battleships out of Pearl with forty other vessels and aerial reconnaissance.
·    Washington ordered those ships back to Pearl and told Kimmel to stop aerial reconnaissance. the ships wound up beside each other at anchor.
·    The approaching Japanese broke radio silence 28 times.
·    Both Army and Navy intelligence knew exactly where they were,
·    The White House instructed them not to tell Kimmel and General Walter Short.
·    Foreign vessels were also receiving those Japanese signals, but our commanders were deliberately kept in the dark.
·    The Oahu radar station was shut down, which blinded Pearl Harbor.

On December 6th, 1941, Roosevelt read a message from Tokyo to its Japanese embassy
and said, "This means war."

·    On his desk, Army Chief of Staff George C. Marshall had a telephone that was a direct line    to Pearl.
·    He could have picked it up and given General Short crucial hours of warning.
·    Instead, he sent a commercial telegram.
·    When somebody finally handed Short the telegram, the attack was already under way.
·    "Dear General Short, You will be attacked."
·    While Short was being bombed, Marshall was horseback riding that Sunday morning. The Virginia countryside is so beautiful.

The recent movie about the attack showed that we lost many planes. Why? If General
Short had known that the danger was an aerial attack, he would of course have scattered his aircraft and had them ready to take off.

·    Instead, Washington told him the danger was sabotage and Short, remember, had no way of knowing any better. Roosevelt ordered him to do just the opposite;
·    to bunch the planes in circles, propellers facing inward, which meant it would take a long time to get them airborne because they had no reverse.
·    They wound up as juicy targets for the incoming Japanese.

Question: Would a President of the United States deliberately arrange for thousands of
Americans to be killed in order to advance some megalomaniacal scheme? Answer: Yes.

We have already looked at two examples; both Wilson and Roosevelt should have been
hung.

Question: Would a President of the United States do that again? Be with your Intrepid
Correspondent next week.

*******************************************************************

Albany Times Union October 6, 2002
Albany , NY
Manifest destiny American empire? Iraq is step one

By JAY BOOKMAN
First published: Sunday, October 6, 2002

The official story on Iraq has never made sense. The connection that the Bush administration has tried to draw between Iraq and al-Qaida has always seemed contrived and artificial. In fact, it was hard to believe that smart people in the Bush administration would start a major war based on such flimsy evidence.

The pieces just didn't fit. Something else had to be going on; something was missing.

Now those pieces are falling into place. This is not really about Iraq. It is not about weapons of mass destruction, or terrorism, or Saddam Hussein, or United Nations resolutions.

This war, should it come, is intended to mark the official emergence of the United States as a full-fledged global empire. It would be the culmination of a plan 10 years or more in the making, carried out by those who believe the United States must seize the opportunity for global domination, even if it means becoming the "American imperialists" that our enemies always claimed we were.

Once that is understood, other mysteries solve themselves. For example, why does the
administration seem unconcerned about an exit strategy from Iraq once Saddam is toppled?

Because we won't be leaving. Having conquered Iraq, the United States will create permanent military bases in that country from which to dominate the Middle East, including neighboring Iran.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld denies that. He says the United States does not covet
other nations' territory. That may be true, but 57 years after World War II ended, we still have major bases in Germany and Japan. We will do the same in Iraq.

And why has the administration dismissed the option of containing and deterring Iraq, as we had the Soviet Union for 45 years? Because even if it worked, containment and deterrence would not allow the expansion of American power. Besides, such tactics are beneath us as an empire. Rome did not stoop to containment; it conquered. And so, the thinking goes, should we.

Among the architects of this would-be American Empire are a group of brilliant and powerful people who now hold key positions in the Bush administration: They envision the creation and enforcement of what they call a worldwide "Pax Americana," or American peace. But so far, the American people have not appreciated the true extent of that ambition.

Part of it is laid out in the National Security Strategy, a document in which each administration outlines its approach to defending the country. The Bush administration plan, released Sept. 20, marks a significant departure from previous approaches, a change that it attributes largely to the attacks of Sept. 11.

To address the terrorism threat, the President's report lays out a newly aggressive military and foreign policy, embracing pre-emptive attack against perceived enemies. It speaks in blunt terms of what it calls "American internationalism," of ignoring international opinion if that suits U.S. interests. "The best defense is a good offense," the document asserts.

It lays out a plan for permanent U.S. military and economic domination of every region on the globe, unfettered by international treaty or concern. And to make that plan a reality, it envisions a stark expansion of our global military presence.

"The United States will require bases and stations within and beyond Western Europe and
Northeast Asia," the document warns, "as well as temporary access arrangements for the
long-distance deployment of U.S. troops."

The report's repeated references to terrorism are misleading, however, because the approach of the new National Security Strategy was clearly not inspired by the events of Sept. 11. They can be found in much the same language in a report issued in September 2000 by the Project for the New American Century, a group of conservative interventionists outraged by the thought that the United States might be forfeiting its chance at a global empire.

"At no time in history has the international security order been as conducive to American interests and ideals," the report said. "The challenge of this coming century is to preserve and enhance this 'American peace.' "

Familiar themes Overall, that 2000 report reads like a blueprint for President Bush's defense policy. Most of what it advocates, the Bush administration has tried to accomplish. For example, the project report urged the repudiation of the anti-ballistic missile treaty and a commitment to a global missile defense system. The administration has taken that course.

It recommended that to project sufficient power worldwide to enforce Pax Americana, the
United States would have to increase defense spending from 3 percent of gross domestic
product to as much as 3.8 percent. For next year, the Bush administration has requested a
defense budget of $379 billion, almost 3.8 percent of GDP.

It advocates the "transformation" of the U.S. military to meet its expanded obligations, including the cancellation of such outmoded defense programs as the Crusader artillery system. That's exactly the message being preached by Rumsfeld and others.

It urges the development of small nuclear warheads "required in targeting the very deep,
underground hardened bunkers that are being built by many of our potential adversaries."

That close tracking of recommendation with current policy is hardly surprising, given the current positions of the people who contributed to the 2000 report.

Paul Wolfowitz is now deputy defense secretary. John Bolton is undersecretary of state.
Stephen Cambone is head of the Pentagon's Office of Program, Analysis and Evaluation.
Eliot Cohen and Devon Cross are members of the Defense Policy Board, which advises
Rumsfeld. I. Lewis Libby is chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney. Dov Zakheim is
comptroller for the Defense Department.

Constabulary duties Because they were still just private citizens in 2000, the authors of the project report could be more frank and less diplomatic than they were in drafting the National Security Strategy. Back in 2000, they identified Iran, Iraq and North Korea as primary short-term targets, well before President Bush tagged them as the axis of evil. In their report, they criticize the fact that in war planning against North Korea and Iraq, "past Pentagon wargames have given little or no consideration to the force requirements necessary not only to defeat an attack but to remove these regimes from power."

To preserve the Pax Americana, the report says U.S. forces will be required to perform
"constabulary duties" -- the United States acting as policeman of the world -- and says that such actions "demand American political leadership rather than that of the United Nations."

To meet those responsibilities, and to ensure that no country dares to challenge the United
States, the report advocates a much larger military presence spread over more of the globe, in addition to the roughly 130 nations in which U.S. troops are already deployed.

More specifically, they argue that we need permanent military bases in the Middle East, in Southeast Europe, in Latin America and in Southeast Asia, where no such bases now exist.

The 2000 report directly acknowledges its debt to a still earlier document, drafted in 1992
by the Defense Department. That document had also envisioned the United States as a colossus astride the world, imposing its will and keeping world peace through military and economic power. When leaked in final draft form, however, the proposal drew so much criticism that it was hastily withdrawn and repudiated by the first President Bush.

The defense secretary in 1992 was Richard Cheney; the document was drafted by Wolfowitz, who at the time was defense undersecretary for policy.

The potential implications of a Pax Americana are immense.

Effect on allies One is the effect on our allies. Once we assert the unilateral right to act as the world's policeman, our allies will quickly recede into the background. Eventually, we will be forced to spend American wealth and American blood protecting the peace while other nations redirect their wealth to such things as health care for their citizenry.

Donald Kagan, a professor of classical Greek history at Yale and an influential advocate of a more aggressive foreign policy -- he served as co-chairman of the 20000 New Century
project -- acknowledges that likelihood.

"If (our allies) want a free ride, and they probably will, we can't stop that," he says. But he
also argues that the United States, given its unique position, has no choice but to act anyway.

"You saw the movie 'High Noon?' " he asks. "We're Gary Cooper."

Accepting that role would be a historic change in who we are as a nation, and in how we operate in the international arena. Candidate Bush certainly did not campaign on such a change. It is not something that he or others have dared to discuss honestly with the American people.

For the same reason, Kagan and others shy away from terms such as empire, understanding its connotations. But they also argue that it would be naive and dangerous to reject the role that history has thrust upon us. Kagan, for example, willingly embraces the idea that the United States would establish permanent military bases in a post-war Iraq.

"We will probably need a major concentration of forces in the Middle East over a long period of time," he says. "That will come at a price, but think of the price of not having it. When we have economic problems, it's been caused by disruptions in our oil supply. If we have a force in Iraq, there will be no disruption in oil supplies."

Costly commitment The cost of such a global commitment would be enormous. In 2000, we spent $281 billion on our military, which was more than the next 11 nations combined. By 2003, our expenditures will have risen to $378 billion. In other words, the increase in our defense budget from 1999 to 2003 will be more than the total amount spent annually by China, our next largest competitor.

The lure of empire is ancient and powerful, and over the millennia it has driven men to commit terrible crimes on its behalf. But with the end of the Cold War and the disappearance of the Soviet Union, a global empire was essentially laid at the feet of the United States. To the chagrin of some, we did not seize it at the time, in large part because the American people have never been comfortable with themselves as a New Rome.

Now, more than a decade later, the events of Sept. 11 have given those advocates of empire a new opportunity to press their case with a new president. So in debating whether to invade Iraq, we are really debating the role that the United States will play in the years and decades to come.

Are peace and security best achieved by seeking strong alliances and international consensus, led by the United States? Or is it necessary to take a more unilateral approach, accepting and enhancing the global dominance that, according to some, history has thrust upon us?

If we do decide to seize empire, we should make that decision knowingly, as a democracy. The price of maintaining an empire is always high. Kagan and others argue that the price of rejecting it would be higher still.

That's what this is about.

************************************************

CONGRESSMAN RON PAUL
Congress Becomes Irrelevant in the War Debate

35 Hard Questions For The US Congress
Attributed To Texas Congressman Ron Paul's Office

"...Soon we hope to have hearings on the pending war with Iraq. I am concerned there are some questions that won't be asked- and maybe will not even be allowed to be asked. Here are some questions I would like answered by those who are urging us to start this war.

1.Is it not true that the reason we did not bomb the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War was because we knew they could retaliate?

2.Is it not also true that we are willing to bomb Iraq now because we know it cannot retaliate- which just confirms that there is no real threat?

3.Is it not true that those who argue that even with inspections we cannot be sure that Hussein might be hiding weapons, at the same time imply that we can be more sure that weapons exist in the absence of inspections?

4.Is it not true that the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency was able to complete its yearly verification mission to Iraq just this year with Iraqi cooperation?

5.Is it not true that the intelligence community has been unable to develop a case tying Iraq to global terrorism at all, much less the attacks on the United States last year? Does anyone remember that 15 of the 19 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia and that none came from Iraq?

6.Was former CIA counter-terrorism chief Vincent Cannistraro wrong when he recently said there is no confirmed evidence of Iraq,s links to terrorism?

7.Is it not true that the CIA has concluded there is no evidence that a Prague meeting between 9/11 hijacker Atta and Iraqi intelligence took place?

8.Is it not true that northern Iraq, where the administration claimed al-Qaeda were hiding out, is in the control of our "allies," the Kurds?

9.Is it not true that the vast majority of al-Qaeda leaders who escaped appear to have safely made their way to Pakistan, another of our so-called allies?

10.Has anyone noticed that Afghanistan is rapidly sinking into total chaos, with bombings and assassinations becoming daily occurrences; and that according to a recent UN report the al-Qaeda "is, by all accounts, alive and well and poised to strike again, how, when, and where it chooses"

11.Why are we taking precious military and intelligence resources away from tracking down those who did attack the United States- and who may again attack the United States- and using them to invade countries that have not attacked the United States?

12.Would an attack on Iraq not just confirm the Arab world's worst suspicions about the US- and isn't this what bin Laden wanted?

13.How can Hussein be compared to Hitler when he has no navy or air force, and now has an army 1/5 the size of twelve years ago, which even then proved totally inept at defending the country?

14.Is it not true that the constitutional power to declare war is exclusively that of the Congress? Should presidents, contrary to the Constitution, allow Congress to concur only when pressured by public opinion? Are presidents permitted to rely on the UN for permission to go to war?

15.Are you aware of a Pentagon report studying charges that thousands of Kurds in one village were gassed by the Iraqis, which found no conclusive evidence that Iraq was responsible, that Iran occupied the very city involved, and that evidence indicated the type of gas used was more likely controlled by Iran not Iraq?

16.Is it not true that anywhere between 100,000 and 300,000 US soldiers have
suffered from Persian Gulf War syndrome from the first Gulf War, and that
thousands may have died?

17.Are we prepared for possibly thousands of American casualties in a war against a country that does not have the capacity to attack the United States?

18.Are we willing to bear the economic burden of a 100 billion dollar war against Iraq, with oil prices expected to skyrocket and further rattle an already shaky American economy? How about an estimated 30 years occupation of Iraq that some have deemed necessary to "build democracy" there?

19.Iraq's alleged violations of UN resolutions are given as reason to initiate an attack, yet is it not true that hundreds of UN Resolutions have been ignored by various countries without penalty?

20.Did former President Bush not cite the UN Resolution of 1990 as the reason he could not march into Baghdad, while supporters of a new attack assert that it is the very reason we can march into Baghdad?

21.Is it not true that, contrary to current claims, the no-fly zones were set up by Britain and the United States without specific approval from the United Nations?

22.If we claim membership in the international community and conform to its rules only when it pleases us, does this not serve to undermine our position, directing animosity toward us by both friend and foe?

23.How can our declared goal of bringing democracy to Iraq be believable when we prop up dictators throughout the Middle East and support military tyrants like Musharaf in Pakistan, who overthrew a democratically - elected president?

24.Are you familiar with the 1994 Senate Hearings that revealed the U.S. knowingly supplied chemical and biological materials to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war and as late as 1992- including after the alleged Iraqi gas attack on a Kurdish village?

25.Did we not assist Saddam Hussein,s rise to power by supporting and encouraging his invasion of Iran? Is it honest to criticize Saddam now for his invasion of Iran, which at the time we actively supported?

26.Is it not true that preventive war is synonymous with an act of aggression, and has never been considered a moral or legitimate US policy?

27.Why do the oil company executives strongly support this war if oil is not the real reason we plan to take over Iraq?

28.Why is it that those who never wore a uniform and are confident that they won't have to personally fight this war are more anxious for this war than our generals?

29.What is the moral argument for attacking a nation that has not initiated aggression against us, and could not if it wanted?

30.Where does the Constitution grant us permission to wage war for any reason other than self-defense?

31.Is it not true that a war against Iraq rejects the sentiments of the time-honored Treaty of Westphalia, nearly 400 years ago, that countries should never go into another for the purpose of regime change?

32.Is it not true that the more civilized a society is, the less likely disagreements will be settled by war?

33.Is it not true that since World War II Congress has not declared war and- not coincidentally - we have not since then had a clear-cut victory?

34.Is it not true that Pakistan, especially through its intelligence services, was an active supporter and key organizer of the Taliban?

35.Why don't those who want war bring a formal declaration of war resolution to the floor of Congress?..."

CONGRESSMAN RON PAUL - STRIGHT TALK

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/welcome.htm

Back to 'Class List'

CALCULUS 101...a calculated look at the shift in the value assigned to the number ONE when weight, heretofore measured in pounds, is converted into the metric system. (A review of the MN Connection page, at this site, is a prerequisite for this ‘class’)

Assignment: Many people think that the United States should abandon it’s current weights and measures system and switch to the metric system. This class is being presented to help you decide is such a switch would be in the best interests of the United States. Following a brief (you can always hope? *smile*) introduction, the balance of the material presented in this ‘class period’ were generated in response to the ‘mirror image’ plight of military families in the UK.

In every ‘Civilized’ Nation of the world, people are taught, from the earliest of age, by the ‘Church’ and the ‘State’, that ‘Life’ is a sacred gift that is to be treated with Respect, a respect that, for most, extends itself in efforts to ‘Honor’ the dead.

All around the world, Respect for the dead manifests itself in any number of ways:
- The artwork of a ‘great’ artist rises in value.
- Statues are erected in the likeness of ‘great’ people.
- Buildings, streets, ships, etc. are named for the ‘great’ men and women who contributed to society.
- Histories are written about the lives and deaths of ‘great’ people, with historians taking great pains to chronicle and validate every detail, of both their life and their death, to give an accurate and True accounting. These tributes are passed down from generation to generation and people dream dreams for themselves and for their children, as they aspire to emulate such ‘greatness’. So what’s happening to growing numbers of military families that makes this time honored tradition, no longer a reality?

Only God knows how many service members, most to young to have done anything ‘great’, have been sent to an ‘early grave’ with their dignity assaulted and their name sullied. Like pebbles cast into a still pond, the ripples extending out to untold numbers of family members whose lives are now altered and anguished by the theft. Instead of living the ‘American Dream’...growing numbers are living a Nightmare!

The Situations pages of this site, represent hoards of Dashed Dreams! (You are invited to visit the Scott Beimdiek Foundation page of this site.) Thus, from it’s inception, this site has been a “Field of Dreams” kind of undertaking. We’ve placed our trust in a Just and Loving God and dug in, with each family having uncovered a lot of ‘DIRT’, to “Build it” while we pray that “they will come”! They being a ‘Team’ of people with integrity, insight, a deep seated sense of accountability and at least a little bit of common sense, who will ‘go to bat’ for all the people dealing with the ‘issue’ questionable military deaths. (Visionaries and Vindictive people need not apply.) Men and women, who serve their country deserve the Respect of having the TRUTH told about how they died.

These deaths constitute a monumental waste of human resources and possible contributions to humanity! Should or could one of those stolen lives or one of these decimated lives been destined to greatness? Could a Nobel Prize winner have been among them? How can this happen in a country with a ‘Constitution ‘ that’s founded on the premise of ‘Human Rights’, most notably the right to “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness”?

One at a time!
(and “ONE is the loneliest number...”)

Hopefully, you’ve reviewed the MN Connection, and are aquatinted with Geoff Gray, the ‘Deepcut Four’ and the fact that the ‘issue’ of questionable military deaths has reared it’s UGLY head in the UK. Moving right along, then...while reserving the right to make comments during and following the ‘presentation’ of materials generated by ONE man’s concerted efforts to seek accountability, this ‘Class’ is being turned over to Mr. Kevin McNamara, a Member of Parliament (MP) in the UK, whose ‘insight’ and ‘integrity’ are AWESOME!

Westminster Hall

Tuesday 4 February 2003
[Mr. Edward O'Hara in the Chair]

Army Barracks (Deaths)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Woolas.]

9.30 am

Mr. Kevin McNamara (Hull, North): I am grateful to be called to address an issue that is of such widespread public concern. In the previous Session, 128 hon. Members of all parties joined me in signing an early-day motion calling for a public inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the deaths of four young soldiers at Deepcut barracks in Surrey. My hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Foster), one of whose constituents died, regrets that he cannot be present today and sends his apologies. The Minister knows of his interest in the case, but my hon. Friend is where I should be—at an important meeting of the Standards and Privileges Committee.

Since last October, the families of Sean Benton, James Collinson, Geoff Gray and Cheryl James have been joined in their quest for a full investigation of Army deaths by the families and friends of Paul Cochrane, Ross Collins, Richard Donkin, Tony Green, Dale Little, Aled Martin Jones, Alfie Manship, Gary Riches, Richard Robertson, Alan Sharples, David Shipley and Christopher Young. The issue goes far beyond Deepcut barracks. Young soldiers are dying needlessly in barracks in Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in Germany and Bosnia. Whatever the circumstances of their deaths, those young people joined the Army full of hope and expectations of a great career. Their families grieve for the waste of young lives. It is a matter of worry for every Army family and every hon. Member.

I wish to pay tribute to the courage of the mothers and fathers who have placed the intimate circumstances of the deaths of their sons and daughters in the public domain. I have been overwhelmed by the love that has given those families strength. The force of their determination has broken through a wall of silence. Despite their loss and profound grief, the families have told their story and acted with great dignity. They are bound by a common search for truth, but also by the conviction that it is worth persevering if other families may be spared the loss and heartache that they have suffered.

Whatever the cause of death, families in such a situation experience hardships over and above their immediate loss. In many cases, they were far away from where the death occurred and were usually excluded from the scene of the death. They have experienced great difficulties in discovering how their children died, and they felt that the Army establishment closed ranks against them. Hon. Members will be well aware that it was the pressure of the families that was instrumental in persuading Surrey police service to extend or re-open investigations into the four deaths at Deepcut barracks. I am not seeking to pre-empt the findings of that inquiry in any way.

I am pleased that the Surrey chief constable and his team have drawn from the Macpherson report and made considerable efforts to involve the relatives and their legal representatives in the investigation. Uniquely, that courtesy has also been extended to hon. Members who have expressed an interest in the outcome. It is not for the police to reach conclusions. In due course, the results of their investigation in each case will be passed, in the first instance to the Director of Public Prosecutions, if appropriate, and the coroner.

In those cases where an inquest has already been completed, it will be for the coroner to decide whether to re-open the case on the basis of fresh evidence. The chief constable is acutely aware of the public interest in the investigation and has been at pains to demonstrate the service's resolve to identify systems issues in the course of the inquiry. In the jargon of modern policing, his officers have established a "learning account" on which our colleagues on the Defence Committee, which is looking into such matters, could draw, as could a wider public inquiry.

I pay tribute to the journalists in press and broadcasting media who have encouraged the families to tell their stories and to bring the matters to the attention of the general public. I have been taken, too, by the spontaneous generosity of the experts who have given their services freely to assist the families in their search for truth. The insight of forensic specialists, legal advisers, public relations professionals and academics, as well as that of agencies such as the Commission for Racial Equality and the Equal Opportunities Commission, has been enormously important. I have benefited from the input of hon. Members from parties across the political spectrum, as well as from my own. This is not a party political matter, but a matter of national importance and interest.

I want to develop further the case for a tribunal of inquiry to be established under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921. I believe that there is an overwhelming public interest in establishing a judicial inquiry with the powers necessary to appoint investigators, hear evidence and determine the truth. There is a feeling throughout the country, whether or not it is justified, that complacency and cover-ups are rife in the deaths and other issues. I believe that public confidence can be restored only by an inquiry whose independence is beyond doubt.

I am aware that the Ministry of Defence is not generally well disposed towards public inquiries. However, no one is looking at an inquiry on the scale of the Saville tribunal—a very necessary one in my view. A modest inquiry can satisfy the required terms of reference. I am not looking to undermine the Army or to challenge military discipline. On the contrary, an Army looking to the future has everything to gain by co-operating fully and learning from such a tribunal. I want a positive and open-minded response from the Minister. I hope that he can find words to express his support for the families of victims and understand some of the frustration that they have experienced. I trust that he can honestly acknowledge the scale of the problem and, with his ministerial colleagues, undertake to engage in a dialogue that can assist in the search for truth.

An inquiry into Army deaths must listen to all those families who have so far expressed doubt and suspicion about the death of their loved ones, and it must be repared to hear new cases. When a fresh investigation is required, it should be conducted wholly independently of the Army and the original investigating force. The inquiry should be UK-wide and cover all sections and all ranks of Her Majesty's armed services. It should invite the views of victims and the opinions of experts. It should meet in public and publish its findings.

The inquiry needs to address two issues. First, it must examine and make recommendations concerning the environment in which the deaths are occurring, so that deaths may be prevented in future. Secondly, it must study and make recommendations that will provide a prompt and effective remedy.

On the environment in which the deaths occur, I make a number of observations. Each year, there are around 9,000 new recruits to the armed services. Up to a third of the total are child soldiers. The policy of recruiting under-18s must be re-examined. The Ministry of Defence has a general duty of care towards employees, especially when potential misuse of lethal weapons by under-18s is involved. Too many young recruits at barracks such as Catterick are dying through a lack of adequate supervision and proper pastoral care.

In October last year, the Minister responded to public pressure by asking external consultants to conduct a tri-service review of internal practices involved in initial training of non-officer recruits. However, some of the incidents went beyond the period of initial training. While we welcome the publication of new research, the transparency of the process leaves something to be desired. The families of the victims have yet to be approached for their views. According to Ministry figures, between 1984 and 2001 there were 445 recorded suicides in the armed services, which is too many, and the figure is disproportionately high for a disciplined and secure service environment.

There must be better safeguards against suicide and self-harm which provide in-house assistance independent of the chain of command. Too often, the problem has been that a person has to complain about his bullying to the person who is the bully. Military discipline and punishment must not override the protection of soldiers at risk. Doctors and welfare professionals must be given appropriate standing. They must be independent of the chain of command.

After the locum at Deepcut was asked to leave last November, I was surprised to discover that the barracks have used no fewer than 32 civilian medical practitioners in the past three years. In many regiments, there is evidence of a culture of extreme bullying, routine violence and sexual harassment that constitutes torture and inhuman and degrading treatment. Preaching zero tolerance from the sidelines is no longer enough; the perpetrators must be hunted out and prosecuted relentlessly, and such practices eliminated.

In too many cases in which criminal offences have been committed, the Army is perceived to clam up, close ranks and protect its own. It must demonstrate through exemplary action that there can be no impunity for perpetrators. Whistleblowers should be encouraged, and potential witnesses guaranteed protection. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye pointed out, the Army has taken a cavalier attitude towards coroners' inquests. Although it recorded the decisions made, it did not take notes of what took place—or at least did not keep them.

On the means by which to provide an effective remedy, at the most simple level we need effective monitoring and the provision of statistics concerning deaths, injuries and internal discipline. The pervasive culture of secrecy within the military is entirely inappropriate for modern management, and it fosters abuse. According to the Minister's headline figure, 1,748 members of service personnel have died from non-natural causes in or around barracks since 1990. It is evident that a large number of those are victims of road death, as traffic accidents have been included in the total. However, it is clear that at least 100 of those deaths were firearms-related, non-combat fatalities, but I have found it well nigh impossible to get a clear picture of how, why and in what circumstances they took place, and what disciplinary action, if any, was taken.

Bereaved families and the local media have named 23 victims at Catterick barracks, but the Ministry of Defence has been consistently unwilling to provide information that would enable the public to identify clusters of suspicious deaths. The information is not held centrally or in the form requested and, it is said, could be provided only at a disproportionate cost. I hope that public concern will cause the Minister and the Department to change their attitudes, and that the Minister can give an undertaking that he will provide such information.

If deaths are to be prevented, we should establish a complaints procedure that is independent of the chain of command. It is worth considering the case for a new body that would provide oversight. Perhaps there could be an inspectorate of the armed services. The European Court of Human Rights now insists that, in cases of death involving members of the security forces, the independence of the investigation must be structurally guaranteed. The Deepcut investigation has led to some adjustments to the standard operating procedures allowing for police primacy over investigations of suspicious deaths, but I do not believe that they go far enough. If bullying and other malpractice is to be eliminated, there is a strong argument for putting serious assaults, rape and sexual harassment of males and females under the same scrutiny, outside of the police force.

When criminal charges can be brought, there must be provision for greater public scrutiny of decisions made by the prosecuting authorities. The key to justice being seen to be done at all levels is the involvement of the families of victims at a very early date. Uniquely among the cases that I have identified, the family of Tony Green at last saw his killer prosecuted by the courts, but they had no input into the decision to charge the perpetrator with manslaughter through gross negligence. They had no involvement in the prosecutorial service and no access to information. Particularly at a time when the Government are encouraging public debate—

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that he must be sensitive to matters sub judice.

Mr. McNamara : With the greatest respect, I am not questioning or challenging any verdict; I am talking about the family.

At a time when the Government encourage public debate on the introduction of a five-year mandatory sentence for the mere possession of a handgun, is the Minister surprised that the family consider that a two-year sentence adds insult to injury?

There is already a public debate about the procedures and verdicts that are available to a coroner's court, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye has referred to those in correspondence with the Department. However, that debate also concerns Northern Ireland. The relatives of victims of army deaths have been ill served by an inquest system that is at least 50 years behind the times. There is an issue about a coroner's powers to demand documents and to compel witnesses. There is an issue about the disclosure of witness statements prior to an inquest hearing.

There are issues about the provision of legal representation for bereaved families at public expense, the training and regulation of coroners, the role of coroner's assistants and the financial resources available to coroners. The latter is especially pressing in Northern Ireland. The shortcomings of the Deepcut inquiry have thrown up several issues relating to the practice of forensic experts. It is remarkable that there is no adequate system for the training or regulation of forensic pathologists or ballistic experts.

I have tried to give a flavour of the issues that must be addressed. I have tried to reflect suggestions and proposals put forward by the families of those most concerned. On our behalf, and looking to the future, the Army asks a great deal of its young recruits, and we have a responsibility to ensure their protection. The number of Army deaths speaks for itself. There are clear public interest reasons for establishing a tribunal of inquiry, and, to restore public confidence, that must be conducted independently under the direction of a senior judicial figure.

If the Minister is not prepared to concede my case—and those made by hon. Members of all parties—for a full inquiry, I hope that he will give an undertaking to investigate cases brought before him, to remove barriers to the free flow of information and to set out a programme of transparent measures that will address issues that are identified.

Several hon. Members rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. Five hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye and there are three Front-Bench spokespersons. Their wind-ups should start at 10.30 am, so hon. Members who contribute to the debate may wish to tailor their remarks accordingly.

9.47 am

Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire): Thank you for calling me in this debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have a clear reason for being here, and that is to highlight the case of my constituent Des James whose daughter, Cheryl Marie James, died on 27 November 1995 at the age of 18. The hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) clearly highlighted the general strategic points that relate to that case and covered the issue in general. I shall support his points and his request for action by highlighting that individual case. I do not intend to take long but by your leave, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall be specific about what happened to Cheryl James.

Cheryl James's parents are not confident about the open verdict on her death that was given at the inquest, and that is the heart of my concern. It is important to underline that the parents do not necessarily say that the open verdict was an unreasonable conclusion, but they cannot be confident that a different conclusion would not have been reached if there had been a more detailed inquiry. Des James has highlighted specific concerns that I wish to put on the record. I hope that the Minister will assure me that he takes seriously the request of the hon. Member for Hull, North and myself for an independent and extensive inquiry into Cheryl James's death and into the deaths of others.

The heart of Des James's concern is that his daughter should not have been armed and alone at the gate when she died. The Army confirmed that in a letter to him and described the procedures at the time as having been "misunderstood". In addition, it took the Army eight hours to inform Des James of his daughter's death, which is a very long time. The family did not even know the name of the camp commander in 1995, because he did not contact them. They have only recently found out that it is Nigel Barry Josling.

Mr. James is concerned about how the family were treated with regard to that crucial information. Some family members learned that Cheryl James had died by listening to the news, which shows laxity about how individuals were contacted. It is not right that people find out from the news that they have lost a close family member. Des James was not even given the opportunity to identify Cheryl. A local undertaker returned her body to the village on Friday 1 December, so for the four days following her death the family hung on to the hope that there had been a misidentification.

Nobody from Surrey police contacted the James's family or visited them at any time following Cheryl's death. The first time that the family spoke to the police was in June 2002—some seven years after the death. It is peculiar that the parents were not involved earlier. The greatest single concern, however, is that the only people to have claimed throughout that the death was a suicide were Army representatives. The board of inquiry concluded that Cheryl James committed suicide, but others are more sceptical. The James's family are not saying that it was not suicide, but they feel that the evidence was not convincing. The inquest recorded an open verdict, which suggests a degree of support for that view. The James's family have evidence that the Army documented the death as suicide one week before the coroner's court was convened. The family worry that there was a desire to come to that conclusion more quickly than the details of the case implied.

The procedural chaos at the time of the death is another worry. Immediately after the death, there was discussion about whether the Surrey police should be involved in the inquiry. However, the relationship between the Army and the police should be clarified. The case for an independent inquiry in all such cases is watertight. At the very least, the James's family do not feel that justice was done in the public eye. There should have been a clear differentiation in the inquiry between the Army and those who decided the verdict.

The family do not understand why an apparently thorough initial investigation was completed in only two weeks, but we have already had six months of a new inquiry and it is still not complete. If I had been Cheryl James's parent, I would probably have drawn the same conclusion as Des James and asked the Army the same questions. How can the Army give me a watertight assurance that what it claims took place actually did? How can the Army assure me that there was no bullying and that there were no extraneous circumstances leading to Cheryl James's death?

I hope that I would take Des James's circumspect and measured approach in not pointing the finger of blame explicitly at the Army and by not claiming a different cause of death. His comments have been logical, objective and measured. However, I share the concern that he harbours. If he were able to speak in this debate, he would probably say, "Convince me that I have nothing to worry about and that the tragic death of my daughter was indeed a suicide. Convince me that there is not an endemic problem in the way in which our young people are treated in the Army that caused Cheryl to take her own life. Perhaps most importantly, convince me that there was not a more sinister cause of death."

Des James does not hate the Army or think that it is a corrupt or rotten institution. The Army does a difficult job and, especially in these troubled times, most people are happy to pay their taxes for the services it provides. However, even the Army should accept that uncertainties such as the ones that we have discussed work against it in terms of recruitment and also against the interests of natural justice. The parents in these cases have a right to expect more considered and cast-iron conclusions on the deaths of their sons and daughters.

The Minister should listen seriously to the examples of Cheryl James and others, and move in the direction suggested by the hon. Member for Hull, North. An independent inquiry into the deaths would aim to provide certainty for the parents about what actually happened. The inquiry would be effective only if the Army is duty bound to provide information in an upfront, clear and non-evasive way, which it would probably be prepared to do were the mechanisms of an inquiry in place.

What is the Minister's perspective on the request for systemic change to ensure that we do not need debates such as this one to get to the truth? Is it possible to set up an arbiter or other independent inspectorate of the armed forces? In the old phrase, if people have done nothing wrong, there is nothing to fear. An inspectorate would reassure young people who are thinking of joining the Army and their parents, and the public at large, that joining the Army does not expose an individual to particular dangers and stress which could be avoided by openness.

I am pleased that the hon. Member for Hull, North secured the debate and that the Minister is willing to reply to it. Above all else, for the sake of parents and our young people joining the Army, I hope that we can make significant progress by regarding this debate as a watershed. We seek nothing more dangerous than the truth. If we find that truth, we can clear up question marks left by the past and ensure that such questions do not arise in future.

9.57 am

Sandra Osborne (Ayr): I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) on securing this debate and on his wider campaigning efforts with the families who have lost loved ones at such a young age. My primary aim is to raise the case of a constituent whose death occurred 11 years ago. In so doing, I am aware of the difficulties of investigating events after such a long time. However, there are striking similarities between my constituent's death and those that we have discussed, which merit further examination.

I am adding my voice to the plea for an inquiry so that questions can be asked and, I hope, answered. As things stand, we do not know what happened in many of the cases, and that is the most frustrating aspect for the families concerned. There is a perception that there is no robust and effective mechanism in place in the Army to ensure proper scrutiny of unexpected deaths.

The Ministry of Defence and Ministers say that there has been no cover up of any sort, but that has not convinced aggrieved families, the members of which have become increasingly angry about what they regard as a failure to account for their loss. They feel let down by a general lack of concern and what they feel to be a haste to suggest suicide as an explanation and quickly draw a line under the deaths. As a consequence, many people believe that the service that these young people gave to their country has counted for very little.

Alfie Manship was a 20-year-old young man from Ayr, who died on 6 April 1992. I pay a special tribute to Alfie's mother, Jan Manship Milligan, who now lives in the USA, but who has never stopped campaigning with instinct and determination to get at the truth of her son's death. Alfie's case was raised soon after his death by Phil Gallie, my predecessor in Ayr; he was not satisfied by the answer he received and he too believes that the case should be looked at again. For a long time, Alfie's mother thought—like a number of other families—that she was fighting an individual battle. She has, however, communicated with the other families and joined their campaign. She was stunned to hear about the more recent deaths. In her own words:

"Reading the story of Private Gray's death brought shivers to my spine. You see, on 6 April 1992 my son Alfie died in exactly the same manner and I do not just mean similar—I mean exactly. He had also been on guard duty, he had two gunshot wounds to the head, both of which would have killed him outright. However, only one bullet casing was found."

Alfie died in Osnabruck barracks, Germany, but just before that he had left what is now known as Deepcut barracks, where he was bullied to the extent that he needed treatment at Aldershot hospital. By the time that Alfie reached Germany he was in a far more relaxed state of mind. According to his mother, he was coping well and had put the bullying behind him.

Mrs. Manship Milligan was informed of her son's death by a police officer and an officer from the Territorial Army in Ayr, but they could not tell her about the cause of death. She spoke, therefore, on the telephone to an officer at Osnabruck, who told her, "One bullet, one body, end of story." It had already been decided that Alfie's death was suicide and a post-mortem was carried out before his mother was informed about his death. The Minister stated, in an answer to a parliamentary question, that an internal investigation into Alfie's death had taken two weeks. In Mrs. Manship Milligan's view, however, it was clear from the officer's words that the result was a foregone conclusion. That was not just a despicable way to speak to someone who had just suffered bereavement, it was patently not the end of the story.

There are various contradictions and inconsistencies in what has been said about Alfie's death, which I believe merit investigation. It was three years before the family saw a copy of the post-mortem report. Mrs. Manship Milligan obtained a copy of that report from someone who was unhappy with the finding of suicide. At the time of Alfie's death, the Army claimed that he had been depressed and drinking heavily. It is an alarming thought that, although the Army indicated that he was drunk, he had nevertheless been handed an SA80 and sent about his duties. The fact is that the subject's body contained no alcohol or other substances, according to toxicology tests performed during the post-mortem. His hands were also free and clean, indicating that there was no gunpowder residue.

In answer to another parliamentary question, the Minister stated that Sapper Manship died from a single gunshot wound to the head while on guard duty at Woolwich barracks, Osnabruck. However, the funeral director informed Alfie's mother that there appeared to be two bullet wounds: there was a hole in his cheek and under his tongue and there was an exit wound at the top of his head, which had also been mentioned by the doctor who declared that Alfie was dead. The pathologist had advised that there was also one at the base of his skull. It appears that Alfie's weapon was not checked to ascertain whether it had been fired.

I am dwelling to some extent on the details of this case, but I could say more if time allowed. The more recent cases are under police investigation and therefore it is not appropriate to comment on the details, or to try to pre-empt an outcome.

Alfie's mother was denied an inquest in 1992 because it was deemed not to be in the public interest. The procurator fiscal in Scotland will not hold a fatal accident inquiry if a death has not occurred in Scotland. Alfie's family did not get the opportunity for these contradictions to be raised in public. There was no police investigation. I have spoken at length to Alfie's mother: she knows that re-opening his case and examining it in the context of similar deaths will not bring Alfie back, but doing so may enable her to put her son to rest at last.

If there was a sinister cause behind any of these deaths, a thorough and independent inquiry may prevent the loss of other young lives, which is extremely important. At the very least, it might restore parents' confidence that they can send their children to the Army in the knowledge that they will be safe. My hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North referred in detail to the Army's duty of care. I was pleased to hear that the Defence Committee will carry out an investigation, and I look forward to welcoming its report at the appropriate time. However, there is a case for a public inquiry that would enable an in-depth and broad report to be produced, as outlined in my hon. Friend's remit.

I have 16 years' experience of supporting the victims of bullying and harassment. I know how the abuse of power operates. I know the isolating and secretive mechanisms that are used to make it impossible—especially for what are, essentially, captive victims—to protest. The victims are left with nowhere to go if they have no confidence that action will be taken against the perpetrator, and especially if they are not believed. The families of the victims feel that they have not been believed and that they have nowhere to go. This matter is important, and it must be addressed as there is widespread concern about it.

If any parent in this Room were to have any doubts about the circumstances of their child's death, they would leave no stone unturned until they received satisfactory answers. I look forward with optimism to the Minister's response.

10.6 am

Annabelle Ewing (Perth): I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) on securing this important debate. I had unsuccessfully sought a debate along similar lines, and I am therefore pleased that we are able finally to discuss this distressing and disturbing issue.

There is widespread concern at Westminster and among the general public about the worryingly high number of non-combat deaths at Army barracks over recent years. We have heard in detail about the matter from the hon. Gentleman. That concern is reflected in the fact that hon. Members of all parties wish to speak in this debate and have signed the hon. Gentleman's early-day motion 63. It calls for a full and independent public inquiry into the Army deaths at Deepcut barracks and elsewhere, and it has attracted 122 signatures.

I fear that public confidence in the Army and the Ministry of Defence has been badly affected by the concerns that have come to light about the deaths at Deepcut Army barracks of four young soldiers over the past 7 years, and by how the Ministry of Defence has dealt with the issue. The alarming statistics with regard to the number of non-combat deaths of soldiers at UK Army barracks has added to this increasing public concern.

The concern is increasing in my constituency. I have a constituency interest in this debate because the family of a young soldier who was found dead at Deepcut in March 2002 resides in my constituency. Their son, James Collinson, was aged only 17 when he was found dead last year. I know that his family are listening closely to the debate because they, too, seek answers to what happened to their son and to all the other soldiers.

Hon. Members will be aware that there is a continuing investigation into the four deaths at Deepcut. I do not, of course, want to say anything that could impinge on the outcome of that investigation, but the significant concerns about how the Army and the Ministry of Defence have dealt with the deaths at Deepcut and elsewhere must be aired today.

I suggest that the Army's handling of these non-combat deaths has been entirely inadequate, and that the Ministry of Defence procedures for dealing with such deaths in Army barracks raise significant concerns that can be properly addressed only by a full and independent public inquiry. The James Collinson case is one example. The Army was quick to reach the conclusion that his death was a suicide. When his father had to contact Deepcut to ascertain the status of the investigation shortly after his son was buried, an official there told him, "What investigation? One bullet, one body—draw your own conclusion." That eerily echoes the information that was given to the family of Alfie Manship. It is a disgraceful way to treat bereaved families of Army soldiers.

The Army rushed to such a conclusion even though no proper investigation or forensic post-mortem had been conducted. There had been no securing of the crime scene, as evidenced by the fact that about eight to nine months later, James Collinson's cap badge was found in the Deepcut perimeter. It had somehow become separated from his cap, which was on his head at the time of his death. Something is surely wrong with a system that allows such conclusions to be reached without any proper investigation. There would be no proper continuing police investigation if it had not been for the efforts of the Collinson family and all the other families involved. That, too, is nothing short of a disgrace.

The fact that the Collinson family had to exhume their son's body in December last year to try to secure a proper post-mortem starkly illustrates the total inadequacy of the initial approach at Deepcut. That was shortly before what would have been James Collinson's 18th birthday. It is unacceptable that the Collinson family had to go through such an ordeal. I would be interested to hear the Minister explain to us all why that had to happen. Why was there no proper post-mortem in the first place? The Collinson family and others have had to fight tooth and nail to have the deaths of their sons and daughters properly investigated. Will the Minister explain why that was so?

The Collinson family and other families involved in this sorry saga had to deal with what they regard as the MOD's excessive secrecy. There have been disturbing developments over the course of their campaign to secure justice. The Minister will know that the Surrey police recently instructed Tayside police to visit the Collinson family home to sweep for electronic bugs. That arose from concerns expressed by the Collinson family and other families. The fact that the Surrey police acted on those concerns shows how seriously the Surrey and Tayside police forces took them. The results of the sweep appear to be inconclusive. The MOD's response, which appeared in a local newspaper, The Courier and Advertiser on 27 January 2003, is somewhat curious. Its report states:

"However, when contacted by The Courier an MoD spokesperson was quick to deny the suggestion. 'This is somewhat misguided', he said. 'The army do not go round planting bugs in houses. They are subject to the same laws as everybody else. The military would not bug anyone—only the Home Secretary can sanction such an activity.'"

I find the MOD's response, as reported in The Courier and Advertiser, somewhat ambiguous, if not curious. Will the Minister reassure the Collinson family and other families that no UK Department or agency under the responsibility of a UK Department has been involved in any bugging of phones?

The hon. Member for Hull, North rightly said that the MOD has a duty of care, particularly to young soldiers in its charge. Serious questions have been raised as to whether that duty has been properly exercised. The extensive concerns now raised can be properly dealt with only by a full and independent public inquiry. I, too, welcome the Defence Committee inquiry, but it is no substitute for such a public inquiry, which is the least that the Collinson family and other families—not to mention the public at large—deserve. Basic notions of justice dictate the necessary approach.

These young soldiers joined the Army to serve their country, and the military establishment has treated their families shabbily, which is a disgrace. The circumstances surrounding the deaths of these soldiers must now be properly investigated.

10.16 am

Mrs. Patsy Calton (Cheadle): I, too, shall highlight a particular case, which was brought to my attention only yesterday as a result of the publicity surrounding Deepcut. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) on securing this important debate. I had not realised until yesterday, as I said, that a family in my constituency was affected by a much earlier case.

Paul Stanley Lowith was training in the military police in Chichester in 1978. Aged 17, he was the youngest of five orphans. His sister, who was just 20 and had recently become a mother, was aware that he was unhappy, and she suspected that he was being bullied. She thought that his mood was strange because he was used to being away from home; like the rest of the family, he had been to boarding school.

All his sister knows is that one night, her 17-year-old brother allegedly took some live ammunition shells, went to the Army firing range and shot himself. The family was told that he committed suicide. His funeral was given full military honours and his military records were sealed for 30 years. The family requested a copy of the death certificate and the coroner's report, neither of which was made available to them.

I have already said enough for everyone to realise that several questions need to be answered. This was a young man without a mother and father, whose guardian believed that the Army would make him a man. Bullying may well have taken place, or perhaps the official version of his death is correct. The truth is that the family do not know, but no evidence was presented to support the official view.

I spoke to the young man's niece on the phone this morning. She is now in her 20s and spoke about the culture of secrecy. The Army, as an institution, must open up and fully answer the families' questions. The world has changed in the past 25 years. This family must know what happened to their brother and they need to have confidence in the information that they were given. For their own peace of mind, they need closure on the issue. Young men and women joining the Army need to know that it can deal with these cases openly, in a way that is subject to public inspection. They and their parents should have confidence that they will be afforded the care that we have heard about in the debate.

10.19 am

Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South): I welcome the opportunity to follow the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mrs. Calton), who said that things have changed in the past 25 years, as all of us recognise when we look at what is happening in society. Although there may be a place for measures to train young soldiers for what they may have to face, people will not accept bullying as part of that system.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) on securing the debate. On opposite sides of the House, we often spar, but we are at one on this matter: we both want the best for our armed forces and their families.

Paul Robert Cochrane died in July 2001. I had a visit shortly afterwards from his senior officer, who assured me that there was no bullying in the forces. As I served in the Army cadets and have known a number of people in the services over the years, I took that with a pinch of salt. However, it must be put in the context of the publicity. As the hon. Member for Ayr (Sandra Osborne) said, we were told that a person was killed with one bullet, yet there was evidence that there were other bullets. That is the most remarkable form of suicide I have ever come across. These matters must be faced with much more realism than they have been.

I am the Member of Parliament for the constituency adjacent to that in which the Cochranes live. I have met them; they were in touch with me early in the proceedings. They continued the campaign with my colleague in the Northern Ireland Assembly, Sir Reg Empey, and with our defence spokesman, my hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson). We must face issues, or we will not be able to give people satisfactory answers.

I have copies of Ministry of Defence answers to colleagues which remind me of a sermon that I read in my early ministry; it was well set forth, but there was no life in it. I discussed the sermon with some senior colleagues, including the man who delivered it, who said, "Yes, you missed the thunder and the lightning—the atmosphere." Those in the Ministry of Defence who responded to the letters missed the atmosphere of Mr. Cochrane's telephone conversation with his son, who told him about being bullied, which is on tape. Then came the sound of the shot, as the young man committed suicide.

The Ministry of Defence does not say that the young man did not commit suicide, but it wants to discover what drove him to such a situation, and there are no answers that will satisfy anyone. In one answer, it states that it cannot say anything because the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the Royal Ulster Constabulary were involved in the investigations. The nation of Northern Ireland has discovered latterly that there has been interference in police investigations; therefore, it is rather suspicious to say that the matter was investigated by the PSNI if no satisfactory evidence has been brought forth. Can the Minister tell us when the board of inquiry is likely to complete its investigations and say whether it has informed the Cochranes of its latest view? Unless there is a public inquiry into the pattern of the deaths, there will be no real satisfaction, and we will hinder proper recruitment for the Army.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : We have 36 minutes left. It would be reasonable and equitable for each Front-Bench spokesperson to take no more than a third of that time.

10.25 am

Mr. Colin Breed (South-East Cornwall): I shall not take long to make my remarks because it is clear that this morning there is unanimity across the parties, not only in the early-day motion, but in Members' contributions.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) on securing this important debate, and I pay tribute to the families, whose perseverance and fortitude in ensuring that the issues are on the public agenda have enabled them to be addressed in the open way that we all want. It is now for the Ministry of Defence to respond in a similar fashion, as it must want to ensure that the deaths are properly investigated and that lessons are learned for the future.

The Army's equal opportunities statement declares:

"We have zero tolerance of any form of prejudice, harassment or bullying."

However, the Army's words do not always match up to its efforts. The MOD has a steep hill to climb when 43 per cent. of troops believe that bullying and harassment are rife and over 5 per cent. have been victims of such abuse. The focus of this debate has naturally gravitated towards the Deepcut cases. The issue is not just the questionable verdicts of suicide and the deaths of soldiers, but why questions were not automatically asked when such a high suicide rate among young soldiers at one Army base was recorded.

It is almost impossible to believe that that did not raise questions about the circumstances of the tragic deaths. Why was not better care taken of the young recruits? What resources, such as counselling and contacts with non-military welfare organisations, were available to them, if they needed them to cope with the stress of Army life? I welcome the current investigation by the Surrey constabulary, but will the Minister assure us that all the evidence secured by the investigation will be available to the families and their representatives, so that they can draw their own conclusions?

The MOD reports that, over the past five years, there have been 93 deaths recorded with an open verdict or as suicide. The fact that the families of 40 of those service personnel are now threatening legal action surely reflects a huge dissatisfaction with and distrust of Army protocol and procedure. That must be addressed, and I am sure that the Minister will agree once again that perception matters. We need to ensure that the matters are fully investigated and the findings made public.

The position of the military police, the constabulary and the coroner must be clarified. I say that because in recent years there have been two questionable suicide verdicts in my constituency, although not, I hasten to say, at Army barracks or a military centre. However, those verdicts have raised many questions about the relative responsibilities of the police and the coroner and the way in which families are able to engage in the process with the coroner. When one adds the further significant contribution of the military police and the MOD to that already difficult situation it amplifies the need for clarification. I know that the Government are already examining coroners' courts. I hope that as part of that review they will take into account the issues surrounding these cases, and the way in which coroners' courts act in conjunction with the police and the military police. That is an area of civilian life that needs to be sorted out and clarified.

There should also be a review of the support services available to soldiers. Life is stressful enough, and when we recruit young soldiers, particularly those under 18, we have a particular responsibility to ensure that their welfare is looked after. Our soldiers must be in no doubt that the Army and the MOD are right behind them and will defend their interests in every circumstance. It is clear that many soldiers feel unable to discuss or even to raise issues of personal safety with anyone, and that they often suffer in silence.

I also recommend an urgent review of the way in which contact is made with families. We heard some distressing stories about the way in which families are advised of the tragic deaths of their loved ones. That seems to be done in a very cold-hearted way. Regrettably, that was also part of the clarification needed in the cases of civilian deaths that I spoke about earlier.

Families should be engaged at a very early stage. They have rights concerning attendance at post-mortems and what happens after a suspected questionable death, but many families do not realise that they have such rights. Unfortunately, many are not advised of their rights until much later, and by that time they cannot make a valid contribution or become part of the process. That situation needs to be urgently reviewed, so that when the fact of a death is relayed, families are counselled and made aware of their rights.

These are tragic cases. Many of the contributions this morning have been very disturbing. If average members of the public were here listening to the debate, they would want to raise many of the issues that the families are raising. I believe that the families and the general public want answers. Questions have been raised about what happens in our Army barracks and military centres, and the MOD should take the opportunity not only to give its answers through a public inquiry, but to ensure that real lessons are learned. It must ensure that the Army lives up to its statement, which I read at the beginning, that it has

"zero tolerance of any form of prejudice, harassment and bullying."

10.33 am

Mr. Gerald Howarth (Aldershot): I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) on his persistence in the matter, and on bringing it to the attention of the House. He is nothing if not tenacious. I also congratulate those hon. Members who have spoken, some very movingly, about the particular circumstances affecting their own constituents.

No one who has any knowledge of these matters can have anything but the deepest sympathy with the families, not just those who are in the public eye at present, but others who are grieving privately and quietly. There can be no greater tragedy in life than to lose a child who is just embarking on what would have been their career, and we take the matter very seriously. However, in a sense the debate is somewhat premature because, as has been mentioned, the Surrey police inquiry is under way. It is difficult for any of us to comment while that is so, although it provides us with an opportunity to put on record concerns, some of which have been expressed publicly, and some of which have not.

I come to the debate double-hatted, as I am both Vice-Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence and a shadow Defence Minister. For the assistance of the House, I shall mention what the Select Committee said about the matter in a press release last summer:

"The Committee is concerned by events at Deepcut barracks. We are aware, however, that police inquiries are continuing. We have no wish to cut across or interfere with those inquiries. We believe that there are grounds for a Defence Committee inquiry into conditions at Deepcut. We will decide on the scope and nature of that inquiry once the police inquiries are complete."

That, I hope, puts the record straight on what the Committee has decided to do about the issue.

It is important that the military recognises its duty of care to those in its charge. However, we should be quite clear that we are preparing young men and women to take their place in an army trained for combat. That means that training has to be rigorous, and that is more difficult in today's society than it was 20 or 30 years ago, or even, dare I say it, when the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Joyce) was enlisted in the Army. Fewer people live away from home today. On a recent visit to Catterick, we went to the rehabilitation centre, where those with broken bodies, leg injuries, fractures and so on were being rehabilitated, because today's young people are not the same as those who previously joined the armed forces. That is not a criticism of them; it just means that the Army has to adjust.

Lembit Öpik : I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that a culture of bullying or impropriety would be justified on the basis that we needed to train our young people.

Mr. Howarth : I do not think that anything I said could possibly be construed in that fashion, and certainly that was not my intention.

It is important to put the statistics in context. Figures from the Library show that in 1994 there were 19 suicides in the Army. That is the equivalent, at a rate per million, of 154. That compares with an overall United Kingdom average among males aged 15 to 24 of 115. In the most recent year for which figures are available, 1999, the number of suicides in the Army had fallen to five, which equates to a rate of 45.6 per million. That compares with a UK average of 106 among males aged 15 to 24. The figures show that the Army is conscious of the need to address the issue, and has done so with some success.

The hon. Member for Hull, North mentioned the learning account initiative, which I understand is under way, in tandem with the police inquiry that has been undertaken. The police are giving the Army information from their inquiry to date, and they are telling it some of the things that they think it could usefully learn from the inquiry. The Army should examine two issues. First, it should consider the risk of bullying because it is completely unacceptable that a young person, or anyone, should be subject to bullying.

The Army must also consider the question of unhappiness. I was encouraged when I visited Catterick and talked to the young recruits. I asked whether they would know if one of their fellow recruits was unhappy and whether they would rally round. To a man and woman—boy and girl—they responded, "Of course we would." We should not underestimate young people's capacity to be aware of difficulties faced by their peers. I spoke to the brigadier in charge of the recruit centre at Catterick who said that the Army is trying to find ways of being more proactive in recognising the signs of potential unhappiness.

As other hon. Members said, the Army must consider who has unsupervised access to weapons. That is important, and the Army need not wait for the outcome of an inquiry but could undertake such consideration immediately.

The services need a better system of family liaison. Individual cases cited by hon. Members today show that there has been inadequate liaison between the Army and families after a tragedy. The Army must get to grips with that and ensure that there is better liaison. Part of the problem is that the Army Training and Recruiting Agency covers a tremendous number of young people. The hon. Member for Hull, North said that there are 9,000 recruits a year, which is a fantastic turnover. After the recruits have finished their training, they go to a regiment, corps or unit. They are nurtured, and an esprit de corps exists, but that is not prevalent in a large training establishment such as Catterick, so more needs to be done.

Mention was also made of the need to maintain barrack-by-barrack statistics to determine
whether problems are clustered—I think that that word was used earlier—and whether
specific problems exist at specific barracks. The Ministry of Defence said that it would be expensive to collate that information, but I find that difficult to accept. That is one step that could be taken to help to tackle the problem that we face.

Mr. McNamara : Would the hon. Gentleman accept that what made me pursue this course of action was the fact that the Ministry of Defence kept no records of how, why, where and when these events occurred which it was prepared to give to the House or hon. Members in answer to questions?

Mr. Howarth : The Minister will undoubtedly want to address that.

The Army has taken several steps, and I have described some. I understand that there has been much greater clarification of procedures to be followed in the event of a death in barracks. The original standing order was ambiguous, and I understand that there is a new one that clearly provides primacy for the local police force, not for Army investigators. That will be welcome.

I do not believe that the Army is uncaring. On the contrary, it has a vested interest in being seen by young people and their parents as a good employer that cares for those in its charge. Given the need to recruit 9,000 people a year, the Army must recognise that if it does not have a reputation for being a good employer and for caring about people's personal development, it will not get those recruits.

The Army has made it clear that it is recruiting people in a narrow pool. Thankfully, there is limited unemployment in this country, so it is having to compete against all types of employer for its recruits. The position could not have been put better than by my noble Friend, Brigadier Lord Vivian, when he wrote to Lord Bach in June last year:

"I believe that it is a matter of great regret on the part of all concerned for the good name of the Armed Forces that the Ministry of Defence and the Army have failed to respond to this series of incidents by volunteering sufficient and timely information in each case . . . This is the sort of case that can affect recruiting and retention, especially if the general public start to think that The Army is a poor employer and does not care for its men and women, which you and I know has no foundation."

That is why all of us have a vested interest in ensuring that the lessons are learned from the recent tragedies.

In a newspaper article in The Sunday Telegraph, an MOD official was quoted as saying,

"we will publicly accept mistakes were made in the way the tragic deaths of these soldiers was handled."

What plans does the Minister have to ensure that those mistakes are not repeated? Are lessons other than those to which I have referred being taken on board today? It has been widely reported that the Army has responded to the deaths with an investigation into how suicides can be prevented. Can the Minister confirm that? Have any preliminary conclusions been reached? Can he confirm that, from now on, the police will investigate all similar deaths?

I have received a letter from a Lieutenant-Colonel Tinckler, a consultant surgeon in the Royal Army Medical Corps volunteers. Mention was made earlier about the number of medics at Deepcut. I accept that today's debate is about not only Deepcut but other barracks, but the lieutenant-colonel was dismissed from his post as a locum after only two days of a one-month contract, without being given a reason. Does the Minister have any information on the matter which he can share with us? Can he say something about the provision of medical care at barracks throughout the country?

10.47 am

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie) : I should make it clear at the outset that I have recently taken over all training, personnel and welfare functions from my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Defence, with the exception of the Deepcut inquiry. He has been involved in that for some time, so we both felt it appropriate for him to deal with it until the end of the investigations.

I am grateful for the chance given to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) to make general points and reply to the debate. As Members are well aware, the Surrey police investigations into the deaths of the four soldiers at Deepcut remain ongoing and will not conclude until early March. I cannot pre-empt the results of those investigations, nor will I comment on matters that are related directly to them, other than to say that it is my belief that the Army has co-operated fully with Surrey police during the inquiries and continues to do so.

In addition, Mr. Frank Swann, the independent ballistics expert employed by the soldiers' families, has been given full access to each of the sites where the incidents occurred so that he can conduct his investigation. I assure Members at the outset that all their points will receive my careful consideration and, when appropriate, a written reply. I also assure them that any warranted changes in procedure will be made. I make no mistake about that.

My ministerial colleagues, the Army chain of command and I are well aware of the interest that has been expressed by the House, the media and the general public, particularly over the past 12 months, in the number of deaths of Army personnel resulting from non-combatant injuries sustained in Army barracks and elsewhere. While that has, understandably, centred on the deaths of the four soldiers at Princess Royal barracks, Deepcut, it is acknowledged that some concerns expressed have wider implications for the Army as a whole, as is illustrated by the cases that Members have raised today.

I recognise that every death in the Army, however caused, is a personal tragedy that has a devastating impact on the partners and families of those concerned. It is a sad fact of life that non-natural deaths occur in all walks of life. Non-combatant deaths in the Army, and indeed the armed forces as a whole, are no exception. The Army's approach is to be constructive and proactive—to minimise, through training, education and welfare support, the likelihood of incidents occurring that may result in loss of life, and to ensure that, when such incidents happen, lessons are learned to minimise the possibility of them occurring in the same way in future.

While parliamentary and media attention over the past few months has primarily focused on the incidence of alleged suicide in the Army, it must be placed properly in perspective. In doing so, I believe that it is rather arbitrary to make a distinction between the deaths of Army personnel in barracks and elsewhere. Not all deaths that occur in barracks are the result of suicide, as accidents and injuries resulting from training activities also make up a proportion of the total. Similarly, not all incidences of suicide among Army personnel occur in the barrack environment.

Statistical information provides the basis for analysing the number of Army non-combatant deaths due to injury. Substantial work has been undertaken over the past few months to refine that data and bring reporting in line with the Office for National Statistics. The most recently available statistics from January 2003 show that there were 1,763 deaths of Army personnel due to non-combatant injury from 1984 to 2001. That represents the total of deaths through injury, irrespective of how they were caused, where they occurred and whether the individuals concerned were on or off duty. Of that total, 276 were awarded a coroner's verdict of suicide. A further 49 were recorded as open verdicts and 41 still await a coroner's verdict. Of those 366 deaths, 29 individuals were aged 18 or under.

Comparison with the wider civilian population is complicated by the different age and gender mix of the armed forces. In particular, the armed forces have a lower proportion of females compared with the civilian population. That is allied to the fact that females have a lower propensity to take their own lives than males. Allowing statistically for those differences, published research shows that the suicide rate and deaths subject to open verdicts are broadly comparable between Army personnel and the population at large.

Mr. Breed : Does the Minister accept that the statistics are spread throughout the country on an averaged basis? Our concern is the number of deaths at a particular place. If they had occurred in a town or a village, it would have been recognised that something had to be done.

Dr. Moonie : Speaking as an epidemiologist, which I was in my previous incarnation, I should correct the hon. Gentleman's misconception on the distribution of conditions. It is natural for clusters to occur. If clusters did not occur, I would be suspicious about any condition. When checking information on vital statistics, it is important that we check them carefully against the experience in the rest of the population and that we use standardised methods, whenever we can. Only then can we honestly tell whether something is worthy of special note, as opposed to the attention that should be given to any case of non-natural death. With that proviso, it is important that we use the best available standard of scientific information. We have reallocated our cases according to nationally accepted guidelines.

The incidence of suicide and open verdicts in the Army is lower than in the civilian population in the 24 to 39 age group and broadly similar in the 20 to 24 age group, but higher in the 16 to 19 age group. Although the available figures permit a broad comparison with the wider civilian population at this time, the information must be treated with caution for the reasons that I have outlined. The Ministry of Defence is working with the Office for National Statistics, the General Register Office for Scotland and the General Register Office for Northern Ireland to produce a more detailed and refined comparison.

The Army Individual Training Organisation—now known as the Army Training and Recruiting Agency—has come under particular scrutiny as a result of the reporting of events at Deepcut. Fourteen soldiers undergoing initial training died within the categories of suicide and open verdict in the 21 years between 1982 and 2002. A further case—that of Private James Collinson, which has been raised—is still awaiting a coroner's inquest. The Army and the Ministry of Defence share the sense of loss that each of the families feel in such circumstances, and recognise that it is made more acute by the fact that many individuals concerned had been living away from the family home for only a short period.

It is also fully understandable that the families look to the Army to take care of their loved ones, and that they seek to understand all the circumstances surrounding such regrettable events. Nothing can take away the pain, grief and sense of loss that they experience when such things happen. However, the number of deaths must be put in context. During the period in which those 15 deaths occurred, 250,000 soldiers passed through basic training.

Broader concerns have been raised about initial training in the armed forces. On 17 October 2002, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State announced to the House that he had commissioned a special review of the initial training of all non-officer recruits in each of the three services. That work is being undertaken independently of the service and its respective commands, and my right hon. Friend will be in a position to make an announcement to the House on the findings of the review in due course.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North raised a further specific concern about the incidence of death in barracks as a result of injuries sustained from firearms. Although we are especially concerned about that—in particular, with regard to young soldiers on guard duty—the majority of deaths and suicides do not result from firearm-inflicted injuries.

Firearm injuries are responsible for under a third of all suicides and open verdicts, although the incidence of those in the Army is significantly higher than in the civilian population because of the ready access to weapons. The risk to the individual must always be balanced against the need for the Army to undertake operational and other security duties. We carefully examine such matters. We have been studying this one closely, and we will continue to do so to see whether other changes in procedure can be made that will lessen the chance of such deaths occurring.

Mr. McNamara : Will my hon. Friend undertake that no recruits under the age of 18 will be left alone with Army munitions or guns and so forth, and that that will not be left to the discretion of the camp commander?

Dr. Moonie : On that, I can say that I will take any action that is necessary to ensure that good practice is observed at all times, as I will with regard to bullying. We adopt an attitude of zero tolerance to bullying. A training regime may be felt to be quite harsh by people who come out of it and those who go into it from a domestic environment, but there is a difference between being harsh and rigorous in training to produce good soldiers and bullying, which is totally unacceptable to my ministerial colleagues and I, and to all the senior officers I have spoken to. Any further changes that need to be made will be made to maximise the chance of being able to report bullying and get rid of it, wherever possible.

As usual, time is catching up with me. In summary, commanders at all levels in the Army deeply regret all incidents that result in loss of life, however those might have occurred, and they take very seriously their duty of care towards those for whom they have responsibility, in respect of training and procedures. We have tried to enable soldiers to undertake activities while minimising the dangers involved.

*************************************************************

Interjected comment:

A few days after the ‘Debate’, the MoD completed it’s ‘Review’ and released a document titled: An Appraisal of Initial Training. The Full report and/or an Executive Summary of the report can be viewed at: http://www.mod.uk/publications/training.htm (as noted in Mr. McNamara’s response to this review).

It’s important that you note and realize that this document is the Metric Equivalent of the document titled: Review of Department of Defense Policies And Procedures For Death
Investigations that was released by DoD in 1996. Additionally, it’s important that you realize and appreciate the fact that the DoD ‘Report’ was in response of Section 1185 (a) of Public Law 103-160 from Fiscal Year 1994. Though lengthy, it’s contents could be summarized in this one sentence: Tighten ranks with uniformity, control the media, make sure that everybody sticks to the ‘story’, no matter how absurd, and nobody will be able to prove anything!

Now...moving right along:

KEVIN McNAMARA MP RESPONSE TO MoD REVIEW

Earlier today, the Ministry of Defence published the report commissioned on 17 October 2002 by Minister of State, Rt Hon Adam Ingram MP. This is available in full on the MoD web site.

The document, "Appraisal of Initial Training", is authored by the Directorate of Operational Capability - headed by a Royal Navy Commodore and a former Army Colonel. While some may have expected the Minister's description of the review as work "undertaken independently of the service and its respective commands" to imply it would have a independent element; it is for all intents and purposes an internal review.

Kevin McNamara MP will be responding to the MoD review in depth when he has had the opportunity to study it fully.

His initial reaction is one of sadness and anger. He is saddened by the failure of the review to address the issues that have led more than 150 Members of Parliament to demand an independent public inquiry into deaths in Army barracks. He is angry that despite having identified a number of serious shortcomings and failings of the training regime, it has so little to offer in recommending potential remedies.

The authors of the review have not visited Deepcut barracks - the focus of ongoing public interest. It has not identified any issues arising from 1,748 non-natural cause deaths in military establishments since 1990; 200 suicides or 200 firearms-related fatalities. Contains no quantitative information on thousands of serious injuries and assaults; provides no statistics on either the complaints or disciplinary system.

The report proposes a "training covenant" of rights and responsibilities for each recruit; an "empowered commissioned officer" to act as a welfare mentor; a confidential questionnaire and more resources for supervisory staff. The report recommends an "Assurance Authority" be established outside the chain of command.

McNamara proposes an independent public inquiry. This must examine and make recommendations on the environment in which a large number of suspicious deaths and larger number of injuries are occurring. It must study and make recommendations that will provide a prompt and effective remedy for deaths and establish a change of regime that will protect against such deaths in the future.

Further details:

The report ducks responsibility for failures; instead it criticises recruits and their parents: "few recruits had had adequate psychological and social training or preparation before entry" (#34), "little definitive testing for persistent depression, indicative psychological disorder or repetitive behavioural and dietary trends" (#34)

The report found that: "(those) less able held back and excited the contempt of their more apt and intelligent colleagues..." (#36) Some of these resigned "because of the frustrations of training with time wasters and 'lame ducks'." Authors speak of "incidents, arbitrary penalties and imposition routines that had recently occurred, but had not been sanctioned by, or communicated to, the higher chain of command. This was euphemistically termed 'additional incentive training'."

The report (#67) notes a 'cultural feature' among recruits that amounts to "an agreed code of silence". "It was accepted among recruits and Instructors that reportable incidents, offences and marginal activity could be managed and dealt with locally, without bothering the officers or the higher chain of command." There was also evidence of "collusive activity" between some junior officers and NCOs to dampen down or look the other way when irregularities or incidents occurred. There were several examples where recruits' confidential conversations with NCOs or officers had been disclosed. The report finds that "it is difficult for recruits and trainees to bypass the chain of command, even in cases of alleged injustice or dispute".

On sexual harassment, the authors imply a dubious parallel between the experience of female trainees "who have claimed to be seriously and persistently harassed" to "examples of NCO Instructors claiming they had been pestered by female recruits and trainees" (#79). Sexual harassment is found to effect recruits "from both sides of the gender divide". The authors observe: "Although the more street-wise were able to take this in their stride, those from more sheltered backgrounds were vulnerable." (#80)

The report describes a "veil of secrecy that tends to hang over most cases alleging harassment, especially in the Army". (#83) It proposes however that the practice of suspending those accused of sexual harassment or bullying be discontinued.

The issue of racism in the Armed Services, identified by the Commission of racial Equality and others, is not addressed. The closest the report comes is in detecting "some peer group animosities and irritation in connection with some Commonwealth recruits". (#86)

On a section headed: 'Relationship with Parents', the authors comment bizarrely: "..everyone remarked that their parents, if they took an interest at all (some appeared to be glad to have their children off their hands), were proud of them and supported them in their careers." The authors observe that the "death of a son or daughter is often the most decisive moment of parents' lives". With no trace of irony, they continue: "..in the past, parents have had, in some instances, to deal with a monolithic, impersonal bureaucracy that has proved insensitive and clumsy".

In a section dealing with diet and nutrition, the authors demonstrate a lack of awareness of dietary issues affecting minority ethnic groups or vegetarians: "Many young people, brought up on fast food, simply did not want traditional fare". "Psychiatric advice suggested that food deprivation and shortage can make young people more susceptible to variations in temperament and can encourage depression.."

10 February, 2003
Office of Kevin McNamara MP
House of Commons, Westminster

Confirm: Martin Collins 020 7219 5194
KevinMcNamaraMP@parliament.uk

*******************************************************************

Interjected comment:

THANK YOU, Mr. McNamara! May God continue Blessing and guiding you in all of your endeavors. Your courage and fortitude in seeking accountability at every level of government is nothing short of admirable.

Shortly after the release of these materials, Geoff Gray was contacted by representatives of Amnesty International and the following article pretty well says it all.

***********************************************************************

EXCLUSIVE

By Tom Martin

HUMAN rights campaigners are to take up the case of Deepcut victim James Collinson amid claims the Government is undermining international treaties on recruits.

Amnesty International has joined the Scottish soldier’s parents in their battle for a public inquiry into his death at the Army barracks, which lie at the centre of sex and bullying claims.

The 17-year-old, from Perth, was found dead with a single gun-shot wound to the head in March last year in what MoD officials claim was a suicide. But he was the fourth soldier to die in mysterious circumstances at the Surrey home of the Royal Logistics Corps, over a seven year period. Privates Sean Benton, 20, and Cheryl James, 18, both died in 1995 while Geoff Gray, who was 17, died in September 2001.

The parents of all four recruits have waged a campaign to have their deaths fully investigated but the Government has refused to answer their demands for a public inquiry. But now ministers are to face worldwide pressure as Amnesty International prepares to launch a new lobbying campaign supporting the Deepcut families.

Officials from the campaign group’s international division met with family representatives last week in the wake of a Government shake-up of the forces’ handling of young recruits.

Ministers insist new guidelines, including guaranteed access to confidential welfare support, are not a direct response to concerns over Deepcut. But yesterday Amnesty campaigners accused the Government of breaching the parents’ human rights with its reluctance to hold a public inquiry and claimed its Under 18s recruitment policy “damaged” international agreements.

Livio Zilli (CORR), researcher with the group’s international secretariat, said: “We have been following these events for some time and understand the difficulties the families have had in obtaining information relating to their children’s deaths. “These families have legitimate concerns which need to be thoroughly and openly investigated and discussed. “To deny them their rights in asking how their children died could be seen as breach of the Convention on Human Rights.“We also have long standing concerns over the UK’s recruitment policy on Under 18s and believe it has put significant numbers of young people.”

The group claims government policy undermines the Convention on the Rights of the Child and believes the recruitment of anyone below the age of 18 jeopardises their mental and physical health. Amnesty has produced a report which criticises arduous training regimes and training with live ammunition and claims young recruits are regularly subjected to bullying.

Mr Zilli added: “Vulnerable children should not be providing the solution to the difficulties faced by the armed forces in recruiting and retaining service personnel. “We will be meeting again with the families representatives to discuss the way forward in supporting their campaign for a public inquiry. “One option available to us is to issue a worldwide alert to our members asking them to write to the British government expressing their concern and backing the parents’ demands.”

The move comes just days after Armed Forces Minister Adam Ingram announced a shake-up of how young recruits are treated in the forces. Under the proposals, young soldiers will be offered welfare support in a drive to stamp out bullying and given a new training “covenant” setting out both the obligations of the training system and of the recruit.

Pte Collinson’s mother, Yvonne, yesterday welcomed Amnesty’s intervention in the case and said the new Government measures would not end the culture of secrecy around her son’s death. She said: “We are delighted by the possibility of international pressure being applied to our campaign for a public inquiry. “I’m aware of the Government’s new proposals but they will do nothing to answer the many questions still surrounding James’ death. “Until all the cases of non-combatant deaths in the Army is addressed properly there will be more bullying and harassment of young soldiers.”

******************************************************************

Final comments:

Observing the advancements, possible when ONE heavy hitter ‘goes to bat’ for families dealing with this ‘issue’ in the UK, is exciting and quite inspiring.

Through the years, when bewildered families, dealing with this ‘issue’ in the United States, presented essential the same material, the Silence has been deafening...so it’s got to be the delivery. It’s hoped, that when Mr. McNamara is finished ‘at bat’, he will consider joining TEAM USA as a pitcher! Or maybe as a coach? (Get a good look at The Sound of Silence and see how deafening it can be!)

Let’s recap the current United States weights and measures system and the metric system that’s in use in the UK and vote on making a recommendation for or against a change, based on the value assigned to the number ONE.

In the US: The weight of the ‘issue’ of questionable deaths in the military is placed on many families, who are then pound into the ground ONE at a time...leaving everyone at risk from murders, who have gotten away with murder.

In the UK: ONE heavy hitter takes on the ‘issue’ of questionable deaths in the military for many families, starting with the four at Deepcut...the benefits of preserving a state of Justice extends to everyone.

Recommendation: The United States system needs to CHANGE!!!!!!!!!!!!

Back to 'Class List'

From the TEEN ESTEEM Calandar,
A thought to ponder:
"Improvement counts no matter how small"