WELCOME...you are on a page that contains WARNINGS and news
that, IF published in your local paper, was probably tucked
away in the middle of the paper and you never found time to read it...so
we will call it....PAGE 4 NEWS!
As you read...feel free to 'play' connect the dots, but consider yourself
warned....it's not a pretty picture!
You can click here
to get back to a page that contains a navigational bar.
...Lariam
WARNING Label
....PAGE 4 NEWS 'new' 2-22-05 Fallujah: the truth at last...by Dr. Salam Ismael...Socialist Worker
- online...Saturday, February 19, 2005
....PAGE 4 NEWS 'new' 2-22-05 Sorrow and fury as
the dead are buried in Fallujah...Socialist Worker - online...Saturday, February 19, 2005
....PAGE 4 NEWS 'new' 2-22-05 Iraqi Elections...by
Naomi Klein - Stop the War Coalition...The Guardian...Saturday, February 12, 2005
....PAGE 4 NEWS Civil
claims provide glimpse into war's impact on Iraqi citizens...Dayton
Daily News...Saturday, October 23, 2004
....PAGE 4 NEWS Navy
coverup alleged on drug side effects ...United Press International...Published
Monday, September 8, 2003
....PAGE 4 NEWS Army misreads Green Beret's
disease....The Seattle Times...Sunday, November
23, 2003.
....PAGE 4 NEWS
Mad Cow Disease (BSE) and Vaccinations....by
Dawn Richardson.
....PAGE 4 NEWS Questioning Ethics of Abu Ghraib Doctors: the tip
of the iceberg...by Willow Marie Maze...Sept. 14, 2004.
....PAGE 4 NEWS DUTY, HONOR, BETRAYAL (series) by David Zeman...published by the Free Press...November 10, 11, 12, 2004.
How U.S. turned its back
on poisoned WWII vets: enlisted men...lab rats, Veterans kept secrets
and Servicemen got runaround.
....PAGE 4 NEWS Marine: US Soldiers Routinely Killed Civilians, Including
Women and Children...The Independent...September 12, 2004
....PAGE 4 NEWS Should
Canada indict Bush? by Thomas Walkom...The Toronto Star...Tuesday,
November 16, 2004.
....PAGE 4 NEWS America
is going the way of Germany...Letter to the Editor by Jerzy
Bala Jr....Fargo Forum, Saturday, November 27, 2004
....PAGE 4 NEWS
War Crime...by Paul Craig Roberts...Creators Syndicate...published
Wednesday, December 8, 2004
....PAGE 4 NEWS You
asked for my evidence, Mr Ambassador. Here it is...By Naomi Klein..."The
Guardian"...December 4, 2004
....PAGE 4 NEWS How
Canada Can Help Force Bush Out of Iraq...by Naomi Klein...www.nologo.org...November 30 2004
....PAGE 4 NEWS Documents
show probes of other Iraq abuse cases...(Agencies)...CHINAdaily...Wednesday,
December 15, 2004
....PAGE 4 NEWS Michael Portillo: An army that bullies its own is ready
to abuse prisoners...TIMESONLINE... January
23, 2005
....PAGE 4 NEWS New Papers
Suggest Detainee Abuse Was Widespread...by staff writers...Washington
Post...December 22, 2004
....PAGE 4 NEWS Bush and Blair: Secrets and Lies...by Neil Mackay...Sunday Herald...Sunday,
September 19, 2004
....PAGE 4 NEWS Richard W.
Bhan: 'A Republican businessman vilifies George Bush...posted...Monday,
October 18, 2004
....PAGE 4 NEWS The
war on Iraq has made moral coward of us all...by Scott Ritter..."The
Guardian"...November 1, 2004
....PAGE 4 NEWS US admits the war for 'hearts and minds' in Iraq is now
lost...by
Neil Mackay...Sunday Harald...December
5, 2004
....PAGE 4 NEWS Ignoring Reality in Iraq...Texas
Straight Talk...by Congressman Ron Paul...Monday, December 13, 2004
....PAGE 4 NEWS BACK TO IRAQ...by Joshua Greene...Cleveland Free
Times...Wednesday, January 5, 2005
....PAGE 4 NEWS
Full English transcript of Usama bin Ladin's speech in a videotape
sent to Aljazeera....November 11, 2004
....PAGE 4 NEWS Bush, Osama
and Israel Concealing Causes and Consequences...by William
A. Cook..."Counterpunch.org"...January 10,
2005
....PAGE 4 NEWS Is Al
Qaeda Just a Bush Boogeyman?...by Robert Scheer...posted by POA...Friday,
January 14, 2005
....PAGE 4 NEWS Hyping
Terror For Fun, Profit - And Power...by Thom Hartmann...Reese.com...Tuesday,
December 28, 2004
....PAGE 4 NEWS Bush wants $80B more for wars; new deficit forecast released...USA
TODAY...Tuesday, January 25, 2005
....PAGE 4 NEWS Is the
world safer now?...an analysis...Belfast Telegraph...Friday, January 28, 2005
....PAGE 4 NEWS Secret
Patriot Act II to give Hitler’s Powers to Bush...By Alex Jones...Infowars.com,
December 8, 2004.
And THINK about: SOMETHING EVIL, THIS WAY COMES...by Rick
Stanley...An American Epic For The 21st Century.
....PAGE 4 NEWS
Death By Slow Burn - How America Nukes Its Own Troops...by
Amy Worthington...Sierra Times, March
5, 2002
....PAGE 4 NEWS INSIDE THE CID: CONFESSIONS OF A ROUGUE AGENT BY
SGT RICHARD EDWARDS*...MilitaryCorruption post
LARIAM LABEL UPDATE, ROCHE
USA, JULY 2002
Roche USA made important changes to the Lariam (mefloquine)
label (product information, PI) in July 2002. They made more changes
on October but did not change the date. This document reflects the
most current label, including the October 2002 updates. For your convenience,
Lariam Action USA has highlighted the differences between the current
label and those of the previous label (August 1999).
LARIAM® brand of (mefloquine hydrochloride) TABLETS
This product information is intended for United States
residents and on-screen viewing only. Before prescribing, please
refer to printed complete product information. Complete Product
Information
DESCRIPTION
CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY
INDICATIONS AND USAGE
CONTRAINDICATIONS
WARNINGS
PRECAUTIONS
ADVERSE REACTIONS
OVERDOSAGE DOSAGE AND ADMINISTRATION
HOW SUPPLIED ANIMAL TOXICOLOGY
DESCRIPTION: Lariam (mefloquine hydrochloride) is an
antimalarial agent available as 250-mg tablets of mefloquine hydrochloride
(equivalent to 228.0 mg of the free base) for oral administration.
Mefloquine hydrochloride is a 4-quinolinemethanol derivative
with the specific chemical name of (R*, S*)-(±)-alpha-2-piperidinyl-2,8-bis
(trifluoromethyl)-4-quinolinemethanol hydrochloride. It is a 2-aryl
substituted chemical structural analog of quinine. The drug is a white
to almost white crystalline compound, slightly soluble in water.
Mefloquine hydrochloride has a calculated molecular weight
of 414.78 and the following structural formula: [molecular diagram]
The inactive ingredients are ammonium-calcium alginate,
corn starch, crospovidone, lactose, magnesium stearate, microcrystalline
cellulose, poloxamer #331, and talc.
CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY: Mefloquine is an antimalarial
agent which acts as a blood schizonticide. Its exact mechanism of
action is not known.
Pharmacokinetic studies of mefloquine in healthy male
subjects showed that a significant lag time occurred after drug administration,
and the terminal elimination half-life varied widely (13 to 24 days)
with a mean of about 3 weeks. Mefloquine is a mixture of enantiomeric
molecules whose rates of release, absorption, transport, action, degradation
and elimination may differ. A valid pharmacokinetic model may not exist
in such a case.
Additional studies in European subjects showed slightly
greater concentrations of drug for longer periods of time. The absorption
half-life was 0.36 to 2 hours, and the terminal elimination half-life
was 15 to 33 days. The primary metabolite was identified and its concentrations
were found to surpass the concentrations of mefloquine.
Multiple-dose kinetic studies confirmed the long elimination
half-lives previously observed. The mean metabolite to mefloquine
ratio measured at steady-state was found to range between 2.3 and 8.6.
The total clearance of the drug, which is essentially
all hepatic, is approximately 30 mL/min. The volume of distribution,
approximately 20 L/kg, indicates extensive distribution. The drug is
highly bound (98%) to plasma proteins and concentrated in blood erythrocytes,
the target cells in malaria, at a relatively constant erythrocyte-to-plasma
concentration ratio of about 2.
The pharmacokinetics of mefloquine in patients with compromised
renal function and compromised hepatic function have not been studied.
In vitro and in vivo studies showed no hemolysis associated
with glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency (see ANIMAL TOXICOLOGY).
Microbiology: Strains of Plasmodium falciparum resistant
to mefloquine have been reported.
INDICATIONS AND USAGE
Treatment of Acute Malaria Infections: Lariam is indicated
for the treatment of mild to moderate acute malaria caused by mefloquine-
susceptible strains of P. falciparum (both chloroquine-susceptible
and resistant strains) or by Plasmodium vivax. There are insufficient
clinical data to document the effect of mefloquine in malaria
caused by P. ovale or P. malariae.
Note: Patients with acute P. vivax malaria, treated with
Lariam, are at high risk of relapse because Lariam does not eliminate
exoerythrocytic (hepatic phase) parasites. To avoid relapse, after
initial treatment of the acute infection with Lariam, patients should
subsequently be treated with an 8-aminoquinoline (eg, primaquine).
Prevention of Malaria: Lariam is indicated for the prophylaxis
of P. falciparum and P. vivax malaria infections, including prophylaxis
of chloroquine-resistant strains of P. falciparum.
CONTRAINDICATIONS
Use of Lariam is contraindicated in patients with a known
hypersensitivity to mefloquine or related compounds (eg, quinine
and quinidine). Lariam should not be prescribed for prophylaxis in
patients with active depression, a recent history of depression,
generalized anxiety disorder, psychosis, or schizophrenia or other major
psychiatric disorders, or with a history of convulsions.
WARNINGS
In case of life-threatening, serious or overwhelming
malaria infections due to P. falciparum, patients should be treated
with an intravenous antimalarial drug. Following completion of intravenous
treatment, Lariam may be given to complete the course of therapy.
Data on the use of halofantrine subsequent to administration
of Lariam suggests a significant, potentially fatal prolongation
of the QTc interval of the ECG. Therefore, halofantrine must not be
given simultaneously with or subsequent to Lariam. No data are available
on the use of Lariam after halofantrine (see PRECAUTIONS: Drug Interactions).
Mefloquine may cause psychiatric symptoms in a number
of patients, ranging from anxiety, paranoia and depression to hallucinations
and psychotic behavior. On occations, these symptoms have
been reported to continue long after mefloquine has been stopped.
Rare cases of suicidal ideation and suicide have been reported though
no relationship to drug administration has been confirmed. To
minimize the chances of these adverse events, mefloquine should not
be taken for prophylaxis in patients with active depression or with
a recent history of depression, generalized anxiety disorder, psychosis,
or schizophrenia or other major psychiatric disorders. Lariam
should be used with caution in patients with a previous history of depression.
During prophylactic use, if psychiatric symptoms such
as acute anxiety, depression, restlessness or confusion occur, these
may be considered prodromal to a more serious event. In these
cases, the drug must be discontinued and an alternative medication
should be substituted.
Concomitant administration of Lariam and quinine or quinidine
may produce electrocardiographic abnormalities.
Concomitant administration of Lariam and quinine or chloroquine
may increase the risk of convulsions.
PRECAUTIONS
General: In patients with epilepsy, Lariam may increase
the risk of convulsions. The drug should therefore be prescribed only
for curative treatment in such patients and only if there are compelling
medical reasons for its use (see PRECAUTIONS: Drug Interactions).
Caution should be exercised with regard to activities
requiring alertness and fine motor coordination such as driving,
piloting aircraft and operating machinery, as dizziness, a loss of
balance, or other disorders of the central or peripheral nervous system
have been reported during and following the use of Lariam. These effects
may occur after therapy is discontinued due to the long half-life of the
drug. <SNIP—language put into Warnings section> Lariam
should be used with caution in patients with psychiatric disturbances
because mefloquine use has been associated with emotional disturbances
(see ADVERSE REACTIONS).
In patients with impaired liver function the elimination
of mefloquine may be prolonged, leading to higher plasma levels.
This drug has been administered for longer than 1 year.
If the drug is to be administered for a prolonged period, periodic
evaluations including liver function tests should be performed. Although
retinal abnormalities seen in humans with long-term chloroquine use
have not been observed with mefloquine use, long-term feeding of
mefloquine to rats resulted in dose-related ocular lesions (retinal
degeneration, retinal edema and lenticular opacity at 12.5 mg/kg/day
and higher) (see ANIMAL TOXICOLOGY). Therefore, periodic ophthalmic
examinations are recommended.
Parenteral studies in animals show that mefloquine, a
myocardial depressant, possesses 20% of the antifibrillatory action
of quinidine and produces 50% of the increase in the PR interval reported
with quinine. The effect of mefloquine on the compromised cardiovascular
system has not been evaluated. However, transitory and clinically silent
ECG alterations have been reported during the use of mefloquine. Alterations
included sinus bradycardia, sinus arrhythmia, first degree AV-block,
prolongation of the QTc interval and abnormal T waves (see also cardiovascular
effects under PRECAUTIONS: Drug Interactions and ADVERSE REACTIONS).
The benefits of Lariam therapy should be weighed against the possibility
of adverse effects in patients with cardiac disease.
Laboratory Tests: Periodic evaluation of hepatic function
should be performed during prolonged prophylaxis.
Information for Patients:
Patients should be advised:
- that malaria can be a life-threatening infection in
the traveler;
- that if patients experience psychiatric symptoms
such as acute anxiety, depression, restlessness or confusion, these
may be considered prodromal to a more serious event. In these cases,
the drug must be discontinued and an alternative medication should be
substituted;
- that Lariam is being prescribed to help prevent or
treat this serious infection;
- that in a small percentage of cases, patients are unable
to take this medication because of side effects, and it may be necessary
to change medications;
- that when used as prophylaxis, the first dose of Lariam
should be taken one week prior to departure;
- that no chemoprophylactic regimen is 100% effective,
and protective clothing, insect repellents, and bednets are important
components of malaria prophylaxis;
- to seek medical attention for any febrile illness that
occurs after return from a malarious area and inform their physician
that they may have been exposed to malaria.
Drug Interactions: Drug-drug interactions with Lariam
have not been explored in detail. There is one report of cardiopulmonary
arrest, with full recovery, in a patient who was taking a beta blocker
(propranolol) (see PRECAUTIONS: General). The effects of mefloquine
on the compromised cardiovascular system have not been evaluated.
The benefits of Lariam therapy should be weighed against the possibility
of adverse effects in patients with cardiac disease.
Because of the danger of a potentially fatal prolongation
of the QTc interval, halofantrine should not be given simultaneously
with or subsequent to Lariam (see WARNINGS).
Concomitant administration of Lariam and other related
compounds (eg, quinine, quinidine and chloroquine) may produce electrocardiographic
abnormalities and increase the risk of convulsions (see WARNINGS).
If these drugs are to be used in the initial treatment of severe
malaria, Lariam administration should be delayed at least 12 hours
after the last dose. There is evidence that the use of halofantrine
after mefloquine causes a significant lengthening of the QTc interval.
Clinically significant QTc prolongation has not been found with mefloquine
alone.
This appears to be the only clinically relevant interaction
of this kind with Lariam, although theoretically, coadministration
of other drugs known to alter cardiac conduction (eg, anti-arrhythmic
or beta-adrenergic blocking agents, calcium channel blockers, antihistamines
or H1-blocking agents, tricyclic antidepressants and phenothiazines)
might also contribute to a prolongation of the QTc interval. There
are no data that conclusively establish whether the concomitant administration
of mefloquine and the above listed agents has an effect on cardiac function.
In patients taking an anticonvulsant (eg, valproic acid,
carbamazepine, phenobarbital or phenytoin), the concomitant use
of Lariam may reduce seizure control by lowering the plasma levels
of the anticonvulsant. Therefore, patients concurrently taking antiseizure
medication and Lariam should have the blood level of their antiseizure
medication monitored and the dosage adjusted appropriately (see PRECAUTIONS:
General).
When Lariam is taken concurrently with oral live typhoid
vaccines, attenuation of immunization cannot be excluded. Vaccinations
with attenuated live bacteria should therefore be completed at least
3 days before the first dose of Lariam.
No other drug interactions are known. Nevertheless, the
effects of Lariam on travelers receiving comedication, particularly
those on anticoagulants or antidiabetics, should be checked before
departure.
In clinical trials, the concomitant administration of
sulfadoxine and pyrimethamine did not alter the adverse reaction
profile.
Carcinogenesis, Mutagenesis, Impairment of Fertility:
Carcinogenesis: The carcinogenic potential of mefloquine
was studied in rats and mice in
2-year feeding studies at doses of up to 30 mg/kg/day.
No treatment-related increases in tumors of any type were noted.
Mutagenesis: The mutagenic potential of mefloquine was
studied in a variety of assay systems including: Ames test, a host-mediated
assay in mice, fluctuation tests and a mouse micronucleus assay.
Several of these assays were performed with and without prior metabolic
activation. In no instance was evidence obtained for the mutagenicity
of mefloquine.
Impairment of Fertility: Fertility studies in rats at
doses of 5, 20, and 50 mg/kg/day of mefloquine have demonstrated adverse
effects on fertility in the male at the high dose of 50 mg/kg/day,
and in the female at doses of 20 and 50 mg/kg/day. Histopathological
lesions were noted in the epididymides from male rats at doses of
20 and 50 mg/kg/day. Administration of 250 mg/week of mefloquine (base)
in adult males for 22 weeks failed to reveal any deleterious effects
on human spermatozoa.
Pregnancy: Teratogenic Effects. Pregnancy Category C.
Mefloquine has been demonstrated to be teratogenic in rats and mice
at a dose of 100 mg/kg/day. In rabbits, a high dose of 160 mg/kg/day
was embryotoxic and teratogenic, and a dose of 80 mg/kg/day was teratogenic
but not embryotoxic. There are no adequate and well-controlled studies
in pregnant women. However, clinical experience with Lariam has not
revealed an embryotoxic or teratogenic effect. Mefloquine should be
used during pregnancy only if the potential benefit justifies the potential
risk to the fetus. Women of childbearing potential who are traveling to
areas where malaria is endemic should be warned against becoming pregnant.
Women of childbearing potential should also be advised to practice contraception
during malaria prophylaxis with Lariam.
Nursing Mothers: Mefloquine is excreted in human milk.
Based on a study in a few subjects, low concentrations (3% to 4%)
of mefloquine were excreted in human milk following a dose equivalent
to 250 mg of the free base. Because of the potential for serious adverse
reactions in nursing infants from mefloquine, a decision should be
made whether to discontinue the drug, taking into account the importance
of the drug to the mother.
Pediatric Use: Use of Lariam to treat acute, uncomplicated
P. falciparum malaria in pediatric patients is supported by evidence
from adequate and well-controlled studies of Lariam in adults with
additional data from published open-label and comparative trials using
Lariam to treat malaria caused by P. falciparum in patients younger than
16 years of age. The safety and effectiveness of Lariam for the treatment
of malaria in pediatric patients below the age of 6 months have not
been established.
In several studies, the administration of Lariam for
the treatment of malaria was associated with early vomiting in pediatric
patients. Early vomiting was cited in some reports as a possible cause
of treatment failure. If a second dose is not tolerated, the patient
should be monitored closely and alternative malaria treatment considered
if improvement is not observed within a reasonable period of time (see
DOSAGE AND ADMINISTRATION).
ADVERSE REACTIONS
Clinical: At the doses used for treatment of acute malaria
infections, the symptoms possibly attributable to drug cannot be
distinguished from those symptoms usually attributable to the disease
itself.
Among subjects who received mefloquine for prophylaxis
of malaria, the most frequently observed adverse experience was
vomiting (3%). Dizziness, syncope, extrasystoles and other complaints
affecting less than 1% were also reported.
Among subjects who received mefloquine for treatment,
the most frequently observed adverse experiences included: dizziness,
myalgia, nausea, fever, headache, vomiting,
chills, diarrhea, skin rash, abdominal pain, fatigue,
loss of appetite, and tinnitus. Those side effects occurring
in less than 1% included bradycardia, hair loss, emotional problems,
pruritus, asthenia, transient emotional disturbances
and telogen effluvium (loss of resting hair). Seizures
have also been reported.
Two serious adverse reactions were cardiopulmonary arrest
in one patient shortly after ingesting a single prophylactic dose
of mefloquine while concomitantly using propranolol (see PRECAUTIONS),
and encephalopathy of unknown etiology during prophylactic mefloquine
administration. The relationship of encephalopathy to drug administration
could not be clearly established.
Postmarketing: Postmarketing surveillance indicates that
the same kind of adverse experiences are reported
during prophylaxis, as well as acute treatment.
The most frequently reported adverse events are
nausea, vomiting, loose stools or diarrhea, abdominal pain, dizziness
or vertigo, loss of balance, and neuropsychiatric events such as headache
somnolence, and sleep disorders (insomnia, abnormal dreams)
These are usually mild and may decrease despite continued use.
Occasionally, more severe neuropsychiatric disorders
have been reported such as: sensory and motor neuropathies (including
paresthesia, tremor and ataxia), convulsions, agitation or restlessness,
anxiety, depression, mood changes, panic attacks, forgetfulness,
confusion, hallucinations, aggression, psychotic or paranoid reactions
and encephalopathy. Rare cases of suicidal ideation and suicide have
been reported though no relationship to drug administration has been
confirmed.
Other infrequent adverse events include:
Cardiovascular Disorders: circulatory disturbances
(hypotension, hypertension, flushing, syncope), chest pain,
tachycardia or palpitation, bradycardia, irregular pulse, extrasystoles,
A-V block, and other transient cardiac conduction alterations.
Skin Disorders: rash, exanthema, erythema,
urticaria, pruritus, hair loss, erythema multiforme, and Stevens-Johnson
Syndrome.
Musculoskeletal Disorders: muscle weakness,
muscle cramps, myalgia, and arthralgia.
OTHER symptoms: visual disturbances,
vestibular disorders including tinnitus and hearing impairment,
dyspnea, asthenia, malaise, fatigue, fever
sweating, chills, dyspepsia and loss
of appetite.
Laboratory: The most frequently observed laboratory alterations
which could be possibly attributable to drug administration were
decreased hematocrit, transient elevation of transaminases, leukopenia
and thrombocytopenia. These alterations were observed in patients with
acute malaria who received treatment doses of the drug and were attributed
to the disease itself.
During prophylactic administration of mefloquine to indigenous
populations in malaria-endemic areas, the following occasional
alterations in laboratory values were observed: transient elevation
of transaminases, leukocytosis or thrombocytopenia.
Because of the long half-life of mefloquine, adverse
reactions to Lariam may occur or persist up to several weeks after
the last dose.
OVERDOSAGE: In cases of overdosage with Lariam, the symptoms
mentioned under ADVERSE REACTIONS may be more pronounced. The following
procedure is recommended in case of overdosage: Induce vomiting
or perform gastric lavage, as appropriate. Monitor cardiac function
(if possible by ECG) and neurologic and psychiatric status for
at least
24 hours. Provide symptomatic and intensive supportive
treatment as required, particularly for cardiovascular disturbances.
Treat vomiting or diarrhea with standard fluid therapy.
DOSAGE AND ADMINISTRATION (see INDICATIONS AND USAGE):
<NO CHANGES>
Manufactured by F. HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE LTD Basel, Switzerland
Distributed by Roche Laboratories Inc., 340 Kingsland
Street, Nutley, New Jersey
07110-1199
Revised: JULY 2002 Printed in USA
Copyright © 1999-2002 by Roche Laboratories Inc.
All rights reserved.
THINK
Back to ALERTS
Navy coverup
alleged on drug side effects
By Mark Benjamin and Dan Olmsted
United Press International
Published 9/8/2003 7:05 AM
SAN DIEGO, Sept. 8 (UPI) -- A Naval Reserve commander
who volunteered for the Iraq war says the military doctored his
medical file to eliminate all traces of an anti-malaria drug that
he believes made him severely ill, suicidal and aggressive - and
that he has the before-and-after evidence to prove it.
"I was given Lariam. I got sick from Lariam," said Cmdr.
William , 44, who is based at the Naval Air Warfare Center
in China Lake, Calif. "The Navy does not want to talk about Lariam.
There is no mention of it in my medical record. I'm pretty upset."
said there is no indication in his file of ever
being prescribed the drug, although the Navy handed it to him last
November; that a page is missing on which "Took Lariam" was written;
and that a reference to the drug during an emergency clinic visit on
May 13 has mysteriously vanished from the page - even though he has
a copy that clearly shows it written there.
and his wife, Tori, believe the military is covering
up problems with the drug - the Navy's main concern so far, they
said, is to try to get the medical records back. A spokesman for the
Navy Bureau of Medicine and Surgery would only say that it provides
quality care and is working "to resolve the issue."
"The military created the drug," Tori said (it
was developed by the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research and
licensed to Roche). "There is a lot of money involved in the drug.
I think there are a lot of careers at stake. Anything that shows a
problem with Lariam has to be hidden or covered up somehow by the military.
If all these people came back and it was clearly Lariam, there would
be lawsuits up the kazoo."
Lariam is the drug that at least two of the soldiers who
killed their wives at Fort Bragg last summer took while serving in
Afghanistan. Both those soldiers - and a third who apparently had taken
the drug - subsequently killed themselves. The drug's label warns of
psychosis, aggression, hallucinations and reports of suicide that can
occur "long after" someone stops taking it. The Food and Drug Administration
this year ordered that everyone prescribed the drug be handed a written
statement listing those dangers and warning them to quit taking it if
they experience mental problems.
The government and the company that makes Lariam, Swiss
drug giant Hoffmann-La Roche, say the drug is safe and effective.
The FDA says it doesn't know whether the drug can trigger suicide.
Roche says there is no reliable evidence it can trigger violent behavior.
The Pentagon says side effects are generally rare and mild and are
outweighed by the risk of getting malaria.
, who never took Lariam before being deployed
to Kuwait last December, became suicidal after returning to California
this spring and nearly slugged his wife in a bizarre rage about the
way she cast her fishing line. He also suffered seizures, balance problems
so severe he sometimes could not stand, panic attacks and depression.
Tori became convinced Lariam was the culprit
after researching on the Web the medications her husband was taking.
On June 26, after several visits to the China Lake clinic in which
they raised the Lariam issue but felt they were being ignored, Bill
went to the clinic to pick up his records on his way to see
a neurologist. He flipped through them to make sure Lariam was documented.
"The first thing I noticed was a sheet missing," he said.
"Both Tori and I had seen the sheet. Someone had written on an angle,
'Took Lariam' and it was no longer there. There was no entry for
being issued Lariam."
flipped more pages, looking for the record of
a May 13 visit to the clinic. That day, his wife had insisted a Navy
doctor write the drug on that record and both had watched him do it.
He found the page on which he felt certain that note had been written.
Nothing.
knew his memory was shot, that he was acting
strangely, and there was no reason for anyone to believe him. But
he had a backup. Tori - suspicious that Navy doctors were
ignoring the drug - secretly photocopied the page after the doctor
wrote down "Lariam" on the May 13 visit and briefly left the room.
Tori's copy clearly shows the reference, "Lariam for anti
malaria" Underneath that, four other medicines was taking
also are gone; they are mentioned elsewhere on the visit.
Two independent document examiners consulted by UPI concluded
that unless the s themselves faked the doctor's writing
and created bogus copies, only the Navy can explain the omission.
The document experts could find no evidence that writing
had been erased from the May 13 record. One of the experts - a former
head of an FBI questioned documents office - told UPI that the likeliest
scenario is that the clinic made a copy of the May 13 page while the
s were still there, and the doctor wrote "Lariam" on that copy
after Tori insisted. That sheet never made it into his medical file.
While such a chain of events could theoretically be accidental,
Tori believes the Navy knows it has a problem with the
drug, and was keeping two sets of records and recording Lariam problems
on only one.
UPI contacted the doctor who saw on the May 13
visit and asked if he knew anything about changes in the medical
record. He declined to comment and said he had been told to refer questions
to Twentynine Palms Marine base, which forwarded them to the Navy Bureau
of Medicine and Surgery in Washington. Spokesman Brian Badura issued
this statement:
"Successful medical treatment relies on accurate information,
close cooperation and communication between provider and patient,
and follow-up by all parties involved. Navy Medicine makes a concentrated
effort to meet the needs of each patient. Due to the number of circumstances
surrounding the case and the ongoing efforts by Navy Medicine
to resolve this issue, we cannot offer additional input at this time."
Several other service members who served in Iraq have
told UPI they had serious problems with the drug - including one
who says he was afraid of harming his wife and that there was no record
of him being prescribed Lariam, either. At least two soldiers were
medically evacuated from Iraq with suspected Lariam problems, one an
Army officer in charge of 300 soldiers, the other a soldier who felt
the way he was treated suggested the Army was "avoiding the Lariam diagnosis."
The Army is now discharging him.
The Washington Post reported in July that the military
is investigating at least seven suicides among troops in Iraq, among
a larger number of deaths classified as "non-combat weapons discharge"
or "non-combat related."
The Pentagon hasn't identified any deaths as suicides
since the war started.
Earlier this year, two more soldiers deployed out of Fort
Bragg who took Lariam in Afghanistan committed suicide after returning
home - bringing the number of suicides after that war to at least
five. In one case, the soldier's father said he asked Fort Bragg officials
if the Lariam given to his son could have played a role. "They have no
comment," he told UPI.
The Pentagon insists that there have been few problems
with the drug, prescribed to soldiers around the world to prevent
malaria. More 25 million people have taken it worldwide, according
to the manufacturer, 5 million of them in the U.S.
Assistant Secretary of Defense Dr. William Winkenwerder,
Jr., wrote a U.S. congressman last fall that any possible side effects
are "greatly outweighed by the drug's effectiveness in preventing
the severe consequences of malaria infections" among troops.
In the Fort Bragg homicide-suicides, a team of experts
dispatched by the Army Surgeon General's office concluded that Lariam
was an "unlikely" explanation for the entire cluster of deaths but
acknowledged it had not investigated it in any single case. It blamed
the deaths on marital problems.
At the time, critics said some of the Fort Bragg deaths
should have been investigated as possibly drug related, especially
because there was no history of domestic abuse and all three of the
soldiers who had been in Afghanistan killed themselves - both unusual
in domestic homicide cases.
A former Roche employee said that Lariam, known generically
as mefloquine, is a member of the quinolone family of drugs that
can produce severe psychiatric problems in some users.
"Any drug with a quinolone base to it, which includes
Lariam, is likely to do this," said Dr. Donald H. Marks, former associate
director of clinical research at Roche who now consults with attorneys
suing drug manufacturers. "These types of drugs can induce a temporary
homicidal or suicidal rage."
The Army puts the rate of severe side effects at 1 in
13,000. A widely reported British study completed in 1996 found
that one person in 140 had such serious problems that they temporarily
couldn't carry out the function for which they were traveling.
The s said they were willing to take on the Navy
publicly because they are convinced the truth is not being told, and
concerned that other soldiers returning from deployments overseas are
getting the same treatment.
They showed UPI Bill 's complete medical file
and Navy service record; e-mails from the Navy psychiatrist who
treated him before he decided not to work with the Navy any more; a
log Tori kept of Bill's symptoms, and all the medicines he was taking
including remaining Lariam pills. They gave interviews in California
and Washington in which they went over the events almost minute by minute.
The s outlined this sequence of events.
A 17-year veteran of the Naval Reserve, was handed
Lariam last November at China Lake before being deployed. There was
no prescription written or warning given of possible side effects,
and Tori said she has since been told by a base medical worker
that there were "special instructions for dispensing and documenting"
the drug.
Bill served active duty at an air base in Kuwait
during the war, using his top-secret clearance on a targeting system.
But he suffered what he now says were bad Lariam side effects that
started in Kuwait and got worse when he got home and kept taking his
pills as directed. He's had uncontrollable vomiting and vertigo, depression
and anxiety attacks requiring hospitalization. His hands tremble. He
stutters and repeats himself. He has frightening seizures.
After 11 years of marriage, Tori said that after taking
Lariam, Bill's personality changed drastically from the gentle husband
she knew.
The drug is taken weekly while deployed and for four more
weeks after a person returns, so was still taking the pills
when he got back.
Tori kept a journal documenting her husband's problems.
An entry for May 2 described his symptoms as "balance off, angry,
moody, coping poorly, sad, depressed. What really bothers me is
'aggressive - highly aggressive.'"
The couple tried to go fishing in early May in an effort
to relax. But Bill got so angry he scared his wife. When she cast
her line in the water, "Bill came over and said, 'Do it this way,'" she
wrote in the journal documenting his problems. "He kept saying it over
and over - extremely angry!!!"
After she told him she was upset and wanted to stop fishing,
"he leaned over me like he was going to slug me in the head and said,
'If you don't do it this way I'm going to ...'" He stopped in the middle
of the sentence and backed off. She said that a few hours later he had
no memory of the incident.
Bill told UPI later that, "I was trying not to
pull a Fort Bragg."
"I wanted to make sure Bill had the proper care with Lariam
toxicity," Tori said, describing the May 13 visit to the China Lake
clinic. The symptoms I read on the Internet matched up with Bill's
to a tee. I told the doctor that I thought that Lariam was responsible
for his symptoms. I said, 'Doctor, would you write Lariam down.'"
"He wrote everything down and put the clipboard on the
bed near Bill's legs. I leaned over and I said, 'Bill, I need to copy
this.' They had a copy machine down the hall. I went down and copied it
and did not say anything to anybody about it."
Later in May, became suicidal. On May 31, Tori
said that while she was driving them to a restaurant, "Bill's panic,
anxiety and distress became so acute that he proceeded to try and
claw his way out of the truck so he could jump out. I kept telling
him, 'Bill, it's gonna be OK, it's gonna be OK.' He said he was crawling
out of skin, he had to get out of there."
At the restaurant, "Bill went to the bathroom and began
vomiting, he then sat on the floor and said repeatedly that he was
going to blow his brains out.
The s say that Bill was referred to a Navy psychiatrist
who also seemed to resist the idea that a drug prescribed by the
Navy could be causing his problems. She diagnosed him with anxiety
and "narcissistic" and "histrionic" personality traits.
Then, on June 26, Bill discovered the changes
in his medical record.
Copyright © 2001-2003 United Press International
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C.
Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those
who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information
for research and educational purposes.)
Civil claims provide glimpse
into war's impact on Iraqi citizens
By Russell Carollo, Larry Kaplow, Mike Wagner and Ken
McCall
Dayton Daily News
Saturday, October 23, 2004
BAGHDAD, Iraq — Tahsin Ali Hussein al-Ruba'i knew
that danger waited in the darkened streets, where American soldiers
suspicious of every approaching vehicle lurked near poorly marked
checkpoints.
The 32-year-old knew the danger because he made his living
earning $3 to $4 a day driving his orange-and-white 1983 Volkswagen
Passat in the streets of Baghdad. But on July 1, 2003, his infant
daughter, Tabarek, had the flu, and he decided to risk driving to
his in-laws so he could pick her up and take her to a hospital.
As his taxi neared the working-class Cairo Street neighborhood,
American soldiers spread several Humvees across an eight-lane boulevard,
preparing to stop oncoming vehicles. Fearing someone would be shot
because the makeshift checkpoint had no signs, cones or lights, a man
selling kabobs along the road 50 yards away started waving and yelling
at unsuspecting motorists.
Al-Ruba'i apparently never got the warning.
Soldiers opened fire with rifles and mounted machine guns,
riddling his taxi with bullet holes and killing him, witnesses said.
"They (the soldiers) were the reason for what happened.
They didn't point to him and tell him to stop," said the kabob vendor,
Taha Mehdi al-Jabouri. "They treat us in a savage way."
The family filed a civil claim asking for $2,500 from the
American military, but the claim was denied.
The case is among 4,611 never-before-released civil claims
from Iraq — hundreds alleging abuse and misconduct by American military
personnel — on a computer database obtained by the Dayton Daily News
through the federal Freedom of Information Act. The U.S. Army tort
claims database is the most comprehensive public record released to
date of alleged acts against Iraqi civilians by American forces, which
do not otherwise systematically track civilian casualties.
The records provide a previously unseen portrait of the
toll the war has had on civilians in Iraq, and the kinds of incidents
described in the records have fueled the growing insurgency and hatred
toward the American-led coalition.
About 78 percent of the claims are for incidents that occurred
after President Bush declared major combat operations over on May
2, 2003.
"When we first got there, the Iraqis were glad to see us.
I believe things changed because there was disrespect to the people,"
said Elizabeth Wisdorf of Colorado Springs, Colo., who served for
nearly a year in Iraq as a member of the Colorado National Guard's 220th
Military Police Company. "There were a lot of accidents, a lot of deaths."
At least 16 death claims specifically identify 20 children
as victims, most from bombings or shootings, and another 193 claims
allege 171 sons or daughters were killed without providing an age.
Incidents such as these have turned many Iraqis, such as
the family of Samir Shleman Chaman, against the American occupation.
Chaman, a house painter, was killed when a tank crushed his car as
he was returning from a painting job — one of at least 150 Iraqis
allegedly killed or injured in encounters with military vehicles.
"Our point of view toward the Americans has changed. You
can feel the fury inside you," said Amir Shleman, Chaman's brother.
"If they treated people like human beings, no one would take up weapons
against them."
Like other Iraqis, Shleman's grieving family became more
outraged at how the military handled their claim for compensation.
Chaman was a husband and father of a 7-year-old boy and
a 13-year-old girl. The day after he was killed, the family said,
soldiers left $2,000 near the pillow of his widow — money the family
was told was for funeral expenses.
When they filed a claim through an Iraqi attorney for compensation
for the children, they encountered months of delays and confusion
before finally receiving a letter on Sept. 7, 2004.
"The evidence does not prove that the death of your husband
or damages to your vehicle were due to the negligent or wrongful acts
of the United States Armed Forces," the letter reads.
The claim was denied.
"I think it is despicable how we are treating the innocent
people or their families after there is a tragedy," said Ivan Medina
of Middletown, N.Y., who served as an assistant chaplain for the
Army's 10th engineer battalion in Iraq. "We do nothing for them after
these terrible things happen. These are innocent people, not soldiers
fighting a battle."
Army Lt. Col. Charlotte Herring said the Army, which handles
civil claims for all three services in Iraq, has given out $8.2
million since June 2003 and budgeted $10 million in fiscal year
2005 to help the Iraqi people deal with losses suffered because
of the war. Considering the dangerous conditions in Iraq, she said,
the system is "working famously." She blamed some of the problems on
the realities of war and predicted improvements as hostilities subside.
Through the claims system, "the local commander can try
to keep good will and come and amend a somewhat tragic situation,"
said Marine Reserve Capt. Sean Dunn, who worked as a platoon commander
and supervised claims payments in Iraq. "You're also trying to keep
the neighborhood from going nuts and attacking other people."
Proving whether the claims were valid, he said, often was
a difficult and time-consuming job.
"There were blatantly fraudulent claims," he said. "As
soon as they realized there was money being paid, they were beating
down the door wanting money for all kinds of crazy things with no evidence
whatsoever."
Soldiers who served in Iraq said innocent civilians sometimes
become victims because soldiers are forced to react to situations
without knowing whether they will encounter a roadside bomb, an attacker
dressed like a civilian or a motorist who steers into a convoy or absent-mindedly
runs through a checkpoint.
Spc. Charles Bradford, 29, who went to elementary school
in Dayton while his father was in the Air Force, earned a Purple
Heart for a shrapnel wound and survived two roadside bombs and eight
rocket-propelled grenade attacks. He is regularly hit with stones
when he rides the "gunning" position through the hatch of his Humvee.
But he said he has fired his rifle only once since coming to Iraq in
March.
"I give these people a chance regardless of the stuff I've
been through," he said. "Every day I go out of the (base), I pray
I don't have to kill anyone."
Spc. Grant Horn, 23, of Quakertown, Penn., was recently
about 50 feet from a car bomb explosion that left him shaken and with
cuts on his face. He has not fired at anyone, he said, but he knows
that with the city's dangerous streets comes the possibility of wounding
a civilian.
"You don't want to do it, but if it happened I would be
glad I was alive," he said. "It's better to be safe than sorry."
Retired Air Force Col. Sam Gardiner, a Department of Defense
consultant who once headed the strategy department at the National
War College, said the fear, hatred and corresponding acts of violence
are byproducts of lengthy occupations.
"It feeds on itself because people are angry," said Gardiner,
who was assigned to strategy and prisoner of war recovery from Thailand
during the Vietnam War. "It frightens soldiers more. They feel less
secure. They react more strongly, which creates more anger, which causes
people to be more afraid, which (makes soldiers) pull the trigger faster.
"Once you start down this slippery slope, I don't know
that anybody knows how to stop it."
'Legitimate targets'
Claims in the Army database seek compensation for at least
437 Iraqi deaths and 468 injuries.
However, the actual number of casualties is unknown. The
database recorded only a portion of the total deaths and injuries
because not all alleged acts by American personnel resulted in claims.
In addition, difficult conditions in parts of Iraq prevented up to
70 percent of the claims committees there from accessing the database,
Herring said. She estimated that the Army has received as many as 18,000
claims in the last year alone.
Victims and their families filed claims for homes destroyed
in bombings, confiscated property, and injuries and deaths from shootings
and bombings, according to the database. In 29 cases, Iraqis claimed
the military left so-called "unexploded ordnance" that later detonated,
killing 14 and injuring 25 innocent people.
The victims in at least six Iraqi claims were allegedly
hit by warning shots that went awry.
In an April 8, 2004, incident in Balad Ruz, a soldier fired
a .50-caliber machine gun into the air to disperse a crowd of about
100 civilian demonstrators, according to an Army account of the incident.
The soldier ducked to avoid being hit by rocks being thrown by the
crowd, and the gun accidentally discharged twice, killing an 11-year-old
boy named Mustafa Nadig, the account says.
"The U.S. soldier who shot the 11-year-old boy was seen
by (a military officer) with his hands up in the air giving the three-fingered
`hang loose/surfs up' sign as the soldier was driving away," the Army
records say.
"It appears probable that U.S. forces facilitated the death
of a civilian boy," the records say, adding that a $2,500 payment
to the family was approved by a general.
In two other warning-shot cases, the victims were described
as deaf.
Victims in at least two other cases were identified as
bus passengers, one whose arm was amputated after a Marine allegedly
fired "a warning shot" into the bus. The other, described in Army
records as an "innocent passenger," was killed after a soldier from
the 194th Military Police Company fired into a bus.
The victim in a sixth claim was identified as a 13-year-old
boy hit by a "ricochet bullet fired as a warning shot" that entered
his thigh and fractured his femur. Army records say that the boy required
a year to recover and that there were "some minor residual issues such
as a slightly shorter leg."
In a separate case, Army records show, a soldier from the
220th Military Police Brigade fired at the tires of a driver who was
fleeing soldiers in Scania, "accidentally shooting the deceased in
the chest, killing him," according to Army records.
The soldier in that case was never prosecuted, an Army
spokesman said.
Under Section 2 of Coalition Provisional Authority Order
Number 17, which will remain in effect until the "last coalition
element leaves Iraq," coalition forces are immune from civil lawsuits
and criminal charges. The immunity leaves Iraqis with a single option:
filing for compensation under the Foreign Claims Act with the United
States Armed Services, the same entity they are accusing of wrongdoing.
Other countries do not grant such immunity to American
soldiers.
After Spc. Christopher McCarthy was convicted of killing
bar hostess Kim Sung-hi in Korea in 2000, the victim's family not
only got a $154,000 payment from the Army, but also received a civil
judgment from the South Korean court.
"We just rounded up what we could and sent it (the money)
over there," McCarthy's mother, Susan McCarthy, recalled.
More than 1,000 claims involved vehicle accidents — by
far the largest category of claims recorded in the database. At
least 160 of those involved tanks or Bradley Fighting Vehicles, resulting
in at least seven deaths and 16 injuries.
More than 400 claims involved destruction of crops, trees,
livestock or water sources — property essential to the survival of
Iraqi citizens.
A Daily News analysis of the roughly 4,600 claims in Iraq
shows just one in four resulted in some type of payment. Of the 51,018
Army claims filed in other countries during that same period, one
in two resulted in a payment.
Lt. Col. Herring, the chief of the U.S. Army's Foreign
Torts Branch, said the database is incomplete. In fiscal year 2004
the Army paid 11,000 claims and denied 3,000, she said. Prior to
this past June, however, the Army did not track how many claims were
denied.
According to the database, the average payment for a death
in Iraq was $3,421, less than 1/20th of the average payment for a
claim filed anywhere else.
On May 12, 2003, an Iraqi man died when a tire fell from
a U.S. Army vehicle in Tikrit, and his widow received $5,000, according
to Army records. On April 24, 1999, in Bath County, Ky., a female motorist
suffered neck and back injuries after a tire fell from a military vehicle,
and she got $50,000, or 10 times what the Iraq widow received for losing
her husband under nearly identical circumstances.
The Army paid $5,000 — the same amount given the Iraq widow
— to a woman who got a staple stuck in her finger at Fort Buchanan,
Puerto Rico.
In addition to the formal claims system in Iraq, Iraqis
were sometimes given $2,500 in so-called solatia or sympathy payments
without any paperwork at all, said attorney Jack Bournazian, who
held seminars to show Iraqi attorneys how to file civil claims.
The payments, military officials said, were frequently
given out as a way of defusing animosity toward American forces and
improving relations in a community.
Attorneys and representatives of human rights groups said
the process used in Iraq to settle civil claims is subjective, left
to the whim of individual commanders or claims officers who often make
their decisions based on little investigation.
"People were told if you want to settle on the spot, we'll
give you a certain amount of money," said Gael Murphy, a board member
of Occupation Watch, which collected information on incidents involving
Iraqi civilians. "Otherwise, your claim has to go to Washington."
The military does not pay claims for incidents deemed to
be caused by "combat operations," which could include checkpoint shootings
and other incidents involving innocent civilians.
The military originally told the family of Mazen Nouradin,
a husband and father of two young daughters, that he was shot while
riding in a car with people firing on coalition forces.
Nouradin, a 36-year-old pharmaceutical salesman and veterinarian
who had worked as a translator for U.S. forces, was shot dead June
28, 2003, as he waited for a ride to work in front of his home in
a middle-class section of Baghdad, according to the family and records
filed by an American attorney.
His father said he came out of the house immediately after
hearing gunshots and found his son's body on the sidewalk.
"I saw the American soldiers standing around him," he said.
"I got sick and started to throw up."
Witnesses said Nouradin was shot after the occupants in
two cars began firing at a convoy of U.S. soldiers, who returned fire.
In later correspondence, the military, which eventually
paid the family $2,500, dropped the allegation that Nouradin was in
a car with gunmen, saying only that he was "killed during an exchange
of gunfire between Iraqi civilians and members of the coalition forces."
The military, however, still refused to pay additional
damages, insisting the death was the result of "combat activities"
and not subject to compensation.
In response to a man who claimed that his two brothers
were killed and his parents injured on March 29, 2003, when coalition
forces bombed the Al Tajiya area of Babel city, the military wrote:
"Coalition forces dropped ordnance during Operation Iraqi Freedom
on legitimate targets. Your family was in an area that was being legitimately
targeted and therefore regrettably harmed."
'Cannot put a price on it'
Like thousands of other civil claims, the description provided
for claim number 04I1AT189 gives no indication of the impact to
the victims or to the U.S.-led coalition's effort to win the hearts
and minds of the Iraqi people.
The only description of the incident leading to Claim 04I1AT189,
which asks for $25,000, reads: "U.S. forces confiscated a knife
and Iraqi government dump truck," a seemingly routine description
of a routine claim — one of hundreds claiming property was seized or
damaged.
The incident began with a noon raid on May 18, 2003, at
the home of Najedh Abdel Sadeh al-Fatlawi, a 60-year-old retired hospital
administrator and father of five sons and two daughters.
"They put the women in the front room," he recalled during
an interview at his home, adding that they put plastic handcuffs
on him and four of his sons.
The soldiers refused his offer for keys to other rooms
and cabinets, he said, and instead broke interior doors and closets.
In one cabinet, he said, they found an antique Arab dagger
more than 100 years old with a handle of dark gray "very precious
stone." The dagger had belonged to al-Fatlawi's grandfather, who gave
it to his father, who eventually gave it to al-Fatlawi, he said.
"When I was a child, it was always in our house," he said.
"You cannot put a price on it."
A soldier put the dagger in a plastic bag and carried it
away without providing a receipt, al-Fatlawi said. Along with the
dagger, he said, soldiers seized two rifles and a licensed pistol,
a government truck and about $172 in cash.
After the last of his four sons was released three weeks
later, al-Fatawi said, he tried to file a complaint at the convention
center in the heavily guarded Green Zone of Baghdad, which houses
the headquarters for the American-led coalition. He said he was told
to go to an Army base on the southern edge of the city, and later sent
somewhere else.
"After one year, they had lost all my files," he said.
Losing files is not uncommon in Iraq. Records from an Aug.
21, 2003, claim involving an automobile accident that killed one
man and severely injured six others says that a military officer
conducted an investigation but that the officer "lost the investigation."
Iraqi attorney Mohammed al-Saadi said one base lost 60
claims files when offices were moved, and the Army asked all the
families to resubmit the claims.
A July 1, 2004, letter al-Fatlawi has from Chief Warrant
Officer Anton Streeter of the Foreign Claims Commission says, "Allow
me to express my sympathy for the confiscation of your personal property."
The letter offered $1,000.
"I thought they would change people again and lose my file
again, so I took the $1,000," said al-Fatlawi, adding he never saw
the dagger again.
Two of his sons — one in high school and the other in college
— failed their exams, in part because of the stress suffered from
the raid and its aftermath, al-Fatlawi said, adding that he has suffered
from hypertension since the raid. His son, who was responsible for watching
the government-owned truck, might have to pay for it, he said.
"In the beginning, we thought they were liberators for
the Iraqi people, and we were happy," al-Fatlawi said. "We thought
there would be justice in Iraq after 35 years of injustice.
"Now there is no justice. Nothing has changed except for
the faces."
Checkpoints: Clash of cultures
If there is a place that most exemplifies the problems
plaguing the American-led occupation, it is the traffic-control checkpoints.
Often little more than a group of Humvees in the middle of a road, checkpoints
are used to secure an area or conduct spot searches of cars.
In 114 claims, the incident was described as happening
at a checkpoint. The claims allege 39 shootings that left 12 dead
and 28 injured.
Human rights groups say checkpoints are safer since early
in the war, but problems persist.
Between Nov. 12, 2003, and Jan. 1, 2004, five people were
shot at checkpoints in Mosul — three of them during an 11-day period.
Another claim in Mosul, occurring during the same period, alleges someone
was "shot in the leg while driving by U.S. forces."
Medina, the former assistant Army chaplain in Iraq, said
many checkpoints were poorly marked and manned by soldiers who didn't
understand the culture or have translators who could help them communicate
with Iraqi citizens.
"Our soldiers would put their hands up as a sign to stop
at the (checkpoints), but we didn't do our homework on how to deal
with the Iraqi people," he said. "To them, putting your hand up was
a gesture or greeting, so they would just keep approaching the soldiers
in their cars.
"And a lot of soldiers would just open fire, and they killed
a lot of innocent people. We just didn't do enough to study the culture
of Iraqis."
Medina, whose twin brother was killed in Iraq last November,
said soldiers sometimes were ordered to open fire on any vehicle
that didn't stop.
"In one case, there was a father, mother and three children,"
said Medina, whose unit arrived shortly after the shooting. "They
were shot many times. The car was full of blood. There was one kid
alive. He was alive for a few hours before being pronounced dead in
the hospital a few hours later.... It was horrible."
Kelly Dougherty and Elizabeth Wisdorf, two members of a
Colorado National Guard unit, said soldiers manning checkpoints from
their unit were ordered by commanders to take money and other property
from Iraqis.
"We would take things from them; we would take money in
the beginning, which made no sense to me because we just overthrew
their government, and they didn't have banks to put their money in,
so they would carry it with them," Wisdorf said. "Our chain of command
told us to do that because they felt the Iraqis ... they were terrorists."
Wisdorf said units frequently had no translators to help
soldiers explain to bewildered and sometimes angry drivers what was
happening.
"We had no way of communicating with the Iraqis," Wisdorf
said. "Guns pointed was as much communication as we had with these
people."
Both former soldiers were medics who had a few months each
of law-enforcement training years earlier, and they didn't learn
they were going to serve as military police officers in Iraq until
just before they left to go overseas.
"It was hard for me because I didn't have a military police
background," Dougherty said.
Hassan Rahim, a customs judge for nearly 40 years in Iraq,
was shot July 1, 2003, after driving under an overpass where U.S.
troops were manning a checkpoint, according to witnesses, the family
and documents prepared by their attorney.
"The cars were passing by, and suddenly the shooting started,"
said Mohammed Abbas, 43, who witnessed the shooting from a small
bakery nearby. The judge was driving to a produce market with his
son when they heard shots and began to slow down. As Rahim started
to make a left turn, he was struck in the back and killed. Witnesses said
the shots came from an American armored vehicle that was standing guard
on a traffic circle that leads to the 14th of July Bridge into the Green
Zone.
"The son got out of the car and started to yell," Abbas
said. "His son was crying and shouting. He said, 'My father is shot.'"
The Army denied the family's claim for $86,775.
"I told them I don't want compensation," said the son,
Maher Hassan Rahim, 35. "But (by making the claim) we were trying
to tell them that the value of the blood of an Iraqi person is not
so cheap."
'Climate of impunity'
Hundreds of claims allege improper conduct by military
personnel, yet there is little evidence in a number of cases that
the military conducted thorough investigations into the allegations.
Only hours after a June 18, 2003, shooting into a crowd
of demonstrators that left two people dead in Baghdad, the military
publicly exonerated the soldiers in a press release issued by the
United States Central Command headquarters at MacDill Air Force Base,
Fla. The press release says that members of the 204th Military Police
Company responded "in self-defense" to a demonstration that had occurred
earlier that day.
The Army also denied a civil claim filed by the family
of one of the dead demonstrators, Jafar Mola, saying the death was
"a result of combat operations."
The Daily News' analysis of the database found 259 claims
describing shootings that left at least 128 dead and 172 injured.
The actual number of shooting incidents is undoubtedly several times
higher because all claims were not entered into the database.
Coalition forces are only subject to the justice of their
own countries. In the case of American soldiers, who are subject to
the military's separate justice system, their own commanders often
decide whether they have committed crimes.
Fred Abrahams, a senior researcher with Human Rights Watch,
said that by September 2003, his group had found credible allegations
in 94 death cases in Baghdad alone. Yet at that time, the Army acknowledged
only five criminal investigations into the actions of soldiers in all
of Iraq.
"We concluded that there was this climate of impunity where
soldiers feel like they can pull the trigger, and without any sense
that they could be held responsible for their actions, they're much
more likely to resort more quickly to lethal force," Abrahams said.
The military has court-martialed personnel for acts in
Iraq. One case in the database shows the Army paid a $50 claim to
an Iraqi who was kidnapped and robbed by a sergeant and a private
with the 19th Quartermaster Company of Fort Story, Va. Both soldiers
were court-martialed and sentenced to jail.
Army officials wouldn't say how many investigations and
courts-martial have been conducted, even though courts-martial generally
are open to the public. Capt. Regen Wilson, a spokesman for the Air
Force Office of Special Investigations, said since March 2003 that office
has conducted nine investigations of possible criminal wrongdoing in
all of southwest Asia, which includes Iraq. Six of those investigations
are still open, he said.
Les Nott, whose son was killed in an incident that also
left an Iraqi detainee dead and three other Iraqis wounded, said it
was obvious to him that the military had no interest in conducting a
thorough investigation.
"I believe that their motivation was to cover this up,"
said Nott, who retired from the Army after 23 years and now lives
in Cheyenne, Wy.
On the night of July 30, 2003, 24-year-old 1st Lt. Leif
E. Nott led a patrol to investigate shots fired near their military
compound in Balad Ruz, according Army Sgt. Mickey Anderson and Army
records of the incident. The shots turned out to be a few participants
at a large wedding party firing in the air to celebrate, according to
Anderson and the records.
Anderson said the 200 to 300 Iraqis at the party welcomed
the soldiers, offering them cake and juice. As a precaution, the soldiers
put plastic handcuffs on the groom, the best man and the father of
one of the men, and confiscated an assault rifle.
None of the three men was considered dangerous, Anderson
said, and they likely would have been released after a routine questioning.
"We just wanted to let them know you can't do that any
more," he said.
The soldiers were loading the detainees in a Bradley Fighting
Vehicles when a commander radioed to order the armored vehicles to
go somewhere else, leaving the soldiers to escort the detainees on foot
and without a radio to communicate with the compound, Anderson said.
According to Anderson and Army records, as the patrol walked
under streetlights about 200 yards from the compound, a Bradley
Fighting Vehicle position near the entrance opened fire, triggering
more fire from other soldiers in the compound.
"The next thing I knew I was on the ground, and my leg
was blown to pieces," Anderson said. "Other people were screaming
and moaning."
Anderson, Nott, an Army medic, the patrol's Iraqi translator
and the three Iraqi detainees were all hit by gunfire.
The Bradleys that opened fired drove to where Anderson
lay, he said, and as he crawled up on one of them to stop the shooting,
he was shot three more times at close range by an American soldier who
apparently stuck his 9mm pistol out of the armored vehicle without looking
at who was there.
Nott and one of the detainees, identified in claims records
as Abu Hassan, later died. Hassan's widow, who was left with nine
children to support, received $2,500 for her civil claim, according
to the records, which clearly identify the incident as "friendly fire"
and "not in response to enemy activity."
"Give her the money. Please. She's very patient — been
given the run around for eight months," says a hand-written note
from a military captain included in the Army records.
The Army told a different story to Nott's family and to
the public.
After his death, Nott was promoted to captain and awarded
a Bronze Star, and the citation for the medal says he "responded to
a unprovoked attack on his troop headquarters." That same account was
repeated in a newspaper story.
Les Nott said the family didn't learn the truth until a
member of his son's unit spoke to them at the funeral. Later, he said,
he, his wife and his son's widow traveled to Fort Hood, Texas, to personally
talk to members of the unit to find out what happened — a trip he paid
for himself.
"I shouldn't have to travel from Wyoming to Texas to find
out how my kid died," Nott said.
While at Fort Hood, Nott said, he obtained a lengthy report
on the investigation into the incident. Anderson said he wasn't asked
to give an official statement until 14 months later, after a journalist
in Washington, D.C., began asking questions.
"The report was a joke," Nott said. "Nobody wanted this
to happen, but it did happen. And after they had to deal with it,
there was one driving factor and one driving factor only: to make sure
that nobody gets blamed."
A one-paragraph press release provided last week by Fort
Hood officials says one soldier was killed and two wounded "during
an attack." Fort Hood spokesman Maj. Matt Garner said he was very
familiar with the shooting, but when asked for more information, he
said, "I'm not going to give you a statement. No."
Garner referred questions to Army headquarters. The Daily
News contacted three different officials at Army headquarters at the
Pentagon and left messages for a fourth official. None would discuss
the case, but one faxed a press release that alleges that Lt. Nott
"died of wounds received from hostile fire."
Both Nott and Anderson agreed that the shooting of the
detainees could be part of the reason the Army is trying to cover
up what happened.
"They told us hostile fire, and they'll still tell you
that if you ask them," Nott said, adding that someone should be held
accountable for what happened.
"This isn't the Army I was a part of for 23 years."
Fueling hatred
For many Iraqis, the hundreds of incidents described in
the claims and others never recorded in the database have turned them
against the American-led occupation.
Military personnel, attorneys, human rights experts and
Iraqis believe the incidents are fueling the growing insurgency. And,
they said, as intensity of the insurgency increases, soldiers become
even more apprehensive, creating an atmosphere for more allegations of
abuse and misconduct.
"If I could give you the clue for which reason the Americans
lost this war —because for me the war is lost — it's because of the
behavior of the soldiers," said Marc Henzelin, a Swiss attorney who
has worked with the Red Cross and is one of four attorneys identified
on the database as having filed claims in Iraq.
Like many Iraqis, Wafa Abdel Latif al-Mukhtar and her family
thought things would get better when the Americans came. Children
like her 12-year-old son, Mohammed Subhi al-Qubaisi, idolized the
American soldiers.
"In the beginning, the children saw the Americans and their
weapons and gear and binoculars and wanted to follow them and look
at them," the 45-year-old woman recalled during an interview in her
home.
On a warm night in June 2003, the family's opinions about
the Americans changed.
On that night, her son Mohammad decided to sleep on the
roof of his home with his twin brother, something many Iraqis do to
escape the hot summer nights. Al-Mukhtar said she and her family were
unaware that soldiers were searching a house across a vacant lot about
70 yards away.
One of the soldiers, according to the family, spotted the
12-year-old on the roof and fired, hitting him in the chest.
"I was downstairs in my room when I heard the sounds of
bullets," his mother recalled during an interview in her home. "Then
I heard the boys yelling."
A neighbor, she said, helped carry her wounded son downstairs.
"The kitchen was full of blood," she recalled.
Minutes later, soldiers broke down the door of her kitchen
and pointed guns at the people who had gathered in the room with
her bleeding son.
"I tried to explain to them why this boy was bleeding and
he (a soldier) kicked me and said, `Shut up, don't say anything,' "
she said.
The soldiers searched the house and found an assault rifle,
a type of weapon many Iraqis keep in their homes, and they refused
to allow neighbors to take the boy to the hospital, citing the 11 p.m.
curfew, the mother said. Later, a doctor from the neighborhood came and
pronounced the boy dead, she said.
Two weeks after Mohammad was killed, two others were killed
by American soldiers while sleeping on a rooftop in Baghdad, according
to a $2 million claim filed by a brother of one of the alleged victims.
"Everyone thought the whole situation would be better,
but it seems it's the opposite," Al-Mukhtar said, adding that the
opinion of Mohammad's twin bother, Mustafa, also changed about the
American soldiers. "Now, Mustafa said that when he sees them he wants
to be the first to kill them," she said. "The Americans think the Iraqis
are not human."
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C.
Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those
who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information
for research and educational purposes.)
THINK Back to ALERTS
Take, for example, this
article from the Sunday, November 23, 2003, edition of The Seattle Times:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/PrintStory.pl?document_id=2001798856&zsection_id=268448413&slug=soldier23&date=20031123
Army misreads
Green Beret's disease
By Lisa Falkenberg
The Associated Press
KARNACK, Texas — By the time he shipped out in January
to prepare for the war in Iraq, Special Forces Staff Sgt. James
Alford was a wreck of a soldier.
For five months, he had been doing odd things. He
disappeared from Fort Campbell, Ky., for several days last year.
He lost equipment and lied to superiors. In December, he was demoted
from staff sergeant to sergeant.
In the Kuwaiti desert, he came apart. The hotshot
Green Beret who a year earlier had run circles around his team
members and was recommended for a Bronze Star in Afghanistan was
ordered to carry a notepad to remember orders. By March, he was being
cited for dereliction of duty, larceny and lying to superiors. He couldn't
even keep track of his gas mask.
Finally, in April, his commanders had had enough.
They ordered him to return to Fort Campbell to be court-martialed
and kicked out of the Special Forces.
"Your conduct is inconsistent with the integrity
and professionalism required by a Special Forces soldier," Lt.
Col. Christopher Conner wrote April 10.
Confused and disgraced, the soldier moved back into
his off-base home where he ate canned meat and anchovies, unaware
of the day, the month or the year.
Sensing something was wrong, a neighbor called Alford's
parents. They drove 600 miles from East Texas to find a son who'd
lost 30 pounds and could no longer drink from a glass, use a telephone,
button his shirt or say Amber, the name of his soldier wife who was
still stationed in the Middle East.
A month and several hospitals later, Alford's family
learned he was dying of a disease eating away his brain. He had
Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD), an extremely rare and fatal degenerative
brain disorder akin to "mad-cow" disease that causes rapid, progressive
dementia.
Now, as the 25-year-old soldier wastes away in his
boyhood home, his parents and his wife are struggling to understand
how the military could have misdiagnosed Alford's erratic, forgetful
behavior as nothing more than the symptoms of a sloppy, incompetent
soldier.
"He had to hold his hands to keep them from shaking,
but they saw nothing wrong with my child," his mother, Gail Alford,
a nine-year Army veteran, said recently from her home in a rural
community near Marshall, Texas.
Alford's parents say the Special Forces staff told
them that a doctor in Kuwait found nothing wrong with him and that
a psychiatrist there had said Alford was "faking it."
Army officials have acknowledged that the 5th Special
Forces Group erred and, more than eight months after Alford's
demotion, they reinstated his staff-sergeant rank.
But the dying soldier's family wants more. They
want a public apology for the ridicule and disgrace they say filled
Alford's final days of service.
"They called him stupid, told him he was lazy, he
was a liar, that he wasn't any good, that he was a faker," his
mother said, recalling what little her son could tell her about
his time in Kuwait. "I want them shamed the way they shamed my son."
And they want his pay restored and his medical benefits
maintained. The Army declared Alford medically incompetent, placed
him on retirement status and froze his pay earlier this month
until his parents can prove in court they are his legal guardians.
His mother said she was given power of attorney long ago.
Army officials say they're just following procedures
intended to protect soldiers.
Alford's father, retired Army Command Sgt. Maj.
John Alford, who served 34 years, said that since his son has
been diagnosed, Army doctors have been caring and professional,
and commanders stationed his son's wife, Army Spc. Amber Alford,
in Texas near her husband.
He mainly faults the Special Forces.
"I think they did everything they could to break
him, mentally and physically," he said.
Maj. Robert Gowan, a spokesman for Army Special
Forces Command, said 5th Group is saddened by the soldier's disease
and regrets that it wasn't diagnosed sooner, but that a public apology
may not be appropriate because the Army "acted on the information
they had available at the time."
Alford may have tried to conceal his symptoms, said
Dr. Steve Williams, a clinical fellow in the Division of Infectious
Diseases at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn.
"He was capable of masking the symptoms because
he was resourceful and he was a smart guy," said Williams, who
diagnosed Alford with CJD. "I'd ask him what floor he was on, and
I could catch him looking outside and counting the number of windows."
Col. David Dooley, an infectious-disease doctor
at Brooke Army Medical Center in San Antonio, said Special Forces
staff members shouldn't take the blame for missing Alford's rare
illness. A delayed diagnosis is "typical and classic"; the average
lag time is five to seven months, he said.
"If I'm going to hold anything against them, they
might have come around a little faster when a medical problem
was recognized," Dooley said. "The Special Forces group was fairly
inert to the face of data that we medics were showing them."
Staff Sgt. Miguel Fabbiani, a friend of Alford's
and a member of the same team based at Fort Campbell, said Alford's
symptoms escalated during wartime when he was working with a new
group that didn't know him as well.
Alford now lies in pastel sheets next to a wall
painting of John Wayne. Wearing a Houston Texans T-shirt that hangs
like a hospital gown, he stares absently into a TV that glows 24
hours, his hands gripping stuffed animals to keep them from clenching
shut.
"He knows his name, sometimes," says his wife. "Sometimes
I'll go up to him, wink at him and make kissy faces and he laughs."
"It's very sad when the people who are putting their
life on the line for this country should be treated like this,"
Alford's father said. "This has been a bureaucratic nightmare. We've
got enough to deal with on a daily basis, caring after our son and
dealing with our pain and weariness and our suffering, to have to fight
the U.S. Army."
The Alfords got their first call from 5th Group
Command last week. The soldier's father said the deputy commander
apologized for what the family had been through, assigned a lawyer
to work with them on pay and benefits issues and said he would
personally handle any future problems.
John Alford knew his son might not live long enough
to get the good news, so he had already told him a "white lie"
that he had been vindicated.
"It was very important to him because he kept saying,
'I didn't do anything wrong, Daddy.' "
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section
107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information
for research and educational purposes.)
MAMMA's Footnote:
Ms. Falkenberg's piece is a captivating 'Human Interest'
story. However, considering the questions and the implications
that 'coverage' of this topic raises, is such a superficial form
of 'Journalism' enough?
Why didn't the 'coverage' of this tragedy answer
the questions that people reading it must have asked? Questions
like....
- While
the article noted "a month and several hospitals later" in indicating
that an accurate diagnosis is now known...it failed to note if all
the hospitals involved were all 'military'...so IS the CJD diagnosis
accurate????
- If it's a matter of "up to 10%" of CJD victims
die...why does the military have this young man on a 'death bed'
watch?
- How did SSgt Alford contract such a disease?
- Where did he 'catch' it?
- Who else is 'at risk' for getting this disease?
- What is the
likelihood that the military might possibly be lying about the
'true' cause (considering the extensive adverse reaction time of toxic 'drugs' like Larium)
of Alford's disease?
- IF this is an accurate diagnosis...is anything
being done to ensure that the disease IS NOT spreading??? (Needless
to say, considering the military's 'history' of taking steps to
prevent repeats of 'tragedies'....that isn't likely!)
- If CJD (generally)
affects 40-65 year olds, doesn't the family of this 25 year old
deserve HONEST answers to their questions?
You might want to read a three-part
series on "Anthrax, GOCO's and Designer Germs" by Jim Rarey which
is archived at: http://www.worldnewsstand.net/MediumRare/Archives.htm.
The author is a free lance writer based in Romulus, Michigan.
He is a former newspaper editor and investigative reporter, a retired
customs administrator and accountant, and a student of history and
the U.S. Constitution.
When Mr. Rarey, who can be reached at: "Jim Rarey"
<jimrarey@comcast.net>, was
questioned about this article, he said...
"We have known for
several years that Bioport was using bovine material when they
didn't know the country of origin. For that and several other
reasons, the FDA refused to approve a million or so batches of the
vaccine. Now the CDC and DOD have released those batches and they
are being used to vaccinate the troops."
and included the following material to THINK about:
Mad Cow Disease (BSE) and Vaccinations
by Dawn Richardson
PROVE (Parents Requesting Open Vaccine Education)
There has been a lot of talk in the news lately
about risks of Mad Cow Disease (BSE), but not many people are
aware that some vaccines can be contaminated and theoretically spread
the disease. Last summer, the FDA met to discuss the contamination
of vaccines that use bovine products in the manufacturing process.
The FDA has posted, on their web site, which vaccines may contain contaminated
bovine-derived materials.
The current list (taken from http://www.fda.gov/cber/BSE/BSE.htm#usda)
of vaccines using bovine-derived materials from countries on the
USDA’s BSE list or from unknown countries include:
1) Aventis Pasteur, S.A.’s Haemophilus
influenzae type b conjugate vaccine, ActHIB (ActHIB is also marketed
as OmniHIBT by SmithKline Beecham Pharmaceuticals)
2) North American Vaccine Inc.’s diphtheria
and tetanus toxoids and acellular pertussis (DTaP) vaccine, CertivaT
3) SmithKline Beecham Biological’s DTaP
vaccine, Infanrix
4) SmithKline Beecham Biological’s Hepatitis
A vaccine, Havrix
Vaccines that use bovine-derived materials of unknown
geographical origins include:
1) Aventis Pasteur, S.A.’s inactivated
polio vaccine, IPOL
2) BioPort’s Anthrax
vaccine
3) Lederle Laboratories’ Pneumococcal
polysaccharide vaccine, PNU-INUNE
Additionally, there was a recent media report that
a British national whose blood was used to make polio vaccine administered
in Ireland, had been diagnosed with variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease
(the human form of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) or mad cow
disease.) You can read that at: http://www.abcnews.go.com/wire/World/reuters20001219_1915.html
Sources of further information:
1) Dawn Richardson, PROVE prove@vaccineinfo.net
(email) http://vaccineinfo.net/ (website)
2) Vaccines: Are They Really Safe
and Effective? A parent’s Guide to Childhood Shots; Neil
Z. Miller; (800) 800-1927
3) National Vaccine Information Center
(http://www.909shot.com) (703) 938-5768
MAMMA's Preface:
The following three part series was published by
the Free Press. It is obvious that David
Zeman, did his homework. But, it goes past SAD! to see it end up as 'Human
Interest' rhetoric. The indications are that, at the end of the day, he,
like too many others before him, filed his 'story', turned out the lights
and went home...having served only ONE of the ABUSE VICTIMS (he wrote about).
What about ALL the others, who are still denied TRUTH and JUSTICE?
Note...some
(comments) have been interjected.
PART I:
DUTY, HONOR, BETRAYAL: How U.S. turned
its back on poisoned WWII vets
As enlisted men, they were the military's lab rats
November 10, 2004
BY DAVID ZEMAN
FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER
The room is small and cramped, like a vault. The soldiers
are in full combat gear, rifles in hand, packs anchored on their backs.
As the steel door slams shut, the men look about, this way and that.
And the ground begins to hiss. Army Pvt. Sidney Wolfson
notices it at once, a faint green aerosol seeping from the floor,
rising in lazy corkscrews around his waist, arms and chest and across
his eyes.
It's adamsite, what the troops come to know as puke stuff,
a vomiting agent. The soldiers cower. They flop on their bellies
and retch. Wolfson rises to leave, but can't. He pounds and pounds
and screams for the doctors, but he can't leave. He can't get out!
"It's like I'm in jail," he says, quietly now. And he
fidgets. Six decades after exiting the chambers of his youth, Sidney
Wolfson sits in his Farmington condo and squirms. He is 85 and frail,
but the dream is still vivid, the image keen.
He was young and fit once, part of the 1st Chemical Casual
Company, a unit of 100 bright soldiers who struggled through chamber
tests of mustard agent, lewisite, phosgene and other poisons on a
military base near Baltimore in 1943.
Some are still struggling. (a lesson to be learned)
This is the story of patriots deceived -- not once but
three times: first as young recruits, conned into entering chambers
of lethal gas during World War II; then as war-hardened soldiers,
shipped home with no warning of the time bombs lurking in their bodies;
and finally as aging veterans, misled by a government that promised
to find them, wherever they lived, and compensate those who were harmed.
"At no time after these experiments was I notified or
told anything," said Franklin Smith, echoing the account of many men.
"They shipped my butt over to the Pacific and that was the last I heard
from the War Department."
By the end of World War II, the military had exposed
more than 70,000 Army and Navy recruits to poison gases in various
forms -- from swabs of mustard agent on their arms, to the more than
4,000 servicemen who marched into chambers or through fields soaked
with chemicals. The mission was noble: to develop protective gear and
ointments that would insulate troops from enemy chemical attack. The means
were not: Officers deceived the men about the health risks and
intimidated those who balked.
The recruits, many still teenagers, were sworn to secrecy.
In the decades that followed, some of these veterans sought benefits
from the Department of Veterans Affairs for illnesses linked to
the tests. But the military had a ready reply: The tests never happened.
Not until 1991, when four Navy vets swayed an influential congressman
to their cause, did the Pentagon acknowledge the secret program and
apologize. The government, at long last, vowed to make amends.
But the Free Press has found that Washington
broke its promise. The VA, which pledged a painstaking effort
to track down and compensate the men, contacted nobody. Not one letter.
Not a single phone call -- even after the Pentagon turned over lists
of thousands of
potential victims. The VA relied mainly on unpaid public
service ads in veterans magazines, even though the agency was aware
that most veterans don't see those publications.
In recent years, a few veterans who did press claims
were rebuffed -- often with form letters, and even when it was clear
they had diseases linked to the wartime experiments. (incident of service)
VA Secretary Anthony Principi, who as deputy secretary
in 1991 pledged to "do right" by the veterans, said in an interview
last month he was unaware the veterans had been ignored.
"My assumption was that steps were taken to do what was
possible to reach as many as we could find and to provide them with
the benefits they've earned," he said. "If more needs to be done,
it will be done."
The men of the 1st Chemical Casual Company represent
only a sliver of the WWII recruits exposed to poison gases. But to
the government, they are less than that. The unit does not even exist
in Washington's official database on the testing program. It's almost
as if they were never there.
But they were.
And 61 years later, they're still waiting for
help.
'The place God forgot'
The soldiers grabbed their gear and stepped wearily from
the train.
It was Sept. 3, 1943, and after riding all night through
the Appalachians, the men found themselves standing before the
front gate of Edgewood Arsenal, a leafy Army outpost on Chesapeake
Bay, 20 miles northeast of Baltimore.
It looked swell, that's for sure.
From its inception in 1917, Edgewood's 3,400 acres of
rolling farmland and pleasant rivers belied the serious and occasionally
deadly work performed in its covert factories. Horses still ambled
across fields once crossed by Susquehannock Indians and George Washington's
troops. The grounds of the Gunpowder Neck peninsula were thick with sweetgum
and blackberry. Overhead, bald eagles shared the breeze with osprey,
sandpipers and other shorebirds.
Though the soldiers could not see it from where they
stood, the Aberdeen Proving Ground, a testing ground for artillery
and other ordnance, lay just to the north across the Bush River.
The twin posts of Edgewood and Aberdeen had sprung up
in World War I after the Germans unleashed chlorine gas on Allied
troops in Belgium. Edgewood quickly became the headquarters of chemical
warfare research, its factories producing chlorine, a lung irritant;
chloropicrin, a vomiting gas; phosgene, a lethal choking agent, and
mustard gas, a blistering compound that could be lethal if inhaled.
Notoriety soon followed.
"At Baltimore, we began to hear about the terrors of
this place," wrote one dashingly named World War I recruit, Jet
Parker, as he rode a train to Edgewood in 1918. "Everyone we talked
to on the way out here said we were coming to the place God forgot!
They tell tales about men being gassed and burned ..."
Another private, Alexander London, wrote a grim ode to
Edgewood's perils:
"... If a little drop of any gas would touch
the head or face,
It meant a speedy ride and a long stay at the base.
A pal of mine was working at the filling plant one night,
When a poison shell exploded and my pal lost his sight.
He suffered untold agonies, for the poison entered deep,
It was a sight to make brave men stop in their tracks
and weep."
But to the 1st Chemical soldiers who arrived in September
of '43, Edgewood must have seemed like heaven itself.
The men had entered the Army seven weeks earlier, in
a nasty slice of hell known as Camp Sibert, Ala.
They were an unconventional group of Army grunts, that's
for sure. Nearly all were college boys or on the way to college.
They studied chemistry, which is why they had been earmarked for Sibert,
in the military's chemical weapons service.
Most had joined eagerly. Walter Butinsky, the nearsighted
son of Ukrainian immigrants, wanted in so badly he memorized the
reading test to pass his induction exam. Abe Hedaya, a 19-year-old
Brooklyn boy, dropped out of his beloved Columbia University. Franklin
Smith could have stayed home to support his widowed mother. But with
her blessing, he joined, too. Six buddies signed from the University
of Scranton. Six more arrived from Mississippi State University.
And for what, they must have wondered as they arrived
in the steamy Alabama summer.
They were put to work building barracks and roads for
the 5,000 soldiers descending on Sibert. They received "a spade,
a shovel and a short pep talk almost before they had officially reported
to their company officers," one historian wrote.
The barracks, if you could call them that, were wooden
beams covered by tar paper, with wood-burning stoves at each end.
They shielded the men from summer rains, but not from the heat. And
certainly not from the insects that drove the soldiers to distraction.
"I wanted to get the hell out of Alabama," said Lee Landauer,
a gruff, compact recruit from Baltimore. "Camp was terrible. We were
sleeping in tar-covered paper bags."
As for social life, there was nearby Gadsden, or as some
recruits called it, Gonorrhea Gardens.
"When you went out there, there was nothing to get out
for," Landauer said. "So you never went out again. It was just a
hell of a place."
The men were only a few weeks into training when a commander
gathered them one day and offered a deal: If they volunteered for
chemical experiments in Maryland, they would receive 10-day furloughs.
These many years later, the men differ on the particulars of what
was said that day. But they do agree on two things. The commander was
not terribly specific. And the opportunity to decline the offer was
never really on the table. "You're not told too much, just line up and
shut up," is how Richard Wickens, who now lives in Albuquerque, N.M.,
described it.
Smith recalled, "There was a great deal of talk about
what a wonderful thing this was to do for our country and you guys
are heroes and it would save a great many lives.
"I was a totally green 19-year-old. I had grown up in
a remote little farming town in Oklahoma called Texhoma. The war was
going full blast, and we were all dedicated to winning. They certainly
convinced me at the time their motives were pure."
New Jersey recruit Michael Geiger had his own reason
to join.
"I think I lost 30 pounds in three weeks in Alabama,"
Geiger said. "You'd go out on 10- to 20-mile hikes every day -- you
couldn't even eat at night, you were so tired. All you wanted to
do was drink the water. Any change couldn't have been worse. I ran
up and signed."
Even for Southerners, the Maryland shore had its appeal.
"I looked forward to it," said Cham Canon, a self-described
country boy from Mississippi. "But with some apprehension, because
we did not understand until we got there what we would be doing."
What they would be doing wasn't entirely clear to a lot
of the soldiers. "I thought we would be doing studies, working with
chemicals," said Wolfson, the recruit from Michigan. "When we got
there, lo and behold, it was a different story."
At first, good food and leisure
The soldiers settled in at Edgewood, happy to have quarters
with four walls and a ceiling. Spread before them were single beds,
widely spaced. Over there were the latrines -- sparkling clean.
On the grounds, the men noticed an absence of military staples: no surly
officers, no saluting at every corner, not even many uniforms.
That first day, the soldiers savored their first decent
meal since leaving their mothers' kitchens. "They gave you all you
wanted to eat -- bacon and eggs, real steak," Landauer said. "At Sibert,
all you got was chopped beef stew, seven days a week."
This, they could live with.
After a day or so of leisure, the men of 1st Chemical
were ushered into Edgewood lab buildings, where they changed into
chamber gear: cotton undershirts and shorts; khaki or herringbone
twill pants, shirts and jackets; canvas leggings; a wool hood and white
wool socks. The clothing was soaked in agents meant to neutralize the
test chemicals, which left the garments stiff and hot.
The gas masks, with their conical snouts and wide lenses,
made the men look like immense insects, though they usually kept
the poison at bay. Usually. High levels of chemicals could overwhelm
some masks. And even a two-day stubble of beard could break the seal around
the face.
The men gathered their rifles and backpacks and marched
for 30 minutes until perspiration soaked their bodies. They were
then placed in single-file lines, a yard apart, before a chamber door.
They entered in groups of five to seven. It might be
the chamber in Building 325, a 9-foot-by-9-foot cube of hollow tile;
or one of two chambers in Building 358; or the glass cylinder chamber
in Building 357.
The door was quickly shut. Researchers peered in through
a small porthole as they jotted notes. The mustard vapor entered
with a whisper, running through a hose in calibrated bursts. The
soldiers recognized the faint odor of garlic, or a pleasing sweetness.
The vapor was colorless or a light yellow and they were quickly enveloped
as it probed the seams of their trousers, or the rim of their masks,
searching for a pathway to their skin.
The warmer the conditions, the more potent the gas became.
Indeed, the tests were designed to mimic jungle conditions in the
Pacific, where Allied forces guessed the Japanese might unleash chemical
shells. In some tests, the exposure level equaled that faced on World
War I battlefields. As the men marched in 90-degree-plus heat, with
the chamber's humidity kept at 84 percent, they perspired under their
arms, inside their hoods, or near their knees and genitals.
They were soon drenched, which only heightened the mustard's
ardor for human skin.
Once the gas reached skin, it snaked through pores deep
into the tissue, or entered the bloodstream. Within minutes, the
mustard quietly went to work, binding to strands of DNA deep within
cells, causing them to mutate and die. The damage was irreversible.
Mustard's toll was not immediately apparent. It took
hours or days for soldiers' skin to turn crimson along sweaty regions
like the thigh or buttocks; or where skin was bare, like the hands
or neck.
The skin began to itch and burn like a griddle. A day
later, the red patches turned to watery blisters 2 inches high. The
fluid was actually the body's tissue, which had liquefied under the
assault.
"They told us not to puncture it," Smith said. "But if
you turned your arm a quarter turn, the weight of the fluid would
tend to separate the skin from your arm. So some guys just punctured
these things, because it hurt so bad."
Painkillers helped.
Other men suffered grotesque burns on their genitals,
causing their scrotum and penis to swell and blister, the skin to
peel away in strips. Years later, some discovered cancerous skin growths
or genital scarring that made it difficult to father children.
Sometimes, frayed uniforms left elbows or legs exposed.
Other times, the gear was almost comically inadequate. Take, for
instance, the neck and ear protection afforded soldiers in some tests,
as described in a 1943 Army record: "Two socks wrapped around the neck,
with the upper portion of a sock covering each ear. The socks are held
in place by string and by the gas mask straps."
Equipment breakdowns were common in the trials, which
lasted up to two months. Faulty masks allowed vapors to bind to the
eye, causing soldiers' eyelids to swell and spasm.
Their noses ran steady, like the onset of a cold. They
emitted a dry cough and began to vomit. The mustard had reached
their lungs, inflaming the tracheal lining, which might simply slough
away. Years would pass, even decades, before other problems arose.
A willing sacrifice
America, as historians remind us, was a far different
place in the 1940s from the era since Vietnam. Isolationist sentiments
that prevailed when war erupted in Europe in 1939 largely evaporated
after Japan attacked Pearl Harbor in December 1941. Millions of men
enlisted to fight. Millions of women joined factories that fed the war
machine. Children collected scrap metal for tanks. Civilians rationed
sugar, coffee, gas and other staples. Sacrifice was the theme and urgency
its byword against a potent and frightening enemy. The notion that a few
people might sacrifice for the greater good of our troops was neither controversial
nor seriously questioned.
The United States spent more than $25 million on ethically
dubious studies to find antidotes for conditions faced by troops:
orphans were injected with dysentery; prison inmates were given malaria;
mentally ill people were infected with influenza.
Against this backdrop, military scientists were exhorted
to improve the protective gear used by American troops. Young recruits
-- still stateside while their brethren were dying overseas -- were
asked to test this new gear. They performed their duty,
as they were told.
"We desperately needed research in a variety of areas
to move the war effort forward," said David Rothman, director of the
Center for the Study of Society and Medicine at Columbia University.
"Patient consent, which had been recognized earlier as a major consideration,
was now ignored because the military's needs seemed to trump all others.
It was purely a utilitarian calculus: the greatest good for the greatest
number."
America's fear of chemical attack was well
founded. The Germans had released chlorine and mustard gas against
the Allies in World War I; Japan and Italy had used poison agents in
the 1930s. Such was the fear that the Walt Disney Co. designed a Mickey
Mouse gas mask so children would not be afraid to use masks in the
event of an assault.
In their initial research, U.S. scientists used goats,
cats and other animals to test mustard and other blistering agents
on the skin. But they found it difficult to extrapolate the results
to human skin. Scientists thought they solved this dilemma by using
Mexican hairless dogs, but abandoned the plan after the dogs proved
too costly. (Imagine that....human ABUSE is
cost effective!)
They eventually concluded only human skin would do. Citing
tests already under way in Canada and England, U.S. officials played
down the health risk to humans.
"In the hands of competent experimenters, much can be
learned concerning the prevention and treatment of gas burns in men
without subjecting them to more than relatively trivial annoyance or
disability," Alfred Richards, the chairman of a government committee
on medical research, wrote to Secretary of War Henry Stimson in April
1942.
The Army and Navy secretaries formally approved the test
program a month later.
A break from camp
That autumn -- one year before the men of 1st Chemical
arrived -- the first 200 soldiers from Camp Sibert were shipped
to Edgewood for "patch tests" on their arms. The arrangement ended
badly. Sibert's officers howled about the loss of their soldiers. And
it soon became apparent that few soldiers at Sibert were eager to replace
the first wave of volunteers.
That "may have been due to the look of the scars on men
returned to the training companies," wrote Rexmond Cochrane, a military
historian stationed at Sibert during the war.
So commanders in Washington hatched a plan to make the
tests more palatable. They promised the men furloughs and a change
of scenery in exchange for their willingness to test "summer uniforms."
It worked. By war's end, at least 4,000 soldiers and seamen were tested
at more than a half-dozen facilities beyond Edgewood -- from Florida
to Illinois, Utah, Panama and, in great numbers, at the Naval Research
Laboratory in Washington.
Insurrection was never a problem. Commanders
made sure of that.
"The fact that has been most obvious throughout these
experiments is that when the men first begin the work they should
not be told too much," a Navy commander wrote in August 1943. "If they
are, it sets up a fear reaction that remains for varying lengths of time
and definitely affects their 'virgin' runs in the chamber, and, occasionally,
requires a removal from the chamber before the run is completed. However,
after the first two runs in the chamber, the men become veterans and
can be told almost anything without affecting their morale."
That sounded about right to Landauer of Baltimore who,
despite encounters with mustard gas, lewisite and what he believed
to be nerve agent, preferred his lot at Edgewood to the perils of
combat in Europe.
"It was a question of having a pretty good life and figuring
these guys aren't going to kill you," Landauer said of the Edgewood
scientists. "Once you last three or four days in the chamber without
dying, you figure, 'What the hell.' "
Only rarely did recruits balk. When that happened, the
Navy memo noted, "A short explanatory talk, and, if necessary, a
slight verbal 'dressing down' has always proven successful. There has
not been a single instance in which a man has refused to enter the gas
chamber."
Recruits who complained of nausea, headaches,
laryngitis or eye infections were told their "physical unfitness"
-- not the tests -- was to blame. (Always...blame
the VICTIM!) "Occasionally," the memo continued, "malingerers
and psychoneurotics are discovered. These cases have all been handled
so far by minimizing their symptoms and then sending them into the
chamber."
As critics would note decades later, U.S. scientists
downplayed the dangers despite research dating to 1928 of long-term
ailments linked to mustard gas. Medical journals in the United States
and abroad reported bronchitis, emphysema, bronchial asthma and conjunctivitis
among World War I chemical casualties. By the late 1930s, delayed-action
blindness also was reported.
But these medical findings were never shared
with the World War II guinea pigs.
Watching the rabbit die
Some men in 1st Chemical were sent into chambers without
masks. Joining the soldiers in one test was a very unhappy rabbit.
The men trudged in and waited for the vapors. It is unclear which
gas was being tested that day, but whatever it was, it didn't sit
well with the rabbit, which fell over and died.
"I can still see the expression on this one poor guy's
face," Landauer recalled. "He was pounding on the door. He wanted
to get the hell out of there."
On another day, Pvt. John Berzellini, an asthmatic, grew
increasingly anxious as his mask filled with drool and mucus. Hours
passed, but the researcher monitoring the test would not allow Berzellini
to leave. He had to tilt open the mask to drain the fluids, exposing
his face to vapors. "He was forced, asked, cajoled to stay in there,"
recalled Bill Chupka, who was inside the chamber with his friend. "I suppose
that if he collapsed he would have been removed immediately."
In Building 326, meanwhile, soldiers were exposed to
another blistering agent, lewisite, an arsenic-based compound with
the scent of geraniums. Touted as the dew of death by newspapers
of the day, lewisite never quite fulfilled its promise as a more lethal
successor to mustard gas. While mustard bided its time, lewisite caused
immediate pain and blisters. Yet the oily liquid was not nearly so toxic
as a battlefield vapor and eventually fell into disfavor.
Blistering agents were not the only poisons
at Edgewood.
Some men said they were subjected to what they described
as low levels of nerve agents, designed to incapacitate enemy soldiers
during an attack. Among other things, exposure to the agent caused
the men's pupils to shrink to the size of pinpricks and blurred their
vision for days.
"They took us out to shoot at the rifle range," Landauer
said. "Then we came back and they put us in a chamber, eight to
10 of us, for less than a minute. It was some kind of nerve gas. Then
it was back to the rifle range to re-shoot the same targets. By the
time we got out there, we couldn't see the targets.
"Our buddies had to cut our food up for us that night."
What's remarkable about these accounts is that the Pentagon
has always maintained it did not conduct human testing with nerve
agents -- such as sarin -- until after World War II.
Pentagon officials did not respond to requests
for comment on whether nerve agents were tested.
Though the tests were harrowing, the time between them
was a pleasure.
The men passed their downtime, which was considerable,
reading books, playing cards and getting to know each other. The
base had a library and movie theater. Its staff arranged dances with
local girls. Soldiers usually could find enough friends for a game
of baseball or volleyball. Walter Butinsky whipped all comers at chess.
On days off, the men took a train or bus to Washington or Baltimore
for burlesque shows or dates. For the Eastern boys who went home on
weekends, the greatest fear was that their parents would see their burns
and raise hell with the military.
Jesse Schraub, who had never left Brooklyn before enlisting,
remembers one humid evening having dinner back home, wearing long
sleeves to cover his burns. "The pain was excruciating, but of course,
I wasn't supposed to tell anybody," Schraub said. "I was afraid of
what my dad's reaction would be."
Some men formed close bonds. In their first weeks at
Edgewood, some Christian soldiers took on extra kitchen and guard
duty so their Jewish buddies could go home for Yom Kippur. The men
held friendly wagers over whose arm yielded the biggest blister.
For those with more severe burns, friends stood ready to help them
comb their hair, or use the bathroom.
"It was the first time I began to feel like a person
in the Army, like an individual," Howard Hoffman wrote in a war
memoir.
For some men, it was a sad day when, in late October,
they were returned to Alabama.
"My husband was very happy at Edgewood," Nellie Strauss
said of her husband, Alfred. "He was a good soldier and he felt he
was doing his duty. He never complained."
Nellie concedes she was pretty tickled, too.
"He was way over 200 pounds when I married him, and he
went down to 170 pounds when he came home," she said.
"He looked gorgeous."
Contact DAVID ZEMAN at 313-222-6593 or zeman@freepress.com.
(In accordance with Title
17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit
to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information for research and educational purposes.)
PART II:
Veterans kept the military's secret, some until
death
BY DAVID ZEMAN
FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER
November 11, 2004
Al Felgendreger entered World War II an anonymous Army
grunt. He exited a war hero, gaining three Bronze Stars in the Pacific.
Friendly and bright, Felgendreger returned to Philadelphia
after the war to embrace his new wife and his own lofty ambitions.
His life was busy, secure, overflowing with promise.
And then, suddenly, it was not.
In 1955, Felgendreger suffered what his wife Eleanore
characterizes as a nervous breakdown. The outgoing chemist was now
depressed, sluggish, and reluctant to leave home. There were times
when he drank too much. He asked his pastor to care for his wife and
three children if something happened to him. He spent two months in
a hospital.
"I've always wondered," Eleanore says now, "if those
tests could have caused that."
The tests that haunt Eleanore Felgendreger do not appear
in her husband's Army records. Like thousands of World War II soldiers
and sailors, Felgendreger's work as a human guinea pig was
omitted from his file. In the autumn of 1943, he served in the 1st
Chemical Casual Company, a unit exposed to mustard agent and other poisons
in the gas chambers of Maryland's Edgewood Arsenal -- tests that
would stalk some men, physically and psychologically, until their deaths.
Tests they were forbidden to discuss.
With the help of a psychiatrist, Felgendreger eventually
regained his footing and returned to work.
But he never discussed his breakdown again.
Best and the brightest
If ever an Army unit was poised for excellence, it was
the 1st Chemical Casual Company.
Mostly young science buffs, the soldiers of 1st Chemical
had been culled from science programs across the country for chemical
warfare training. But they soon learned that their value to the Army
was more as lab rats than lab scientists.
They were shipped to Edgewood and herded into chambers
to test how long uniforms, ointments and gas masks could withstand
chemicals that might be unleashed in combat. When the experiments
ended two months later, some, like Felgendreger, would gain Bronze
Stars and Purple Hearts overseas, or embark on estimable careers in
science, medicine or academia.
Their ranks included Ivy League professors, computer
pioneers, chemists at Fortune 500 firms, a Guggenheim Fellow, and
another fellow who pursued the life of a pastry chef.
Scanning the resumes, one might assume Edgewood was but
a brief interlude in a soldier's life -- distasteful, perhaps, but
long since forgotten.
Yet many soldiers quietly took Edgewood to their graves.
Sworn to secrecy, or just plain stoic, the men of 1st Chemical rarely
spoke of the harrowing experiments at the Maryland camp -- not to
their families, and not to their doctors, even as they succumbed to
diseases they traced to Edgewood. Decades later, no one can say for
sure whether Felgendreger's collapse also was linked to those chambers.
What is known is that, for many of these men, the silence that
surrounded the project began to feel like a prison, one that separated
them from their wives and children, one they felt they could never
escape. In 1983 -- 40 years after the chamber tests -- Lee Landauer
of suburban Baltimore began treatment for skin cancer that still bedevils
him. His elderly mother delicately broached the subject of his service.
What, she asked, really happened at Edgewood?
"Nothing I can tell you," the ex-platoon sergeant said.
And that was that.
Some families learned of the chambers and their
psychological hold on the soldiers only after the men died. They
would be sorting through papers left by the men and discover a journal
or note that betrayed a well-guarded despair.
"See what happens when one has been involved with Army
poison gasses?" Albert Jasuta, a veteran with leukemia and lung
disease wrote, seven weeks before his death.
To be sure, of the scores of soldiers from 1st Chemical
interviewed for this article, several spoke favorably of their work
at Edgewood and defended the military's decision to expose at least
4,000 soldiers and sailors to dangerous levels of toxins in chamber
and field tests. Germany and Japan had used chemical and biological weapons
in the past, they noted. The United States had a duty to protect its troops,
to learn all it could about how mustard might spread along the front
lines of Europe, or the tropics of the Pacific.
"We were going against Hitler!" said Brooklyn recruit
Abe Hedaya, pausing to let his point register. "He was crazy, and
we had to get him!"
Whatever the program's merits, this much is certain:
Pentagon officials lured young recruits from boot camp with the
promise of furloughs, then bullied them if they tried to back out.
They misled the men about the health risks involved, then denied the
tests ever took place. For nearly 50 years, the secret held.
Even as some men faltered. (It's
a 'guy thing'...better to be dead than admit being a VICTIM!)
Worse than combat
For many relatives, the soldier who marched off to Edgewood
in '43 was different from the one who returned after the war. Of
course, that is generally true of soldiers in all conflicts; war changes
those who fight it. But something about the experiences of the chemical
volunteers in sealed chambers, and their inability to talk about their
experiences, transformed them in ways even combat never would.
Pvt. Francis Earnshaw Jr., a lanky blond chemical engineering
student from West Virginia, saw his military career collapse one
afternoon in November 1943, a few weeks after he left the chemical
testing at Edgewood and returned to boot camp at Camp Sibert, Ala. As
his company drilled that day, Earnshaw was overcome with anxiety and
laid down in the field, unable to move until other soldiers carried him
to bed. When Camp Sibert doctors saw him later, Earnshaw's lip quivered
and he fought back tears. He'd been having headaches, he said, brought
on by "nerves." He was hospitalized for a month.
"He does not have enough confidence to feel that he will
be able to adjust," an Army psychiatrist wrote. "Diagnosis: Psychoneurosis,
anxiety type, manifested by sleeplessness, nervousness and mild
depression."
Earnshaw's records are typical of ailing chemical soldiers
in that they make almost no reference to the experiments that preceded
his hospitalization. From his file, it is unclear whether Earnshaw
even told doctors he had taken part in chemical tests. This was not
unusual. Even doctors stationed at Edgewood during the war were often
not told what chemicals had injured their patients.
Earnshaw received an honorable discharge in December
1943. Yet even though he was released on medical grounds, the government
denied his claim for disability, ruling that his nervous condition
was unrelated to his military service.
He died of a heart attack in 1997, having never discussed
Edgewood with Mary Jo, his wife of 50 years.
Not every soldier's life ended badly -- far from it.
For many in the unit, the postwar years were marked by academic
success and staggering career advancement.
After his war service, Bill Chupka left the coal country
of eastern Pennsylvania for a classical education at the University
of Chicago. One of his Sigma Chi fraternity brothers was Howard Hoffman,
a former chamber mate at Edgewood, who later became a professor at
Bryn Mawr.
Fraternity life, as Chupka tells it, was more "Masterpiece
Theatre" than "Animal House."
"The evening conversations were very civilized arguments
more typically centered on Socrates, Plato, Aristotle ... Nietzsche,
Einstein, national politics and other serious affairs," Chupka, now
professor emeritus of chemistry at Yale and a former Guggenheim Fellow,
recalled in an e-mail. "The music was exclusively classical and opera."
Other soldiers flourished as well. Walter Butinsky became
patent counsel for Eli Lilly and Company. Roy Wiig was a pioneer
in computer program development at IBM. John Hogan returned to Bountiful,
Utah, as a family doctor. Thomas Mullen was an engineer at B.F. Goodrich.
Cason Callaway Jr. became a respected businessman and philanthropist
in Pine Mountain, Ga.
The veterans of 1st Chemical grew comfortably into middle
age, gradually putting their war service behind them, or so they
thought.
Cold War changes
As the Cold War shifted the focus of military research,
Edgewood also evolved.
From 1950 well into the 1970s, Edgewood scientists --
concerned that the communists were developing truth serums -- began
their own research into mind control. (Can
you say: KILLOLOGY?) They began testing the effects of LSD
and other hallucinogens on U.S. servicemen and civilians, often without
their consent. It was not until the early 1970s that the military's
treatment of its servicemen was seriously scrutinized as evidence also
emerged that Americans were being mistreated in a variety government research
-- from bacteria injected into childrenn at an Ohio orphanage; to radiation
exposure on prison inmates; to the Tuskegee Experiment, in which government
researchers declined to treat 400 impoverished black men for syphilis so
the scientists could monitor the course of the illness.
Like the World War II chemical program before them, the
studies marked an unsettling shift in scientific research. With each
new experiment, wrote medical ethicist David Rothman, clinical investigations
were being designed "to benefit not the research subjects, but others."
(Justification)
Yet while dozens of government abuses were exposed, the
World War II chemical tests remained shrouded in the decades-old
vow of secrecy.
In the 1970s, a few Army and Navy veterans claimed illnesses
they traced to chemical testing. But one by one, the Defense Department
thwarted the claims by simply denying the experiments took place.
Most veterans accepted the rejections and faded away.
Nat Schnurman plowed on.
Finally, some answers
Schnurman, who lives on a bluff above the James River
outside Richmond, Va., was sitting with his wife in his doctor's
office one day in 1975, wondering why his body seemed to be breaking
down at age 50. He had lung disease, hearing loss and vision problems.
He had chronic pain in his legs, chest and stomach. After undergoing
medical examinations for decades, he was at a loss to explain his faltering
health.
His doctor, who by coincidence had once trained at Edgewood,
asked Schnurman if he had ever worked with chemicals.
"No," Schnurman replied.
"Were you ever in the service?"
"Yes."
"Were you ever in any..." and here the doctor paused,
"special programs?"
Joy Schnurman, who until then had known nothing of her
husband's participation in mustard gas testing, recalls vividly
what happened next.
"Nat just turned white as a sheet," she said. "And then
the tears came and came, and out came the story."
Schnurman joined the Navy at 17 and was sent to Bainbridge
Naval Training Center in Maryland, where volunteers were being
recruited to test "summer clothing."
He was sent to a gas chamber at Edgewood six times in
seven days. On his last visit, a blend of mustard gas and lewisite
was piped in. Schnurman was overcome with toxins, vomited into his mask
and begged for release. The request was denied. His next memory is of
coming to on a snowbank outside the chamber.
He completed his Naval service, but his health steadily
grew worse. He told no one of the tests at Edgewood until that 1975
doctor's visit.
Schnurman filed for benefits from the VA and
spent the next 17 years pursuing records that would support his claim.
Blocked at every turn by a bureaucracy that denied access to his files
-- that denied in fact that he wass ever at Edgewood -- Schnurman eventually
collected box loads of documents. (And
nowhere to take them...everything continues to be recycled right back to
the abusers!)
His cause also benefited from renewed attention to chemical
warfare in the late 1980s, most notably by Iraq's use of mustard
gas on its own Kurdish population and in its war with Iran. In 1989,
an Australian documentary, "Keen as Mustard," exposed how the Australian
government denied the claims of its World War II soldiers because it did
not want to reveal its role in human testing. That same year,
a Canadian journalist exposed Canada's
World War II program. In July 1990, the Richmond Times-Dispatch
published the first of many stories on U.S. chemical gas veterans.
Around the same time, Schnurman's story caught the interest
of producers at "60 Minutes" and Porter Goss, a Florida congressman.
Goss, who is now CIA director, lobbied colleagues in Congress to compensate
Schnurman and other World War II chemical volunteers for their illnesses.
But not until June 11, 1991, days before a "60 Minutes"
expose on Schnurman's saga, did the Pentagon acknowledge the WWII
program for the first time. The VA immediately announced it would compensate
veterans who took part in chamber or field tests, or who were exposed
to high levels of toxins in the production or transport of chemicals,
for any of seven illnesses. (Ah! The Power
of the Press really can exist!)
VA promises action
Because the military destroyed or hid many records
relating to chemical testing, the VA also said it would relax the
evidence required to prove an illness was linked to service. Under
the new rules, veterans exposed to poisonous gases would only have
to show they later suffered from laryngitis, chronic bronchitis, emphysema,
asthma or some eye diseases to win benefits.
The VA asked a committee of the National Academy of Sciences
to see if any other diseases could be linked to the chemicals. Jay
Katz, a Yale University law professor and ethicist, urged the committee
to look beyond the medical literature and demand that the military
track down every veteran, or his family, and warn them of the health
risks. "The soldiers who 'volunteered' for these experiments had every
expectation that they would be treated fairly by their officers and
surely by the physicians," he wrote. "As doctors, we ask our patients
to trust us, and this trust was manipulated, exploited and betrayed...You
have no choice but to recommend that [the volunteers] be apprised of
what had been done to
them. Doing otherwise is an abdication of medical responsibility."
In January 1993, the committee issued "Veterans
at Risk," a chronicle of the mistreatment of World War II chemical
volunteers. The servicemen, the committee found, were recruited "through
lies and half-truths."
"Most appalling," the committee wrote, "was the fact
that no follow-up medical care or monitoring was provided for any
of the World War II human subjects," for thousands of chemical warfare
production workers or for the hundreds of military personnel who survived
a mustard gas ship explosion in Bari, Italy, in 1943.
The committee urged the VA to identify "each human subject
in the WWII testing program's chamber and field tests," as well
as chemical production workers so they could "be medically evaluated
and followed by the VA."
Even for dead veterans, "their surviving family members
deserve to know about the testing programs, the exposures and the
potential results of those exposures," the committee said.
The report also added to the list of diseases linked
to testing: respiratory cancers, skin cancer, a variety of skin
abnormalities, leukemia, chronic pulmonary disease, sexual dysfunction,
and mood and anxiety disorders such as post-traumatic stress disorder.
The report dismissed the argument that the exigencies
of war justified the tactics used to recruit volunteers. The military's
use of its own personnel in LSD and radiation programs "demonstrated
a well-ingrained pattern of abuse and neglect," the panel concluded.
(They knew, then, and STILL they have done nothing
to reign in the UGLY animal of ABUSE!)
Upon the report's release, the Defense Department quickly
accepted the recommendations, apologized, and pledged to help the
VA find the men.
"The years of silent suffering have ended for these WWII
veterans who participated in secret testing during their military
service," declared Anthony Principi, then acting VA secretary.
The VA announced it already was taking steps to find
veterans involved in the tests and grant them the benefits they
deserved. The agency directed its regional offices to track Navy and
Army claims involving chemical exposure. "This log should be kept
current and available for random review," the directive said.
The VA asked the Defense Department for any rosters of
servicemen involved in the tests. Once the names were gathered,
the VA pledged to collaborate with the Internal Revenue Service and
the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health to obtain
current addresses for the veterans so they could be contacted directly.
Valid claims could fetch up to $1,730 a month in disability, as well
as free medical care. Widows also could qualify.
By early 1993, government assurances were plentiful
and upbeat. (TRUST...US! And US
Victims do...but, will Iraqi VICTIMS??)
"Be assured this will not be treated as business as usual,"
President Bill Clinton declared in February 1993.
Nobody really knew how many WWII gas veterans and chemical
workers were still alive.
"It may be in the tens of thousands," Goss told a House
subcommittee. "That is an astonishing number of people to
have gone through a process, which we have, as a government, officially
denied ever happened."
But for many of the soldiers in the 1st Chemical Casual
Company, the assurances were too late.
Albert Pike, who owned a medical supply store in Akron,
Ohio, died of lung cancer and respiratory failure on May 8, 1990,
13 months before the military came clean.
He received no benefits for those diseases.
Pike, however, had received compensation for mustard
burns shortly after the war. On Jan. 30, 1946, one day after he
was honorably discharged, the VA awarded Pike a monthly disability
pension of $11.50 for the burns.
During the long illnesses that killed him at age 67,
Pike never contacted the VA to file a new claim. And for many years
after "Veterans at Risk" was published, his family never heard from
the government. But in 1998, his children said, Pike's widow received
a letter from the military inquiring about his health. The answer
was in Pike's VA file, if anyone had bothered to look. The VA had
paid $450 for Pike's burial. It classified his death as "non-service
related."
His widow was given a flag.
Contact DAVID ZEMAN at 313-222-6593 or zeman@freepress.com.
(In accordance with Title
17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit
to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information for research and educational purposes.)
PART III:
World War II vets' valor ends in pain, broken
promises
Servicemen got runaround, even for valid claims
November 12, 2004
BY DAVID ZEMAN
FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER
On the morning of March 10, 1993, as a blizzard barreled
toward the East Coast, two senior officials from the Department
of Veterans Affairs sat before a congressional panel and explained
how the VA planned to track down thousands of World War II veterans
exposed to hazardous chemicals.
"There is no doubt this is a dangerous occupational exposure,"
Dr. Susan Mather told the House subcommittee. "So we will get their
current names and addresses from IRS and then we will notify them
directly of their exposure and ask them to come in."
Nearly two years had passed since the Pentagon first
acknowledged that it deliberately injured at least 4,000 soldiers
and sailors in secret chemical tests during World War II. The Pentagon
pledged to search for lists of these veterans for the VA.
Sitting below crystal chandeliers and a 30-foot arched
ceiling accented with gold trim, Mather, a VA assistant chief of
environmental medicine and public health, and John Vogel, deputy undersecretary
for benefits, assured the congressmen the VA would actively pursue the
men. "One cannot lose sight of the fact that medical care may be needed
for these people," Vogel said.
Rep. Michael Bilirakis, R-Fla., pressed the point: "You
are not waiting; you are not sitting back, basically, and waiting
for claims to be filed by them?"
"Oh, no, not at all," Vogel said.
Starting the fight
Just north of Washington, a veteran of the 1st Chemical
Casual Company, wracked with skin cancer, felt the jolt of history.
Lee Landauer picked up his newspaper in suburban Baltimore
one morning and learned -- for the first time, he said -- that
the military misled his unit about the dangers of the chemical tests;
that the poisons used on him in 1943 could kill him 50 years later.
He learned something else, too: Washington stood ready to help.
Landauer felt liberated. The secret was out; his sacrifice
acknowledged. And, for the first time in a decade, the cancer
that had picked at his face, arms, neck, back and chest could be
explained.
"They made it sound like the government wanted to see
me," Landauer said.
He pulled on his jacket and headed downtown to file a
claim.
For the aging warriors of the 1st Chemical Casual Company,
the flurry of attention the World War II program received in Washington
in the early 1990s produced a rush of memories, and a disturbing
new lens through which to view them.
As young recruits in 1943, they were locked in gas chambers
with mustard, lewisite and other poisons to test protective clothing.
They were told to keep quiet about the tests, to accept the nausea
and burns to their skin, eyes or throat. In return, they were offered
extended furloughs and the promise that their scars would heal, that
the pain was temporary.
Patriots to the bone, the men of 1st Chemical
had respected their oaths, even as their bodies began to falter
and their suspicions rose about the chambers they once had entered
so willingly. One study showed that a majority of servicemen sworn
to secrecy kept their pledge even 50 years later, still believing they'd
be sent to Leavenworth if they talked.
But now with the secret finally, wonderfully, cathartically,
out, it was time to rethink old assumptions. Did years of sun cause
their skin cancer, as they always had believed? Did cigarettes cause
their emphysema? Was it their two months at Edgewood or a lifetime
of lab work that made them sniffle and hack all winter?
Entering a gas chamber with their buddies seemed like
such a small sacrifice when they were recruits. A half-century later,
the experiments began to take on a more menacing cast.
"Someone once asked him why he did it," Elsie Weaver
said of her husband, William, who suspected he had health problems
linked to the testing and died in 1988. "He said, 'Well, I was 18.
When you're 18, you don't think you'll be dying of anything the
government is going to give you.' "
It is difficult to say how many of the 100 soldiers from
the 1st Chemical unit were still alive when the government finally
owned up to the experiments in 1991. Many had died obscurely years
earlier, their lives -- and deaths -- a mystery to a government
that now vowed to find them.
But that was in the past. Whatever Washington's mistakes,
it now professed a commitment to locate chemical test veterans, wherever
they lived.
"The years of silent suffering have ended for these WWII
veterans who participated in secret testing during their military
service," Anthony Principi, then-acting-secretary of Veterans Affairs,
declared in 1993.
"Be assured," echoed President Bill Clinton, "this will
not be treated as business as usual."
It was time to take care of these men.
Up stepped Alfred Strauss.
A contrary diagnosis
In June 1993, at age 80, Strauss wrote to the VA from
his Century Village apartment in Deerfield Beach, Fla.
The retired chemist's medical records showed he suffered
from several ailments linked to World War II testing: emphysema,
chronic coughing and congestion, chronic obstructive lung disease and
bronchitis. He just could not seem to catch his breath.
The VA sent Strauss to be examined by Ft. Lauderdale
doctor Edward Michaelson.
In a Nov. 12, 1993, report, the doctor pinned Strauss'
ailments on his weight -- he was 5 feet 9 1/2 , 202 pounds -- and
a prior smoking habit. Inaccurately noting that Strauss had no history
of bronchitis or emphysema, the doctor wrote, "It does not appear
as if any exposure to inhaled irritant chemicals or fumes have contributed
to his mild to moderate respiratory problem."
Perhaps the doctor was right. It was difficult to say,
50 years later, whether chemicals or nicotine caused Strauss' breathing
problems. But the VA's stated policy was to resolve such conflicts
in favor of the veteran. The VA had relaxed its requirements for granting
mustard gas claims because the military's own policies -- the decades
of secrecy, the reluctance to include chemical records in personnel files
-- made it more difficult for veterans to prove their claims. The VA
nonetheless rejected Strauss' claim, relying on the doctor's report.
Reached recently at his Florida office, Michaelson said federal privacy
law prevents him from discussing individual patients. He said, however,
that linking a patient's lung disease to past chemical exposure is a
complex task, requiring doctors to consider all aspects of a patient's
history as well as the chemical involved.
"Just because someone was exposed to something doesn't
mean they suffered any permanent impairment related to that exposure,"
he said. "The answer you're looking for is not a simple answer."
VA officials declined to comment on the specifics of
Strauss' claim.
But Principi -- who was not at the VA when Strauss' claim
was rejected -- told the Free Press last month such cases are troubling,
if true.
If the chemical test veterans are being forced to prove
their ailments were caused by the experiments, VA officials "are
not applying the presumption correctly," Principi said. "If it's clear
from the medical evaluation that you have a certain disease and there
is clear, concrete evidence that you were exposed to mustard gas during
some period of time, then you're deserving of compensation. I mean it's
as simple to me as that."
Alfred Strauss did not appeal, and he never heard from
the VA again. He died in 1999. "He got zero compensation," said Nellie
Strauss, his 92-year-old widow.
False hopes
Around the time Strauss wrote to the VA from Florida,
Sidney Wolfson of Farmington received an excited phone call from his
brother.
"Sid," his brother Chuck said, "I've got something I'm
sure you will be interested in." It was a newspaper article from
Washington, perhaps the same one that Landauer had scanned in Maryland,
or that had prompted Strauss to write from south Florida. Wolfson recalls
reading the article and feeling relieved. "It was the first time I
understood I was able to talk about it," Wolfson said. "It made me
feel a little better."
He felt sure the VA would embrace his claim.
His medical file showed treatment for asthma, emphysema,
bronchitis, lung disease, depression, anxiety and sexual dysfunction
-- all linked to chemical testing at Edgewood.
Unlike most veterans, Wolfson maintained a meticulous
record of his Army service. He had kept a photograph of his Edgewood
unit, and a 1944 commendation from the Chemical Warfare Service thanking
the men for enduring "pain, discomfort, and possible permanent injury"
through "exposure to chemical agents."
In a shaky scrawl, Wolfson filled out a VA request for
compensation, saying he had never sought benefits before, but his
faltering condition and his wife Florence's deteriorating health
made it difficult for him to earn extra money preparing taxes for other
retirees. "Hopefully, I will be entitled to 'some' compensation which
will benefit our late years," he wrote.
But like Strauss in Florida, Wolfson's VA exam sealed
his fate. He was sent to a VA-approved osteopath, who concluded that
Wolfson was free of every disease linked to chemical testing.
Lung disease, asthma, bronchitis, emphysema -- all gone.
Even the scarring on his arms from mustard patch tests was no longer
visible, the doctor said -- despite clear evidence of arm burns, visible
today.
The VA officially denied Wolfson's claim seven months
later. In its rejection letter, the VA found, among other things,
that he produced "no record of exposure to mustard gas in service."
This, despite the fact that his name and service number appear on the
roster and commendation order of chemical test volunteers in his VA
and military files.
"You have the right to appeal this decision,"
the VA wrote in March 1994.
But Wolfson said he felt defeated. He accepted the ruling
and moved on.
Retreat and surrender
Why did the men of 1st Chemical give up? Why would soldiers,
some of whom risked their lives overseas, surrender so meekly to
a rejection letter? (Could it be that they
have learned the lesson well and refuse to be VICTIMIZED again??)
A few said they felt guilty seeking benefits for injuries
suffered outside of combat. Others were dispirited from past VA skirmishes.
Indeed, the files of several 1st Chemical soldiers show how they were
forced to haggle with the VA for even minor benefits immediately after
the war. Others received stern letters ordering them to return "overpayments"
of as little as $17 in pay after their discharge.
John L. Hannon, a 1st Chemical volunteer from Delaware,
was repeatedly denied benefits after the war for injuries common
among chemical test veterans -- blurred vision, conjunctivitis, congestion,
breathing problems and anxiety.
In 1999, Hannon again sought benefits, this time for
anxiety, nose and eye problems. In denying his claim in 2000, the
VA wrote, "[T]he evidence does not show full body exposure to mustard
gas during active military service."
In fact, Hannon's file meticulously records his exposure.
(Facts don't matter...they just get in the way of
'official' foregone conclusions.)
"This man volunteered and participated in tests conducted
by the Medical Division," states an Edgewood record in his VA file.
Hannon suffered "2 plus erythema [blisters] on hands" after being "exposed
to H [mustard] vapor in the chamber." The chemicals' toxicity produced
"slight systemic effects."
Hannon, too, declined to appeal.
As the 1990s rolled on, illness and death took a firmer
hold on the men of 1st Chemical.
That is not unexpected in men reaching their 80s. But
it was the way they were faltering -- from cancers, skin and respiratory
diseases -- that raised questions about the legacy of Edgewood.
•1994: John Hogan, a physician in Utah, went to his grave
believing the chronic pain on his leg could be traced to a frayed
Army uniform that allowed chemicals to burn his skin. "It would flare
up and be burning and red and itchy; he just knew it was from the mustard
gas," said his wife Valera. "He'd say, 'If that thing didn't have
holes in it, I'd have been all right.' "
•1995: John Berzellini, an asthmatic locked in a chamber
for hours as his mask filled with mucus and drool, died of heart
failure in Maryland. The skin on his hands was as delicate as crepe
paper. And every winter he was bedridden for weeks with what his wife
Irene called "a bronchial thing."
•1997: Francis Earnshaw, the West Virginia recruit sent
home for "nerves" only to have his disability claim rejected, died
in Ohio. Mary Jo, his wife of 50 years, did not learn the details
of his Edgewood training until recently, when contacted by a reporter.
"He was a guinea pig," she declared.
•1998: Paul Walters, a Missouri jeweler, died of leukemia,
without ever telling doctors about Edgewood's chambers.
•1999: Zenon Siepkowski died after a battle with leukemia
and respiratory disease.
Five veterans. Five deaths. None sought benefits for
the illnesses that tormented them.
After Siepkowski's death, though, his family did apply
for burial benefits.
The request was rejected -- the VA declared his respiratory
problems were unrelated to his service.
"We never followed up on that," said his son Richard.
"It wasn't worth it."
Some Pentagon assistance
But as the men of 1st Chemical faded, a small team of
Pentagon workers was aggressively attacking its mission, combing
through archives and remote warehouses -- three, four or five times
-- to find the names of soldiers, sailors or other Americans exposed
to chemicals.
The obstacles were daunting. Many Army and Navy chemical
rosters had long since vanished, or contained only last names.
More critically, millions of World War II Army files perished in
a 1973 fire at a St. Louis, Mo., records center, leaving Pentagon
sleuths to search elsewhere.
Martha Hamed, a Pentagon supervisor assigned to the project,
recalls spending winter days in the mid-1990s shivering in an unheated
Utah warehouse, dragging boxes of veterans' records to a sunny spot
on the floor to keep warm.
Col. Fred Kolbrener, a now-retired project leader, said,
"We literally went down a shelf -- 'You've got this shelf, I've
got that one' -- and we just read everything on that shelf. If we
found anything at all that might have names in it, we grabbed it."
Pentagon workers sometimes called veterans directly to
ensure they had the right man. "A lot of us were personally invested
in it," said Hamed, whose father fought in World War II. Veterans
"would call the office and say, 'I'm dying, can you help me?' It was
heartbreaking. So we were on a mission. We tried to leave no stone
unturned."
From 1994 through 1997, the Pentagon compiled roughly
6,500 names -- forwarding lists to the VA as they were gathered.
"A couple times a month we'd be dropping stuff off at their offices,"
Kolbrener said. The Pentagon even sent new commendations to some 772
chemical volunteers.
Officials at the Institute of Medicine, the scientific
body that helped analyze the World War II program in 1993, said in
an Aug. 2, 1995, internal memo: "Once the DOD decides to investigate
fully, the amount they can accomplish is amazing."
"Unfortunately," the memo added, "Col. Kolbrener has
reported that the VA has not responded very quickly once it is proven
that a given individual was, in fact, exposed."
Indeed, while the Pentagon searched for veterans' names
into 1997, the VA had quietly stopped tracking mustard gas claims
three years earlier, when media and congressional attention
began to wane. (There's a LESSON to be learned,
here!)
The Free Press discovered the VA failed to directly notify
any veterans or chemical workers of the health risks posed by the
tests or their eligibility for benefits. No letters, no phone calls.
The agency did not even run Pentagon lists through Internal Revenue
Service computers or other government agencies to find current addresses
for the chemical veterans, as it had promised Congress.
Even today, the VA cannot produce records on chemical
claims after 1994. What records they have show the agency processed
slightly more than 2,000 claims by September 1994, granting benefits
to 193 people -- less than 10 percent.
Who filed claims? Some were guinea pigs at places like
Edgewood. Others helped make or transport chemical weapons for the
military. Still others were ordinary enlisted men who may have mistaken
the routine training exercises of their war years for true chemical
tests.
Different people. Different circumstances. One common
trait: They approached the VA. The VA didn't go to them.
And the men of 1st Chemical? They are still not officially
acknowledged. The government database on the test program does
not list the unit among those that participated in chemical experiments.
Kolbrener, now a security analyst with Virginia-based
Xacta Corp., said last week he had no idea the VA had not searched
for the people identified by his team. "I would think that that's why
we were doing it," Kolbrener said.
The VA officials who testified to Congress in 1993 cannot,
or will not, explain now what went wrong.
"I really don't know," Mather said. "At that time, outreach
was very much the responsibility of veterans benefits, and Mr. Vogel
was the undersecretary for benefits."
Vogel, who left the VA, refused comment. He referred
questions to Quentin Kinderman, his assistant policy director. Now
retired, Kinderman said, "I'm not sure I can really answer that. It
really surprises me we would have dropped the issue at that time without
doing something."
Those answers stunned Jim Slattery, the Kansas congressman
who chaired the 1993 hearing.
"When government officials from the executive branch
come before a committee in Congress and make a commitment, that's
a sacred commitment and it must be honored," said Slattery, now a Washington
attorney. "It's very disappointing." (But...as 1185's demise demonstrates, this isn't the first or only time...they need to LEARN
the LESSON!)
Principi, the VA secretary, said he was unaware of any
problems with the chemical program until the Free Press raised questions
about it in the summer. He noted he left the agency in January 1993,
when Clinton took office, and did not return until 2000.
"Quite honestly, you hate to learn about these things
from others, that veterans have not been receiving their benefits,"
Principi said. "But the important thing to me is when a problem has
been identified, to try to fix it, to try to help people. They served
their nation honorably" so the VA must "do what we can to provide health
care and compensation to them. That's always been my bottom line and
still is my bottom line ... If more needs to be done, it will be done."
Harold Gracey, chief of staff to VA Director Jesse Brown
during the Clinton years, said he, too, was unaware there were concerns
about mustard-gas claims.
"I can't imagine that there was a lack of follow-through,"
said Gracey, an executive at a technology firm near Washington.
The VA's only direct contact with mustard-gas volunteers came in a
1996 study on the psychological trauma faced by chemical volunteers.
The study found that chemical volunteers had a higher rate of post-traumatic
stress disorder than even World War II combat veterans. About four in
10 World War II guinea pigs interviewed in the study had some degree
of post-traumatic stress disorder more than a half-century later.
VA researchers sought out 500 mustard-gas veterans, eventually
interviewing 363 by phone. To make the veterans feel comfortable
answering questions, the researchers promised they would not share
their conversations with other VA offices.
Dr. Paula Schnurr, deputy director of the VA's post-traumatic
stress research center, said the study cost $230,000. VA officials
concede they could have used the same methods to search for the roughly
4,000 men used in chamber and field tests during the war. Assuming
half of those men were alive in 1996, it would have cost the VA less than
$1 million to find them and gauge their eligibility for benefits. (What...and ADMIT to WRONG doing?)
Principi, a combat-decorated Vietnam veteran, said last
month it was not too late to act.
"If the VA promised to do a direct mailing and we did
not do a direct mailing, having had their location and their addresses,
then I would say we did let them down," he said. "If we did not, if
my successor did not, whomever, me or anybody else, then I say we
need to go back and take another look and see what should be done."
Tied up in red tape
Last summer, Lee Landauer, the veteran with skin cancer
from Baltimore, offered a visitor a glimpse of his ravaged body. He
has scabs on his nose, cheeks, forearms and elbows. He removed a pink
golf shirt to reveal craters where lesions had been surgically scooped
out.
Ten years had passed since Landauer drove into Baltimore
to file a claim.
That visit was brief and crushing.
"They didn't ask me one question," he said. "The guy
didn't take any notes; he didn't interview me. I thought he would
keep me there and talk to me for an hour or so, maybe give me a physical
exam, or even a flu shot.
"But when I get there, they didn't ask me squat. They
didn't want to see me, really."
Still, he filled out the paperwork, forwarded
his medical records -- and waited.
Nearly a year later, Landauer was still waiting. (TIME is a very effective WEAPON!)
"I have been trying since last December 1994 to get into
the VA for my skin cancer," he wrote the VA in September 1995. "Anything
you could do to speed up this process would be greatly appreciated."
In November 1995, the VA rejected his claim, saying he
presented "no record of squamous cell carcinoma," the type of skin
cancer linked to the World War II tests.
Actually, Landauer's medical records show "squamous cell
carcinoma" dating to 1978 -- as well as bronchitis, emphysema and
chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, all of them linked to chemicals.
And yet, like so many of his Edgewood mates, Landauer shrugged and
accepted it.
Landauer, 82, and his wife, Sheila, now live in a retirement
condo in Sun City West, Ariz. In recent years, he worked as a grocery
bagger at an Albertson's near his home -- the couple needed the medical
coverage.
That coverage was tested last March when Landauer was
hospitalized with pneumonia. Sheila, the determined advocate
he will never be, had had enough. "You've got to go to the VA to
get some medical care," she said. (There is
a woman behind every successful EXPOSURE of ABUSE in the military...starting
with TAILHOOK! As the Air Force Academy RAPE scandal shows...exposure isn't enough. ABUSE has to be Recognized,
Challenged and Checked...by someone other than it's VICTIMS!)
So in June, Lee Landauer took one last shot with the
VA. Sheila drove him to the agency's sprawling complex in downtown
Phoenix, and he once again filled out paperwork for disability. The
couple were told not to expect a decision until year's end.
Because Landauer had been on medical leave from his grocery
job, he was allowed to see VA doctors while he awaited the agency's
decision.
As autumn arrived, Sheila Landauer was nearly frantic.
Her husband had received his last disability check -- for $85 --
from his grocery job, and his medical insurance was set to expire
in the spring. They had taken to accepting financial help from their
children.
"After March, it's over," Sheila said in October. "Everything
is over."
But then last week, the Landauers' fortunes began to
shift.
On Nov. 1 -- 10 days after the Free Press sent the VA
a summary of Landauer's case -- the agency granted his disability
claim for lung disease and bronchitis. The VA said he would now receive
$817 a month and continuing medical care, making him the first soldier
from 1st Chemical to be so compensated. The ex-platoon sergeant allowed
himself a smile. For one exhilarating moment, it didn't matter that the
VA had rejected essentially the same request 10 years earlier. It didn't
matter that the VA has still not addressed his strongest claim: for the cancer
that was eating at his face and torso. That was for another day. For now,
he said, "I am tickled to death."
Sheila Landauer clutched the letter and wept.
Haunting reminders
Edgewood Arsenal does not look terribly different today
from the morning in September 1943 when the men of 1st Chemical arrived
as young recruits. The grounds are still sprinkled with meadows and
stables. Eagles still fly overhead.
Although the grass is not always scrupulously tended,
the squat, white structures remain. Some chemical plants have been
converted into administrative buildings; others stand as rusty hulks,
their beams and the earth beneath them too toxic to be disturbed.
Reminders are everywhere of Edgewood's pedigree.
Edgewood has been on the Environmental Protection Agency's
Superfund list for years. Storage yards still hold 1-ton mustard
containers. Its grounds and surface water have tested positive for
laboratory waste, PCBs, radiological compounds, napalm, nerve agent,
white phosphorus, munitions and traces of mustard.
And Edgewood remains a home to chemical research.
Sixty years later, many of the same challenges
exist for military scientists. The protective masks used by the
military still fail too often. And scientists are still searching
for a surefire antidote to mustard gas -- though they now use real
guinea pigs in lab tests. (Really? It's doubtful
that the VICTIMS of Lariam will believe that one!)
Meanwhile, veterans filing claims are urged patience.
The VA is attempting to reduce a backlog of more than 300,000 disability
claims as it deals with budget cuts.
But the VA secretary remains full of promise.
Last month, during a speech at a Texas convention of
former prisoners of war, Principi announced to a crowd of cheering
vets that they now were entitled to medical benefits for heart disease
or stroke -- without being forced to prove their captivity caused their
illness.
He praised the veterans' courage and patriotism.
"This is an issue," he said, "that has been studied and
debated too long."
Contact DAVID ZEMAN at 313-222-6593 or zeman@freepress.com
(In accordance with Title
17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit
to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information for research and educational purposes.)
MAMMA's Footnote:
Make no mistake, the ABUSE of POWER that leaves military
health and safety issues languishing "too long", is SYSTEMIC and well entrenched.
Breaking the cycle of ABUSE that has ingrained itself into the military
mind set and initiating redress of the situation will require outside
intervention...either from God or the Media, whichever comes first!
BACK TO THE TOP
BACK TO PUBLIC ALERTS
Thanks to an
EXCLUSIVE, 'posted' by MILITARYCORRUPTION.COM, the 'conclusion' that
the military doesn't do anything wrong is, to say the least, questionable.
Consider:
INSIDE THE CID
CONFESSIONS OF A ROUGUE AGENT
BY SGT RICHARD EDWARDS*
Our job was to enforce the law, but more times than
not, we ended up breaking it. This was the paradox I faced as a young Criminal
Investigation Division (CID) agent.
To us, the Constitution didn’t matter. Due process
was a legal term we paid little attention to. We didn’t have to. Our officers
and commanders used us to plant evidence, settle scores, and
“target” people the brass didn’t like.
All the illusions I had about honesty and integrity
and learning to be a “good cop”– that all went out the window, almost from
the first day I became a CID agent. Sure, we busted people who
committed crimes. But even a hard-nosed cop like I was in those
days, couldn’t help but feel pity for some of the officers and men
whose lives were ruined because they’d violated the Army’s regulations
about “fraternization” and “adultery.”
“DOUBLE-STANDARD OF JUSTICE”
It was always “selective enforcement.” As long as
you had enough rank or you were “connected,” you could escape punishment.
I’ve known at least two bird colonels who could have been busted, but
the commander in each case let them go. One quickly retired with full
honors and benefits. The other colonel continued to have affairs for more
than two years before he got out of the Army. And he even got the Legion
of Merit at his retirement ceremony! We thought that was a real joke. But
the lower ranks weren’t laughing. You’d be surprised at how much an E-4
knows what’s going on at his installation. The gossip, the stories, or
who’s doing what to who, that gets around. There aren’t many secrets.
The “double-standard of justice” was routine. One
man, usually a NCO, would lose his pension and be drummed out of the Army.
Sometimes he’d get sent to Leavenworth if the offense had high political
visibility. But the favored few - sergeant-majors and officers
0-5 and above, if they were “plugged in,” all they got was a slap
on the wrist or nothing at all.
In fact, we saw one light colonel actually get promoted
and given a medal. And we knew he was a dirt-bag. But the important
difference was, that dirt-bag was the general’s “pal,” and nobody
but nobody was going to touch him! The PMO made sure to let us know
who’s who, and who to lay off of.
We knew who the heavy drinkers were. If we could have,
we’d have busted some of the ranking officers who drove under the
influence. But the word was to “look the other way,” so we did. Who
needs to stop someone who could get you in big trouble?
INTIMIDATION TACTICS
I have to admit, it was a real “high” sometimes to know
that a junior NCO like I was, could strike terror into the heart
of a major or master sergeant. We wore plain-clothes and no one outside
the unit knew what rank we were. But we had that badge and we were armed.
Part of our intimidation tactics was to “show” our
sidearms when we arrested a suspect. I’d pull back my windbreaker and place
the palm of my hand on the gun butt. The “perp” got the message
real fast not to mess with me!
It also didn’t hurt to make them think you’d beat
them at the slightest provocation. Of course, you don’t do that until you
have them in the MP station where no outsiders will see or hear. That
look of fear in their eyes, I’ll never forget it. It made me feel ten
feet tall. Better than drugs.
VIOLATION OF RIGHTS
I/We didn’t worry about suspects complaining to the IG.
That’s another joke. I knew IG’s that would “sucker” a soldier into
thinking he was going to get help. Then, as soon as they was out the
door, the IG would be on the phone to the “old man,” ratting the soldier
out.
JAG officers? A few actually cared, and some even
tried to defend their “clients.” But anyone who wanted a promotion from
captain to major, or to continue with their Army career, they knew what
they had to do. Just “go through the motions.” A few JAGs we knew did more
than that. They pumped information out of those they were “defending”
and then passed it on to the prosecution. We’d call cases like that “a
slam dunk.”
I never planted evidence myself – I wouldn’t have,
unless I was given a direct order – but I had buddies who did. That helped
nail down some drug cases. The end justified the means.
Getting into an office after-hours, or somebody’s
quarters when we knew they were gone, that happened several times. When
you’re trying to make a case, you do what you need to do. No way could
we get away with half what we did if we were civilian police.
STARTING TO HAVE REGRETS
I think I started to lose my stomach for it when we
were detailed to harass an officer the command had targeted. He was
being treated for depression already, so it made it all the easier
for us to “break him” and “send him over the edge.” It’s just I didn’t
figure he’d kill himself. All we wanted was to intimidate him. He had
a family and small children. Sometimes I think about them. I wonder if
someday they’ll ask themselves why their father committed suicide?
I hope they never find out.
You asked about “accidents” and other “suicides” that
might be something else. I really don’t want to go there. Let’s just
say, there’s ways to make a death look like it was just an accident.
And an official finding of “suicide” is the best friend a CID agent
has. That means the case is wrapped up tight. No need to do an exhaustive
investigation. We have enough on our plate as is.
I read your story on the Marine colonel who got whacked
and it was called a “suicide.” I did plenty of things I’m ashamed
of now, but if I’d been in on something like that, I don’t think I
could live with myself. It’s bad enough now, knowing that I may have
contributed to a man’s death. I just didn’t figure he’d “take himself
out.” But he did.
(EDITOR’S
NOTE: SGT “Richard Edwards”(*) is, in actuality, a pseudonym
for another former CID agent. That man was an E-5 and was able
to prove his prior service.)
A 'link' for MilitaryCorruption.com can be found on the
MAMMA
Supports page and you are invited to visit their site to
'Read More About It' and their ongoing efforts in "Fighting for
the truth...exposing the corrupt".
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C.
Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to
those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included
information for research and educational purposes.)
BACK TO THE TOP
BACK
TO PUBLIC ALERTS
Questioning
Ethics of Abu Ghraib Doctors: the tip of the iceberg
By Willow Marie Maze
In August of 2004, the British medical journal, Lancet, published a report
written by University of Minnesota professor Steven Miles along
with its own editorial comments. Touted as a “scathing analysis”
of the behavior of military doctors, nurses and medics working for
the U.S. military at Abu Ghraib, the report questions their ethics
in a situation Dr. Miles terms as “…a fundamental breakdown of the
military medical system for these prisoners.”
Utilizing media reports, congressional testimony, sworn
statements of detainees and soldiers, and medical journals - not
events he witnessed firsthand, Dr. Miles asserted that doctors at
Baghdad’s Abu Ghraib prison falsified death certificates to cover
up murders. The Lancet condemned the behavior of the doctors and called
for health care workers to “break their silence” and to “…give a full
and accurate account of events at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay.”
The Department of Defense (DoD) took “strong exception”
to the allegations and objected to what it maintains is tantamount
to the “wholesale indictment” of U. S. medical personnel and care
in Iraq. In a prepared statement, Lt. Col. Barry Johnson, U.S. Army
spokesman for detainee operations in Iraq, said, “Many of these cases
remain under investigation and charges will be brought against any individual
where there is evidence of abuse.”
Neither Dr. Miles’ assertions nor the DoD’s repudiations
are new or come as a surprise to the members of MAMMA (M+others
Aligned for Military & Murder Accountability), whose members
speak from experience about every element (including intimidation,
embarrassment and humiliation) of the Abu Ghraib abuse scandal. The
significance of Dr. Miles’ report being published in a British journal
is not lost on them either as some members have tried for years to get
truthful manner of death rulings established for service members who
died under questionable and/or bizarre circumstances.
Jan Beimdiek, Founder/Directing CEO of MAMMA, debunks
and decries the DoD’s standard; “Trust us…we’ll take care of everything“
stance. Referring to Lt. Col. Johnson’s statement, she says that
this is typical military doublespeak and translates thusly; “Many of
these cases remain under investigation, until the heat is off, and
(unless a ‘scapegoat‘ is found) charges will be brought against any
individual where there is evidence of abuse, when hell freezes over!“
While lamenting that “the view from the cheap seats
seems a bit obscured“, Mrs. Beimdiek supports the bulk of Dr. Miles’
report. However, she is deeply concerned by the Lancet’s companion
piece that serves as a challenge to do the right thing. Given the fact
that Spec. Joseph M. Darby (AKA the whistle blower) is in protective
custody and the conviction that the death of her son, who dared to
speak up and question a suicide ruling, served as the exclamation point
for the message: “Keep your eyes and your mouth shut or you will be the
next one going home in a body bag”, she fears that challenging lowly (naïve
and idealistic) medics to “…come forward and tell what they know”, without
first determining the extent of the abuse complicity, could have deadly
consequences.
Dr. Miles contends that at prisons in both Iraq and
Afghanistan, “Physicians routinely attributed detainee deaths on
death certificates to heart attacks, heat stroke or natural causes
without noting the unnatural (cause) of the death.”
No one connected with MAMMA would dispute that contention.
Rather, they stress that it is not just prison detainees whose
deaths are routinely attributed to; heart attacks, heat stroke,
natural causes (including blunt force trauma) or (to them) the all
to familiar ruling of suicide. Joan Myers, a MAMMA member who once
lived in Iraq, is sure that Mr. Rumsfield’s mandate (regarding detainee
autopsies and subsequent autopsy reports), is the precursor for “Suicide”
rulings being posted from the prisons.
Interestingly, many of the personal experiences
of MAMMA members are similar to the case studies Dr. Miles highlighted.
For example, Dr. Miles’ report cites one case that involved a prisoner
whose head was pushed into a sleeping bag while interrogators sat
on his chest and when he (the prisoner) died, a surgeon blamed natural
causes.
Joan Myers, widow of Capt. Jack W. Myers, is painfully
familiar with that scenario. Mrs. Myers vividly remembers the night
of December 12, 2000, when her husband, hospitalized in the VA Hospital,
died. She tells a chilling story of how Jack was accosted by another
patient, who sat on his chest, while staff members tried not to notice.
Jack suffocated to death. Joan says, “Right after Jack died, I was
told to expect a ruling of manslaughter due to negligence.“ Instead,
his death is listed as an accident and Joan fears that such a travesty
of justice leaves others vulnerable to the same tragedy and heartache.
Another incident that Dr. Miles cites is an example
from a Human Rights Watch report in which soldiers tied a beaten
detainee to the top of his cell door and gagged him. The death certificate
for this prisoner indicated that he died of “natural causes…during
his sleep.” However, following media attention, the Pentagon changed
the cause of death to homicide by blunt force injuries and suffocation.
Sonya Killian, another member of MAMMA, can easily
relate to this situation, until it gets to the part where the Pentagon
changed the death to a homicide. The body of her son, MSSR Stephen
J. Killian Jr., USN, was found hanging from the top of a door in a
hotel room on May 30, 1999. In less than 24 hours, his death was listed
as a “suicide” and Mrs. Killian says, “We (his family) are expected
to believe that he traveled from Oceana, VA to Las Vegas, NV to take
his own life!”
In the military, all deaths not combat-related are
to be treated as homicides, until enough evidence proves otherwise.
Yet, Don Housman, senior investigator for the Beimdiek case, told
Mrs. Beimdiek that “judgment calls (at the scene) are made all the time.”
Then, isn’t it a bit backwards that the deaths of so many military
members are being ruled as suicides and their families are left with
the challenge to prove otherwise?
Many have tried, but prior to the Iraqi case that Dr.
Miles cited…only one has succeeded in getting any records changed.
It took 50 years and an Act of Congress for the survivors of the
USS Indianapolis (the betrayal of the Indy and her brave crew is an
incredible story in and of itself) to get the truth told about the death
of their captain, Captain Charles Butler McVay III.
By all accounts, the task of getting records (“once
in writing…set in stone“) changed is nigh onto impossible to complete.
Inexplicably, the bottom line of the autopsy report is the alpha
and the omega of each case. In cases that demonstrate deficiencies
(medical or otherwise) that validate a dispute of that bottom line,
the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (AFIP) calls out the big guns
and orders a Psychological Autopsy.
The latest case to go under the gun is that of Col.
Philip Shue, a USAF Psychiatrist, whose bizarre death (ruled suicide)
has become a matter for the courts in Texas. Though his widow, Lt. Col.
(ret) Tracy Shue, USAF, is under a gag order and can not comment, others,
having experienced the ordeal, are sure that the report, with its predetermined
concurring conclusion, will constitute nothing more than a character
assassination.
A review of materials from the case of HM3 Scott Beimdiek
certainly supports that assessment. Reports and rebuttals show that:
- the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) report
contains a discrepancy of the lighting in the room where Beimdiek’s
body was found…as one statement notes the overhead lights were on
and another states the lights were off.
- Dr. Michael Gelles, chief psychologist for NCIS and
directed by AFIP (conflict of interest?), filed a concurring conclusion
report, rooted in his determination that; “…the room was dimly lit
by a bathroom light” thus “…being suggestive of autoerotic activity.“
- Beimdiek’s family challenged Dr. Gelles’ conclusion,
noting that the death scene lacked an adjacent bathroom and questioning
if overhead lighting would be conducive to such an activity?
- the review report from DoD really muddled things
by noting; “…disclosed no misstatements of fact presented by Dr.
Gelles” and “He used the word ’Bathroom’ where he meant to use the
word ’Bedroom’”, then, decisively closed the case.
Beside the obvious question of how the use of one word
when intending to use another fails to qualify as a misstatement…if
the lighting is not supportive of this activity, is the activity
itself questionable? Considering that a life has been cut short and
that murderers who get away with murder are dangerous to others, isn’t
getting to the truth about a death more important than supporting a bottom
line that may be wrong? Isn‘t that like drawing a line in the sand and
daring someone to cross it?
The analysis that Dr. Miles presents is centered on
his belief that the abuse scandal was fueled by a medical system
that failed to ensure proper treatment of injured prisoners. Following
a notation on the “extremely humane” treatment of prisoners in World War
II and the Korean and Vietnam wars, Dr. Miles said, “I think this represents
a sharp turn in the history of military medicine in the United States and
is one of the issues that deserves to be explored.”
Mrs. Beimdiek applauds Dr. Miles’ efforts to expose
the medical complicity factor of the prison, but stresses consideration
of all the factors that led to the abuse. She is emphatic that the
“…turn in the history of military medicine in the United States” is
not as sharp as Dr. Miles seems to think and “…faked death certificates
to try and cover up homicides.“ are nothing new! She is adamant that
any investigation, medical or congressional, that would leave “No stone
unturned” in getting to the bottom of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, needs
to include a good look at the headstones of American and British service
members, who served their country…only to end up in early graves with their
dignity assaulted, their names sullied and denied justice. She asks, “Don’t
they deserve the most basic respect of having the truth told about how
they died?”
Indeed, a visit to the MAMMA site at: www.oocities.org/gold_star_mother
gives credence to the claim that there is a problem with accountability
and abuse of power in the military. The entire site, formulated
on the premise that an injustice to one is an injustice to all, is
dedicated to the task of exposing military injustice, betrayal and
abuse. It portrays a tale of pure shock and horror. The shock is that
these situations are still happening and the horror is that they are
being allowed to happen.
With an emphasis on situations that deal with questionable
deaths, the site stresses (what it calls) the 3 R’s of Redress,
Reeducate and Restore:
1) Redress…deals with the concept that the DoD
and the Pentagon have established a closed society and questions
this segment of society being given the power to police itself. Evidence
abounds that, for years, the hierarchy of both of these institutions
have obstructed justice in criminal cases that range from rape (asking
the question…”Would there have been an Air Force Academy rape scandal
if lessons had been learned from Tailhook?) through murder!
2) Reeducate…deals with the concept that the
‘go along to get along’ genre in Washington serves to enable the
usurpation of power by people who have come to view the men and women
in uniform as property…to do with as they please. It seems that people
need to be reminded that military personnel are the sons, daughters
and spouses of their neighbors, on loan to the military to defend
our country if the need (justifiable war) arises…not military property
or guinea pigs to be used, abused and discarded.
3) Restore…deals with the concept that public
officials need to service the people who serve them and all their
countrymen. In seeking to restore dignity to anyone defiled by
the ultimate injustice of a mislabeled “manner of death” ruling,
it became apparent that members of Congress need reminding that
it is their responsibility to hold the military accountable for all
charges of abuse of power and wrong doing.
In the early 90’s, David Zucchino, with the Philadelphia
Enquirer, wrote a series of articles dealing with questionable
deaths in the military and, in the late 90’s, John Hanchette wrote
another set for the Gannett group. Unfortunately, they (and every
other reporter, who has broached this topic) didn’t feel qualified
or competent to challenge or dispute any medical findings that purportedly
substantiate the conclusion that is registered on the bottom line
of the death certificate. While their efforts have succeeded in intriguing
the public, there hasn’t been any advancement in initiating changes
that could or would put a stop to future questionable rulings. It is
doubted that anything will change, until officials learn the lessons from
Enron.
The staffers in the Congressional offices of
Senators and Representatives also feel unqualified to challenge
the bottom line of an autopsy report. Thus it is that all challenges
of discrepancies, medical and otherwise, keep being funneled
through the AFIP. A situation that emboldened the (former) Director,
Dr. Charles J. Stahl, to tell Jan Beimdiek, “You will get your reports.
You will get your pictures. You can take them anywhere you want, to whoever
you want. It won’t get you anywhere. This is the court of last resort
and you have nowhere else to go!”
Indeed, the Beimdiek family got pictures and reports,
only to find, as many have found, that some pictures contradict the
reports. A Beimdiek sampling of contradictions includes, but is
not limited to;
1) a picture that shows a broken hyoid bone,
embedded in the back of the throat…negated by a report that
says the hyoid bone is intact.
2) a picture that shows; red thumb shaped marks
at the base of each armpit, a red palm sized mark and a brownish
mark near the small of the back…negated by a report that says
there are no marks on Beimdiek’s back.
3) a picture that shows (to an objective untrained
eye) a nasty bruise on the scrotum that has oozed a trickling of
liquid that looks suspiciously like blood…negated by a report
that ignores the liquid and makes note of a “reddish brown patch of
skin” (known to be nonexistent, prior to his death).
4) a picture that shows a spittle pattern that
indicates the victim died, laying in his left side…negated
by a report that notes a hanging death.
A picture is worth a thousand words. When a few words
are given the power to overrule a picture, that gives meaning to
the phrase; “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
Dr. Miles said, “The detaining power’s health personnel
are the first and often the last line of defense against human rights
abuses. Their failure to assume that role emphasizes to the prisoner
how utterly beyond humane appeal they are.“ Personally familiar with
the lost and dejected feeling of being “beyond humane appeal“, Mrs.
Beimdiek concurs with that assessment, but asserts that any “legacy
of reform” that could or would result from this prison scandal will require
a comprehensive investigation that far exceeds the medical minions
stationed at the prisons.
Mounting evidence makes it quite clear that the Abu
Ghraib prison scandal that the world has become privy to and outraged
by…is but the “tip of the iceberg” of an abuse of power situation
that has long plagued the American victims of Military Injustice.
The abuse is systemic in nature and well entrenched. Outside intervention,
not “in house” investigations, is needed to break the cycle and
initiate redress. As every abuse victim knows, begging an abuser
to stop is an exercise in futility.
The problem that needs to be recognized, challenged
and checked (ASAP) is centered in the Power and Control system (utilizing;
Isolation, Intimidation, Threats, Economic and Emotional Abuse,
etc.) used to maintain discipline in the Military. Evidence suggests
that…when the military initiated an interdisciplinary field of training
that incorporated mind manipulation techniques (complete with lessons
learned from the Jan. 20, 1942, Wannese Conference) to up their kill
ratio, there was an upsurge of violence and efforts to control it (in
house) only worsened matters. Thus, a cycle of abuse…akin to what battered
women experience…took off with a cover up in hot pursuit!
Unfortunately (for the world)…this classic abuse pattern
(a militarized version of domestic violence) is currently playing
out in a part of the world where the (to be expected) escalation of
violence can be easily labeled as terrorism! If this cycle continues…unrecognized,
unchallenged and unchecked…can the (U.S. proposed) “never ending
war on terrorism” be far behind?
If the prospect of a perpetual war doesn’t appeal to
you, MAMMA urges you to speak up and tell your elected officials,
via; calls, E-mail and letters, to follow through on the promise they
made to the world and hold Public Hearings that leave no stone (including
headstones) unturned in getting to the bottom of the abuse that has
manifested itself in Iraq.
Our children deserve a legacy of Peace…not War!
willowmariemaze@yahoo.com
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C.
Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to
those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included
information for research and educational purposes.)
Nov. 16, 2004. 01:00 AM
Should Canada indict Bush?
THOMAS WALKOM
When U.S. President George W. Bush arrives in Ottawa — probably
later this year — should he be welcomed? Or should he be charged with
war crimes?
It's an interesting question. On the face of it, Bush seems
a perfect candidate for prosecution under Canada's Crimes against Humanity
and War Crimes Act.
This act was passed in 2000 to bring Canada's ineffectual
laws in line with the rules of the new International Criminal Court.
While never tested, it lays out sweeping categories under which a foreign
leader like Bush could face arrest.
In particular, it holds that anyone who commits a war crime,
even outside Canada, may be prosecuted by our courts. What is a war
crime? According to the statute, it is any conduct defined as such by
"customary international law" or by conventions that Canada has adopted.
War crimes also specifically include any breach of the 1949
Geneva Conventions, such as torture, degradation, wilfully depriving
prisoners of war of their rights "to a fair and regular trial," launching
attacks "in the knowledge that such attacks will cause incidental loss
of life or injury to civilians" and deportation of persons from an
area under occupation.
Outside of one well-publicized (and quickly squelched) attempt
in Belgium, no one has tried to formally indict Bush. But both Oxfam
International and the U.S. group Human Rights Watch have warned that
some of the actions undertaken by the U.S. and its allies, particularly
in Iraq, may fall under the war crime rubric.
The case for the prosecution looks quite promising. First,
there is the fact of the Iraq war itself. After 1945, Allied tribunals
in Nuremberg and Tokyo — in an astonishing precedent — ruled that states
no longer had the unfettered right to invade other countries and that
leaders who started such conflicts could be tried for waging illegal
war.
Concurrently, the new United Nations outlawed all aggressive
wars except those authorized by its Security Council.
Today, a strong case could be made that Bush violated the
Nuremberg principles by invading Iraq. Indeed, U.N. Secretary-General
Kofi Annan has already labelled that war illegal in terms of the U.N.
Charter.
Second, there is the manner in which the U.S. conducted this
war.
The mistreatment of prisoners at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison
is a clear contravention of the Geneva Accord. The U.S. is also deporting
selected prisoners to camps outside of Iraq (another contravention).
U.S. press reports also talk of shadowy prisons in Jordan run by the
CIA, where suspects are routinely tortured. And the estimated civilian
death toll of 100,000 may well contravene the Geneva Accords prohibition
against the use of excessive force.
Canada's war crimes law specifically permits prosecution
not only of those who carry out such crimes but of the military and
political superiors who allow them to happen.
What has emerged since Abu Ghraib shows that officials at
the highest levels of the Bush administration permitted and even encouraged
the use of torture.
Given that Bush, as he likes to remind everyone, is the U.S.
military's commander-in-chief, it is hard to argue he bears no responsibility.
Then there is Guantanamo Bay. The U.S. says detainees there
do not fall under the Geneva accords. That's an old argument.
In 1946, Japanese defendants explained their mistreatment
of prisoners of war by noting that their country had never signed any
of the Geneva Conventions. The Japanese were convicted anyway.
Oddly enough, Canada may be one of the few places where someone
like Bush could be brought to justice. Impeachment in the U.S. is most
unlikely. And, at Bush's insistence, the new international criminal
court has no jurisdiction over any American.
But a Canadian war crimes charge, too, would face many hurdles.
Bush was furious last year when Belgians launched a war crimes suit
in their country against him — so furious that Belgium not only backed
down under U.S. threats but changed its law to prevent further recurrences.
As well, according to a foreign affairs spokesperson, visiting
heads of state are immune from prosecution when in Canada on official
business. If Ottawa wanted to act, it would have to wait until Bush
was out of office — or hope to catch him when he comes up here to fish.
And, of course, Canada's government would have to want to
act. War crimes prosecutions are political decisions that must be authorized
by the federal attorney-general.
Still, Prime Minister Paul Martin has staked out his strong
opposition to war crimes. This was his focus in a September address
to the U.N. General Assembly.
There, Martin was talking specifically about war crimes committed
by militiamen in far-off Sudan. But as my friends on the Star's editorial
board noted in one of their strong defences of concerted international
action against war crimes, the rule must be, "One law for all."
Thomas Walkom writes every Tuesday. twalkom@thestar.ca.
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C.
Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those
who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information
for research and educational purposes.)
A YES vote RESPONSE:
Prime Minister Paul Martin
Office of the Prime Minister
80 Wellinton Street
Ottawa
K1A 0A2
November 18, 2004
Dear Mr. Martin,
On Nov. 16, 2004, the Toronto Star asked: “Should Canada
indict Bush?” This letter is being sent to demonstrate that such action
is warranted and request that you initiate an ‘Intervention’ in the
ABUSE situation that has manifested itself in Iraq.
The abuse that the world has become privy to and OUTRAGED
by, firstly at the Abu Ghraib prison and now in cities, like Fallujah,
that are being destroyed (that they might be saved)...is but the ‘tip
of the iceberg’ of an ABUSE situation that has long plagued the American
victims of Military Injustice.
As you may or may not know...ABUSE is an ugly insidious animal
that feeds and grows on it’s own heinous element of DENIAL. Denial
by....
- the perpetrator, who justifies his/her behavior by blaming
the victims,
- the people, who turn a blind eye to the situation and enable
the abuse to continue and
- the VICTIMS, who, by nature of the beast...tend to feel
responsible for their own abuse.
The DoD and the Pentagon, aided by the ‘go along to get along’
genre in Washington, have established a CLOSED Society. For decades,
the hierarchy of both of these institutions have obstructed Justice
in 'criminal' cases that range from RAPE through MURDER!
That charge is not made lightly. That you might better understand
it...the following material is being sent for your consideration of
content. Enclosed, please find:
1) The May 8, 1997, letter to Senator Kempthorne...requesting
some understanding,
2) The June 10, 1997, letter to Senator Kempthorne...exposing
a National Security risk,
3) The July 17, 2003, letter to Congressman Oberstar...requesting
representation,
4) The June 23, 2004, amendment to that request, sent to
office staffer, Ken Hasskamp,
5) The July 12, 2004, pitch to Michael Moore for public exposure,
6) An article by Willow Marie Maze that has been denied ‘ink’,
7) A copy of the ‘Power and Control’ Wheel used to foster
understanding of abuse,
8) The Oct. 24, 2003, E-mail to Geoff Metcalf...dealing with
goals and objectives and
9) The Nov. 7, 2003, overview message, sent to David Vaughn,
VICTIM of Gulf War I.
Make no mistake, this ABUSE of POWER is SYSTEMIC and well
entrenched. Breaking this ‘cycle’ of ABUSE and initiating redress of
the situation will require outside intervention.
I implore you...INTERVENE!
Before you dismiss this plea as ‘out of your hands’, ask
yourself two questions:
1) Do you really believe that the latest victims of US military
ABUSE will just “Hang in there” (like human time bombs...waiting to
IMPLODE), until they get Justice?
2) Do YOU want to live in a world of perpetual WAR! (on terrorism)...fueled
by (God knows how many) human time bombs ready to EXPLODE?
I entreat you...Don’t make the same mistake that Martin Luther
made on January 20, 1942, during the Wannese Conference. Speak Up...NOW!
Thank you for any time and attention you afford this request
for intervention. Feel free to contact me with any questions you
may have. Meanwhile, I pray that God will guide and direct you in
recognizing, challenging and checking the EVIL that must be stopped,
lest the world again finds itself praying: “God, HELP us ALL!”
God Bless America and her Defenders!
Jan Beimdiek, Directing CEO of MAMMA
CC’s of this letter are being sent to:
MAMMA members and various other interested parties
(AKA Victims),
Mary Deanne Shears, Managing Editor of The Toronto Star
America
is going the way of Germany
The Forum
Published Saturday, November 27, 2004
During June 1941, a German led "coalition of the willing"
launched a massive assault on the Soviet Union. This pre-emptive
attack was needed to dethrone a barbaric tyrant, destroy Bolshevism,
control Soviet resources and rid the world of a menacing threat to
Germany's security.
The partisans who banded together to fight the invasion
were labeled "terrorists" by German propaganda and not as "nationalists"
or "patriots" defending their homeland from a foreign invader.
The German government predicted victory in a few short months,
but soon found itself bogged down as Soviet resistance increased.
By 1942-43, after Stalingrad and Kursk, the war was essentially
over.
No historian (that's incredible) doubts that the invasion
of the Soviet Union was unjustified. It was condemned by statesmen
all over the world.
Now that the United States has launched its own illegal
invasion of a defenseless country, after aiding and supporting the
dictator through all his atrocities, it's seen by the elites in charge
as totally justified.
The Iraqi nationalists, as they have done throughout their
history, are fighting another foreign invader intent on establishing
a puppet government to steal their resources and control their lives.
The United States propaganda machine labels these fighters
"terrorists" or "insurgents" when they know they are fighting "nationalist
forces."
As atrocities increase against Iraqis, the "moral" people
in the media and government excuse it by saying "war is hell" or
"we have to do such things in order to win," thus doing the Germans
one better.
Suffice it to say that when it comes to war, the American
people are just as ignorant as any other fully propagandized population.
They back aggression when their leaders condone it. They excuse atrocities
by their own forces while condemning the same kind of actions by official
enemies.
Adolph Hitler once said, "How convenient for governments
that their people don't think." As the current aggression in the Gulf
proves, nothing has changed.
(In accordance with Title 17
U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit
to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information for research and educational purposes.)
Comes from the Sierra Times at: http://www.sierratimes.com/03/05/02/article_io.htm
Death By Slow Burn -
How America Nukes Its
Own Troops
What 'Support Our Troops'
Really Means
By Amy Worthington -
The Idaho Observer
On March 30, an AP photo featured an American pro-war activist holding
a sign: "Nuke the evil scum, it worked in 1945!" That's
exactly what George Bush has done. America's mega-billion
dollar war in Iraq has been indeed a NUCLEAR WAR.
Bush-Cheney have delivered upon
17 million Iraqis tons of depleted uranium (DU) weapons,
a "liberation" gift that will keep on giving. Depleted uranium
is a component of toxic nuclear waste, usually stored at secure
sites. Handlers need radiation protection gear.
Over a decade ago, war-makers
decided to incorporate this lethal waste into much of
the Pentagon's weaponry. Navy ships carrying Phalanx rapid
fire guns are capable of firing thousands of DU rounds per minute.(1)
Tomahawk missiles launched from U.S. ships and subs are
DU-tipped.(2) The M1 Abrams
tanks are armored with DU.(3)
These and British Challenger II tanks are tightly packed with
DU shells, which continually irradiate troops in or near them.(4)
The A-10 "tank buster" aircraft fires DU shells at machines
and people on the battlefield.(5)
DU munitions are classified by
a United Nations resolution as illegal weapons of mass
destruction. Their use breaches all international laws, treaties
and conventions forbidding poisoned weapons calculated to cause
unnecessary suffering.
Ironically, support for our troops
will extend well beyond the war in Iraq. Americans will
be supporting Gulf War II veterans for years as they slowly
and painfully succumb to radiation poisoning. U.S and British
troops deployed to the area are the walking dead. Humans and animals,
friends and foes in the fallout zone are destined to a long downhill
spiral of chronic illness and disability. Kidney dysfunction, lung
damage, bloody stools, extreme fatigue, joint pain, unsteady gait,
memory loss and rashes and, ultimately, cancer and premature death
await those exposed to DU.
Award-winning journalist Will
Thomas wrote: "As the last Gulf conflict so savagely demonstrated,
GI immune systems reeling from multiple doses of experimental
vaccines offer little defense against further exposure to chemical
weapons, industrial toxins, stress, caffeine, insect repellent
and radiation leftover from the last war. This is a war even the victors
will lose."(6)
When a DU shell is fired, it ignites
upon impact. Uranium, plus traces of plutonium and americium,
vaporize into tiny, ceramic particles of radioactive dust.
Once inhaled, uranium oxides lodge in the body and emit radiation
indefinitely. A single particle of DU lodged in a lymph node
can devastate the entire immune system according to British
radiation expert Roger Coghill.(7)
The Royal Society of England published
data showing that battlefield soldiers who inhale or swallow
high levels of DU can suffer kidney failure within days.(8)
Any soldier now in Iraq who has not inhaled lethal radioactive
dust is not breathing. In the first two weeks of combat, 700
Tomahawks, at a cost of $1.3 million each, blasted Iraqi real
estate into radioactive mushroom clouds.(9)
Millions of DU tank rounds liter the terrain. Cleanup is impossible
because there is no place on the planet to put so much contaminated
debris.
Bush Sr.'s Gulf War I was also
a nuclear war. 320 tons of depleted uranium were used against
Iraq in 1991.(10) A 1998 report by the U.S.
Agency for Toxic Substances confirms that inhaling DU causes
symptoms identical to those claimed by many sick vets with Gulf
War Syndrome.(11) The Gulf War
Veterans Association reports that at least 300,000 Gulf War I vets
have now developed incapacitating illnesses.(12)
To date, 209,000 vets have filed claims for disability benefits
based on service-connected injuries and illnesses from combat
in that war.(13)
Dr. Asaf Durakovic, a professor
of nuclear medicine at Georgetown University, is a former
army medical expert. He told nuclear scientists in Paris last
year that tens of thousands of sick British and American soldiers
are now dying from radiation they encountered during Gulf War
I. He found that 62 percent of sick vets tested have uranium isotopes
in their organs, bones, brains and urine.(14)
Laboratories in Switzerland and Finland corroborated his findings.
In other studies, some sick vets
were found to be expressing uranium in even their semen.
Their sexual partners often complained of a burning sensation
during intercourse, followed by their own debilitating illnesses.(15)
Nothing compares to the astronomical
cancer rates and birth defects suffered by the Iraqi
people who have endured vicious nuclear chastisement for years.(16)
U.S. air attacks against Iraq since 1993 have undoubtedly
employed nuclear munitions. Pictures of grotesquely deformed
Iraqi infants born since 1991 are overwhelming.(17)
Like those born to Gulf War I vets, many babies born to troops
now in Iraq will also be afflicted with hideous deformities, neurological
damage and/or blood and respiratory disorders.(18)
As an Army health physicist, Dr.
Doug Rokke was dispatched to the Middle East to salvage
DU-contaminated tanks after Gulf War I. His Geiger counters
revealed that the war zones of Iraq and Kuwait were contaminated
with up to 300 millirems an hour in beta and gamma radiation plus
thousands to millions of counts per minute in alpha radiation.
Rokke recently told the media: "The whole area is still trashed.
It is hotter than heck over there still. This stuff doesn't go away."(19)
DU remains "hot" for 4.5 billion
years. Radiation expert Dr. Helen Caldicott confirms that
the dust-laden winds of DU-contaminated war zones "will remain
effectively radioactive for the rest of time."(20)
The murderous dust storms which ensnared coalition troops
during the first few days of the current invasion are sure
to have significant health consequences.
Rokke and his cleanup team were
issued only flimsy dust masks for their dangerous work.
Of the 100 people on Rokke's decontamination team, 30 have
already "dropped dead." Rokke himself is ill with radiation
damage to lungs and kidneys. He has brain lesions, skin pustules,
chronic fatigue, continual wheezing and painful fibromyalgia.
Rokke warns that anyone exposed to DU should have adequate respiratory
protection and special coveralls to protect their clothing because,
he says, you can't get uranium particles off your clothing.
The U.S. military insists that
DU on the battlefield is not a problem. Colonel James Naughton
of the U.S. Army Material Command recently told the BBC
that complaints about DU "had no medical basis."(21)
The military's own documents belie this. A 1993 Pentagon
document warned that "when soldiers inhale or ingest DU dust
they incur a potential increase in cancer risk."(22)
A U.S. Army training manual requires anyone who comes within
25 meters of DU-contaminated equipment to wear respiratory and
skin protection.(23) The U.S.
Army Environmental Policy Institute admitted: "If DU enters the
body, it has the potential to generate significant medical consequences."(24)
The Institute also stated that, if the troops were to realize
what they had been exposed to, "the financial implications of
long-term disability
payments and healthcare costs
would be excessive."(25)
For pragmatic reasons, DOD chooses to lie and deny.
Dr. Rokke confirms that the Pentagon
lies about DU dangers and is criminally negligent for neglecting
medical attention needed by DU-contaminated vets. He predicts
that the numbers of American troops to be sickened by DU from
Gulf War II will be staggering.(26)
As they gradually sicken and suffer a slow burn to their graves,
the Pentagon will, as it did after Gulf War I, deny that their
misery and death is a result of their tour in Iraq.
Dr. Rokke's candor has cost him
his career. Likewise, Dr. Durakovic's radiation studies
on Gulf War I vets were not popular with U.S. officials. Dr.
Durakovic was reportedly told his life was in danger if he continued
his research. He left the U.S. to continue his research abroad.(27)
Naive young coalition soldiers
now in Iraq are likely unaware of how deadly their battlefield
environment is. Gulf War I troops were kept in ignorance.
Soldiers handled DU fragments and some wore these lethal nuggets
around their necks. A DU projectile emits more radiation in
five hours than allowed in an entire year under civilian radiation
exposure standards. "We didn't know any better," Kris Kornkven told
Nation magazine. "We didn't find out until long after we were home
that there even was such a thing as DU."(28)
George Bush's ongoing war in Afghanistan
is also a nuclear war. Shortly after 9-11, the U.S. announced
it would stockpile tactical nuclear weapons including
small neutron bombs, nuclear mines and shells suited to commando
warfare in Afghanistan.(29)
In late September, 2001, Bush and Russian president Vladimir Putin
agreed that the U.S. would use tactical nuclear weapons in Afghanistan
while Putin would employ nuclear weapons against the Chechnyans.(30)
Describing the Pentagon's B-61-11
burrowing nuke bomb, George Smith writes in the Village
Voice: "Built ram tough with a heavy metal casing for smashing
through the earth and concrete, the B-61 explodes with the
force of an estimated 340,000 tons of TNT. It is lots of bang
for the buck, literally two apocalypse bombs in one, a boosted
plutonium firecracker called the primary and a heavy hydrogen
secondary for that good old-fashioned H-bomb fireball."(31)
Drought-stricken Afghanistan's
underground water supply is now contaminated by these
nuclear weapons.(32) Experts
with the Uranium Medical Research Center report that urine
samples of Afghanis show the highest level of uranium ever
recorded in a civilian population. Afghani soldiers and civilians
are reported to have died after suffering intractable vomiting,
severe respiratory problems, internal bleeding and other symptoms
consistent with radiation poisoning. Dead birds still perched
in trees are found partially melted with blood oozing from their
mouths.(33)
Afghanistan's new president, Hamid
Karzai, is a puppet installed by Washington. Under the
protection of American soldiers, Karzai's regime is setting a
new record for opium production. Both UN and U.S. reports confirm
that the huge Afghani opium harvest of 2002 makes Afghanistan the
world's leading opium producer.(34)
Thanks to nuclear weapons, Afghanistan is now safe for the Bush-Cheney
narcotics industry.(35) ABC News
asserts that keeping the "peace" in Afghanistan will require decades
of allied occupation.(36) For years
to come, "peacekeepers" will be eating, drinking and breathing the
"hot" carcinogenic pollution they have helped the Pentagon inflict
upon that nation for organized crime.
As governor of Arkansas during
the Iran-Contra era, Bill Clinton laundered $multi-millions
in cocaine profits for then vice-president George Bush Sr.(37)
As a partner in the Bush family's notorious crime machine,
President Clinton committed U.S. troops to NATO's campaign
in the Balkans, a prime heroin production and trans-shipment area.
DOD's campaign to control and reorganize the drug trade there
for the Bush mafia was yet another nuclear project.
For years, the U.S. and NATO fired
DU missiles, bullets and shells across the Balkans, nuking
the peoples of Serbia, Bosnia and Kosovo. As DU munitions
were slammed into chemical plants, the environment became hideously
toxic, also endangering the peoples of Albania, Macedonia,
Greece, Italy, Austria and Hungary. By 1999, UN investigators
reported that an estimated 12 tons of DU had caused irreparable
damage to the Yugoslavian environment, with agriculture, livestock
and air water, and public health all profoundly damaged.(38)
Scientists confirm that citizens
of the Balkans are excreting uranium in their urine.(39)
In 2001, a Yugoslavian pathologist reported that hundreds
of Bosnians have died of cancer from NATO's DU bombardment.(40)
Many NATO peacekeepers in the Balkans now suffer ill
health. Their leukemias, cancers and other maladies are
dubbed the "Balkans Syndrome." Richard Coghill predicts that
DU weapons used in Balkans campaign will result in at least
10,000 cases of fatal cancer.(41)
U.S. citizens at home are also
paying a heavy price for criminal militarism gone mad.
DOD is a pollution monster. The General Accounting Office (GAO)
found 9,181 dangerous military sites in USA that will require
$billions to rehabilitate. The GAO reports that DOD has been
both slothful and deceitful in its clean-up obligations.(42)
The Pentagon is now pressing Congress to exempt it from all
environmental laws so that it may pollute and poison free
from liability.(43)
The Navy uses prime fishing grounds
off the coast of Washington state to test fire DU ammunition.
In January, Washington State Rep. Jim McDermott chastised
the Navy: "On one hand you have required soldiers to have DU
safety training and to wear protective gear when handling DU...and
submarines must stay clear of DU-contaminated waters. These policies
indicate there is cause for concern....On the other hand the
Department of Defense has repeatedly denied that DU poses any danger
whatsoever. There has been no remorse about leaving tons of DU
equipment in the soil in foreign countries, and there appears to be
no remorse about leaving it in the waters of your own country."(44)
DU has been used in military practice
maneuvers in Indiana, Florida, New Mexico, Massachusetts,
Maryland and Puerto Rico. After the Navy tested DU weaponry
on the Puerto Rican island of Vieques, one third of the island's
population developed serious illness. Many people show high
levels of uranium in their bodies. Hundreds have filed a class
action suit against the Navy for $100 million, claiming DU contamination
has caused widespread cancers.(45)
The Navy's Fallon Naval Air Station
near Fallon, Nevada, is a quagmire of 26 toxic waste
sites. It is also a target practice zone for DU bombs and
missiles. Area residents report bizarre illnesses, including 17
children who have contracted leukemia within five years. A survey
of groundwater in the Fallon area showed nearly half of area wells
are contaminated with radioactive materials.(46)
The materials for DU weaponry
have been processed mainly at three nuclear plants in
Kentucky, Ohio and Tennessee, where workers handling uranium
contaminated with plutonium have suffered for decades with cancers
and debilitating maladies similar to Gulf War Syndrome.(47)
Emboldened by power-grabbing successes
made possible by his administration's devious 9-11 project,
President Bush asserts that the U.S. has the right to attack
any nation it deems a potential threat. He told West Point in
2002, "If we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have
waited too long."(48) Thus,
it is certain that Bush-Cheney future pre-emptive nuclear wars
are lined up like idling jets on a runway. Both Cheney's Halliburton
Corp. and the Bush family's Carlyle Group are profiteers in U.S.
defense contracts, so endless war is just good business.(49)
The Washington Post reported that
the Pentagon will create special nuclear weapons for
use on North Korea's underground nuclear facilities.(50)
Next August, U.S. war makers will meet to consolidate plans
for a new generation of "mini," "micro" and "tiny" nuclear bombs
and bunker busters. These will be added to the U.S. arsenal perhaps
for use against non-nuclear third-world nations such as Iran,
Syria, Lebanon.(51)
The solution? Americans must stop
electing ruthless criminals to rule this nation. We must
convince fellow citizens that villains like Saddam Hussein
are made in the U.S. as rationale for endless corporate war profits.
Saddam was placed in power by the CIA.(52)
For years U.S. government agencies, under auspices of George
Bush Sr., supplied him with chemical and biological weapons.(53)
Our national nuclear laboratories, along with Unisys, Dupont
and Hewlett-Packard, sold Saddam materials for his nuclear program.(54)
Dick Cheney was CEO of Halliburton in the late 90s when
its subsidiaries signed $73 million in new contracts to
further supply Saddam.(55)
The wicked villain of Iraq was nurtured for decades as a cash-cow
by
U.S. military-industrial piranhas.
If America truly supports its
troops, it must stop sending them into nuclear holocaust
for the enrichment of thugs. Time is running out. If the DU-maniacs
at the Pentagon and their coven of nuclear arms peddlers are
not harnessed, America will have no able-bodied fighting forces
left. All people of the earth will become grossly ill, hideously
deformed and short- lived. We must succeed in the critical imperative
to face reality and act decisively. Should we fail, there will
be no place to hide from Bush-Cheney's merciless nuclear orgies
yet to come or from the inevitable nuclear retaliation these orgies
will surely breed.
Endnotes
1."DOD Launches Depleted Uranium
Training," Linda Kozaryn, American Forces Press Service,
8-13-99.
2."Nukes of the Gulf War,"John
Shirley, Zess@aol.com. See this article in archives at
www.gulfwarvets.com.
3. BBC News, "US To Use Depleted
Uranium," March 18, 2003; U.S. General Accounting Office,
Operation Desert Storm: "Early Performance Assessment of
Bradley and Abrams," 1-2-92.
4."Nukes of the Gulf War," op.
cit.
5. Ibid.
6. "Invading Hiroshima," William
Thomas, 2-4-2003, www.willthomas.net
7. "US Shells Leave Lethal Legacy,"
Toronto Star, July 31, 1999; also "Radiation Tests for
Peacekeepers in the Balkans Exposed
to Depleted Uranium," www.telegraph.co.uk, 12-31-02.
8. "Depleted Uranium May Stop
Kidneys In Days," Rob Edwards, New Scientist.com, 3-12-02;
also "Uranium Weapons Too Hot to Handle," Rob Edwards, New
Scientist.co.uk, 6-9-99.
9. "Navy Seeks Cash for More Tomahawks,"
David Rennie in Washington, Telegraph Group
Limited, 1-4-03, news.telegraph.co.uk.
10. "Going Nuclear in Iraq--DU
Cancers Mount Daily," Ramzi Kysia, CounterPunch.org,
12-31-01.
11."Depleted Uranium Symptoms
Match US Report As Fears Spread," Peter Beaumont, The
Observer (UK) 1-14-01, www.guardianlimited.co.uk.
12. "Gulf War Illnesses Affect
300,000 Vets," Ellen Tomson, Pioneer Press,
www.pioneerplanet.com.
See also American Gulf War Veterans Association at
www.gulfwarvets.com.
13. "2 of Every 5 Gulf War Vets
Are On Disability: 209,000 Make VA Claims," World Net
Daily, 1-28-03, WorldNetDaily.com.
14. "Research on Sick Gulf Vets
Revisited, "New York Times, 1-29-01; "Tests Show Gulf
War Victims Have Uranium Poisoning," Jonathon Carr-Brown
and Martin Meissonnier, The Sunday Times (UK) 9-3-02.
15. "Catastrophe: Ill Gulf Vets
Contaminated Partners With DU," The Halifax Herald Limited,
Clare Mellor, 2-09-01. This article
is available in archives at www.rense.com.
16. "Iraqi Cancer, Birth Defects
Blamed on US Depleted Uranium," Seattle Post- Intelligencer,
11-12-02; "US Depleted Uranium Yields Chamber of Horrors
in Southern Iraq, Andy Kershaw, The Independent (London) 12-4-01.
17. "The Environmental and Human
Health Impacts of the Gulf War Region with Special
References to Iraq," Ross Mirkarimi,
The Arms Control Research Centre, May 1992. See also Gulf
War Syndrome Birth Defects in Iraq at www.web-light.nl/VISIE/extremedeformities.html.
18. "The Tiny Victims of Desert
Storm, Has Our Country Abandoned Them?," Life Magazine,
November 1995; "Birth Defects
Killing Gulf War Babies," Los Angeles Times, 11-14-94;
"Depleted Uranium, The Lingering
Poison," Alex Kirby, BBC News Online, 6-7-99.
19. "Depleted Uranium, A Killer
Disaster," Travis Dunn, Disaster News.net, 12-29-02.
20. San Francisco Chronicle, 10-10-02.
21. "US To Use Depleted Uranium,"
BBC News, 3-18-03.
22. "Depleted Uranium Symptoms
Match US Report As Fears Spread," Peter Beaumont, The
Observer (UK) 1-14-01.
23. "Iraqi Cancer, Birth Defects
Blamed on US Depleted Uranium," Seattle Post- Intelligencer,
11-12-02.
24. "US To Use Depleted Uranium,"
BBC News, 3-18-03.
25. US Army Environmental Policy
Institute: Health and Environmental Consequences of
Depleted Uranium in the U.S. Army,
Technical Report, June 1995.
26. "Pentagon Depleted Uranium
No Health Risk," Dr. Doug Rokke, 3-15-03; also "The
Terrible, Tragic Toll of Depleted
Uranium," Address by Dr. Rokke before congressional leaders
in Washington, D.C.,12-30-02; also "Gulf War Casualties,"
Dr. Doug Rokke,
www.traprockpeace.org.
9-30-02.
27."Tests Show Gulf War Victims
Have Uranium Poisoning," Sunday Times (UK), Jonathon
Carr-Brown and Martin Meissonnier,
9-3-00.
28. "The Pentagon's Radioactive
Bullet: An Investigative Report," Bill Mesler, The Nation,
5-28-99, see www.thenation.com/ issue/961021/1021mesl.htm.
29. "Tactical Nukes Deployed In
Afghanistan," World Net Daily, 10-7-01. 30. Ibid.
31. "The B-61 Bomb,The Burrowing
Nuke" George Smith,VillageVoice.com 12-29-02.; also
"Bunker-busting US Tactical Nuclear
Bombs, Nowhere to Hide," Kennedy Grey, Wired.com,
10-9-01.
32."Perpetual Death From America,"
Mohammed Daud Miraki, Afghan-American Interviews,
2-24-03; also "Dying of Thirst,"
Fred Pearce, New Scientist, 11-17-2001.
33. Ibid.
34. "Afghanistan Displaces Myanmar
as Top Heroin Producer," Agence France-Presse, 3-01-03.
This article is at www.copvcia.com.;also
"Opium Trade Flourishing In the `New Afghanistan,'" Reuters, 3-3-03.
35. "The Bush-Cheney Drug Empire,"
Michael C. Ruppert, Nexus Magazine, February-March 2000;
The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug
Trade, Alfred W. McCoy, Lawrence Hill & Co., revised edition
due May 2003; Drugging of America, Rodney Stich, Diablo Western
Press, 1999; "Blood for Oil, Drugs for Arms," Bob Djurdjevic,
Truth In Media, April 2000, www.truthinmedia.org. 36. ABC
News, February 27, 2003.
37. Compromised, Clinton Bush
and the CIA, Terry Reed and John Cummings, S.P.I. Books,
1994; The Clinton Chronicles and
The Mena Cover-up, Citizens for Honest Government, 1996;
"The Crimes of Mena, Grey Money," Ozark Gazette, 1995 (see
www.copvcia.com.)
38. "Damage to Yugoslav Environment
is Immense, Says a UN Report," Bob Djurdjevic,
7-4-99, truthinmedia.org. This
report was submitted to the UN Security Council on June
9,
1999; also, "New Depleted Uranium
Study Shows Clear Damage," BBC News,8-28-99; also
"NATO Issued Warning About Toxic
Ammo," Associated Press, 01-08-01.
39. CounterPunch.org, 12-28-01.
40. "Hundreds Died of Cancer After
DU Bombing--Doctor," Reuters, 1-13-01.
41."Depleted Uranium Threatens
Balkan Cancer Epidemic," BBC News, 7-30-99.
42. "Many Defense Sites Still
Hazardous," Associated Press, 9-24-02; also Old US Weapons
Called Hidden Danger, Los Angeles
Times, 11-25-02.
43. "Pentagon Seeks Freedom to
Pollute Land, Air and Sea," Andrew Gumbel in L.A., 3-13-03,
Independent Digital (UK) Ltd.
44. "Radioactive DU Ammo Is Tested
in Fish Areas," Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 1-11-03; Letter
from Rep. McDermott to Department of the Navy: see "Navy
Fired DU Rounds Into Waters Off Coast of Washington," 1-20-03,
rense.com.
45."Cancer Rates Soar From US
Military Use of DU On `Enchanted Island,'"
www.telegraph.co.uk, 2-5-01; also
"Navy Shells With Depleted Uranium Fired in Puerto Rico,"
Fox News Online, 5-28-99.
46. "The Fallon, NV Cancer Cluster
And a US Navy Bombing," Jeffrey St. Clair,
CounterPunch.org, 8-10-02.
47. "DU Shells Are Made of A Potentially
Lethal Cocktail of Nuclear Waste," Jonathon
Carr-Brown, www.sunday-times.co.uk,
1-22-01.
48. "Preventative War Sets Perilous
Precedent," Helen Thomas, Hearst Newspapers, 3-20-03.
49. PIGS at the Trough, Arriana
Huffington, Random House, 2003 (New York Times best
seller.); also "The Best Enemies
Money Can Buy, From Hitler to Saddam Hussein to Osama bin
Laden Insider Connections and the Bush Family's Partnership
With Killers of Americans;" Mike Ruppert, From the Wilderness,10-10-01;
also "Bush Sr.'s Carlyle Group Gets Fat on War and Conflict,"
Jamie Doward, The Observer (UK), 3-25-03; also "Halliburton Wins
Contract for Iraq Oil Firefighting, Reuters, 3-7-03; also "Cashing
In-Fortunes in Profits Await Bush Circle After Iraq War, Andrew
Gumbel, The Independent (London) 9-15-02; also "War Could Be
Big Business for Halliburton," Reuters, 3-23-03.
50. "Pentagon Seeks a Nuclear
Digger," Washington Post, March 10, 2003.
51. "Remember: Bush Planed Iraq
War Before Taking Office," Neil Mackay, The Sunday Herald
(UK) 3-27-03; also "US Mini-Nukes Alarm Scientists," The
Guardian (UK) 4-18-01; also "US Nuclear First-Strike Plan--It
Keeps Getting Scarier, Jeffrey Steinberg, Executive Intelligence
Review, 2-24-03.
52. Wall Street Journal, 8-16-90:
The CIA supported the Baath Party and installed Hussein
as
Iraqi dictator in 1968.
53. "United States Dual-Use Exports
to Iraq and Their Impact on the Health of Persian Gulf
War Veterans," Senate Committee
on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, 1992, 1994; "U.S.
Had Key Role in Iraq Buildup," Washington Post, 12-30-02.
54. "US Government, 24 US Corps
Illegally Helped Iraq Build Its WMD," Hugh Williamson
in Berlin, Financial Times, 12-19-02; "Full List of US Weapons
Suppliers To Iraq," Anu de
Monterice, coachanu@earthlink.net,
12-19-02.
55. Huffington, op. cit.
(In accordance
with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed
without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)
You asked
for my evidence, Mr Ambassador. Here it is
In Iraq, the US does eliminate those who dare to count the
dead
Naomi Klein
12/04/04 "The Guardian " --
David T Johnson,
Acting ambassador,
US Embassy, London
Dear Mr Johnson, On November 26, your press counsellor sent
a letter to the Guardian taking strong exception to a sentence in my
column of the same day. The sentence read: "In Iraq, US forces and their
Iraqi surrogates are no longer bothering to conceal attacks on civilian
targets and are openly eliminating anyone - doctors, clerics, journalists
- who dares to count the bodies." Of particular concern was the word
"eliminating".
The letter suggested that my charge was "baseless" and asked
the Guardian either to withdraw it, or provide "evidence of this extremely
grave accusation". It is quite rare for US embassy officials to openly
involve themselves in the free press of a foreign country, so I took
the letter extremely seriously. But while I agree that the accusation
is grave, I have no intention of withdrawing it. Here, instead, is the
evidence you requested.
In April, US forces laid siege to Falluja in retaliation for
the gruesome killings of four Blackwater employees. The operation was
a failure, with US troops eventually handing the city back to resistance
forces. The reason for the withdrawal was that the siege had sparked uprisings
across the country, triggered by reports that hundreds of civilians
had been killed. This information came from three main sources: 1) Doctors.
USA Today reported on April 11 that "Statistics
and names of the dead were gathered from four main clinics around the
city and from Falluja general hospital". 2) Arab TV journalists.
While doctors reported the numbers of dead, it was al-Jazeera and al-Arabiya
that put a human face on those statistics. With unembedded camera crews
in Falluja, both networks beamed footage of mutilated women and children
throughout Iraq and the Arab-speaking world. 3) Clerics. The reports of
high civilian casualties coming from journalists and doctors were seized
upon by prominent clerics in Iraq. Many delivered fiery sermons condemning
the attack, turning their congregants against US forces and igniting
the uprising that forced US troops to withdraw.
US authorities have denied that hundreds of civilians were
killed during last April's siege, and have lashed out at the sources
of these reports. For instance, an unnamed "senior American officer",
speaking to the New York Times last month, labelled Falluja general hospital
"a
centre of propaganda". But the strongest words were reserved for
Arab TV networks. When asked about al-Jazeera and al-Arabiya's reports
that hundreds of civilians had been killed in Falluja, Donald Rumsfeld,
the US secretary of defence, replied that "what
al-Jazeera is doing is vicious, inaccurate and inexcusable ... "
Last month, US troops once again laid siege to Falluja - but this time
the attack included a new tactic: eliminating the doctors, journalists
and clerics who focused public attention on civilian casualties last time
around.
Eliminating doctors
The first major operation by US marines and Iraqi soldiers
was to storm Falluja general hospital, arresting doctors and placing
the facility under military control. The New York Times reported
that "the hospital was selected as an early target because the American
military believed that it was the source of rumours about heavy casual
ties", noting that "this time around, the American military intends
to fight its own information war, countering or squelching what has been
one of the insurgents' most potent weapons". The Los Angeles Times quoted
a doctor as saying that the soldiers "stole
the mobile phones" at the hospital - preventing doctors from communicating
with the outside world.
But this was not the worst of the attacks on health workers.
Two days earlier, a crucial emergency health clinic was bombed to rubble,
as well as a medical supplies dispensary next door. Dr Sami al-Jumaili,
who was working in the clinic, says the bombs took the lives of 15 medics,
four nurses and 35 patients. The Los Angeles Times reported that the manager
of Falluja general hospital "had told a US general the location of the
downtown makeshift medical centre" before it was hit.
Whether the clinic was targeted or destroyed accidentally,
the effect was the same: to eliminate many of Falluja's doctors from
the war zone. As Dr Jumaili told the Independent on November 14: "There
is not a single surgeon in Falluja." When fighting moved to Mosul,
a similar tactic was used: on entering the city, US and Iraqi forces
immediately seized control of the al-Zaharawi hospital.
Eliminating journalists
The images from last month's siege on Falluja came almost
exclusively from reporters embedded with US troops. This is because
Arab journalists who had covered April's siege from the civilian perspective
had effectively been eliminated. Al-Jazeera had no cameras on the ground
because it has been banned from reporting in Iraq indefinitely. Al-Arabiya
did have an unembedded reporter, Abdel Kader Al-Saadi, in Falluja, but
on November 11 US forces arrested him and held him for the length of the
siege. Al-Saadi's detention has been condemned by Reporters Without Borders
and the International Federation of Journalists. "We cannot ignore the
possibility that he is being intimidated for just trying to do his job,"
the IFJ stated.
It's not the first time journalists in Iraq have faced this
kind of intimidation. When US forces invaded Baghdad in April 2003,
US Central Command urged all unembedded journalists to leave the city.
Some insisted on staying and at least three paid with their lives. On
April 8, a US aircraft bombed al-Jazeera's Baghdad offices, killing reporter
Tareq Ayyoub. Al-Jazeera has documentation proving it gave the coordinates
of its location to US forces.
On the same day, a US tank fired on the Palestine hotel, killing
José Couso, of the Spanish network Telecinco, and Taras Protsiuk,
of Reuters. Three US soldiers are facing a criminal lawsuit from Couso's
family, which alleges that US forces were well aware that journalists
were in the Palestine hotel and that they committed a war crime.
Eliminating clerics
Just as doctors and journalists have been targeted, so too
have many of the clerics who have spoken out forcefully against the killings
in Falluja. On November 11, Sheik Mahdi al-Sumaidaei, the head of the
Supreme Association for Guidance and Daawa, was arrested. According
to Associated Press, "Al-Sumaidaei has called on the country's Sunni
minority to launch a civil disobedience campaign if the Iraqi government
does not halt the attack on Falluja". On November 19, AP reported that
US and Iraqi forces stormed a prominent Sunni mosque, the Abu Hanifa,
in Aadhamiya, killing three people and arresting 40, including the chief
cleric - another opponent of the Falluja siege. On the same day, Fox
News reported that "US troops also raided a Sunni mosque in Qaim, near
the Syrian border". The report described the arrests as "retaliation
for opposing the Falluja offensive". Two Shia clerics associated with Moqtada
al-Sadr have also been arrested in recent weeks; according to AP, "both
had spoken out against the Falluja attack".
"We don't do body counts," said General Tommy Franks of US
Central Command. The question is: what happens to the people who insist
on counting the bodies - the doctors who must pronounce their patients
dead, the journalists who document these losses, the clerics who denounce
them? In Iraq, evidence is mounting that these voices are being systematically
silenced through a variety of means, from mass arrests, to raids on hospitals,
media bans, and overt and unexplained physical attacks.
Mr Ambassador, I believe that your government and its Iraqi
surrogates are waging two wars in Iraq. One war is against the Iraqi
people, and it has claimed an estimated 100,000 lives. The other is
a war on witnesses.
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C.
Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those
who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included
information for research and educational purposes.)
How Canada
Can Help Force Bush Out of Iraq
by Naomi Klein > November 30 2004
Jeremy Hinzman tells me that he’s thinking about going to
Ottawa to join today’s protests against George W. Bush. But if he does,
he won’t be giving any fiery speeches. “It’s not a good time for that,”
he observes.
That’s wise. Next week, the 25-year-old will appear before
Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Board. He will argue that as a soldier
with the 82nd Airborne Division who refused to fight in Iraq, he should
be granted refugee status in Canada. Hinzman’s lawyer, Jeffry House,
had planned to hinge the case on the argument that the war itself was illegal
because it lacked UN approval. They had an army of experts lined up,
but last week they got the bad news: the Canadian government had intervened
and the board ruled that the legality of the war is “irrelevant” to the
case.
Now House will argue that Hinzman is a political refugee because
he is refusing to fight in a war in which violations of international
law are systemic, from torture in Abu Ghraib to attacks on civilians areas.
Testifying on Hinzman’s behalf will be former Marine Sgt. Jimmy Massey,
who served in Iraq during the initial invasion. Massey will tell the hearing
that as his battalion moved into Baghdad, every civilian vehicle was treated
as an enemy target. If cars didn’t stop at U.S. checkpoints, “we were
lighting them up…discharging our weapons, 50 cals and M-16’s into the
civilian vehicles.” In May, Massey told the U.S. radio and television
show “Democracy Now!” that the Marines would search the cars they had attacked
but “we would find no weapons...I would say my platoon alone killed 30-plus
innocent civilians.” Massey also recalled firing into a demonstration near
the Baghdad International Airport and then realizing that, “Oh, my God—we
just opened up on a group of peaceful demonstrators.” He insists that
these were not isolated accidents, but rather that the war “violated every
rule of the Geneva Convention that I have been taught.”
Every week, more facts emerge to support Hinzman’s case. On
November 13, during the siege on Fallujah, the New York Times reported
that U.S. forces were sending all “fighting age” men back into the
besieged city, even if they were unarmed and tested negative for explosives
residue. James Ross, senior legal adviser to Human Rights Watch told
The Times that, “If that’s what happened, it would be a war crime.” The
next day, The Washington Post quoted Marine Sgt Aristotel Barbosa saying
that, “basically, every house [in Fallujah] has a hole through it.” Every
man is the enemy and every house is a target—that is the meaning of collective
punishment and it is barred under the Geneva Conventions.
But since the U.S. government has excluded itself from the
International Criminal Court, these crimes may never be tried. Which
is what makes Jeremy Hinzman’s case so important: he is going to put
the Bush Administration on trial for war crimes. If he wins, no one
will go jail, but there will be consequences. And that’s what is making
the Canadian government so nervous. Our position on the war in Iraq has
hardly been crusading. We “sat it out” as if the war’s illegality made
it optional—but not odious. And we tried to help out wherever we could:
by sending troops to Afghanistan and Haiti, corporations to Iraq, and police
trainers to Jordan. And now many are trying to have it both ways again:
it’s fine to criticize Bush, we are told—just after he leaves, when no
one is listening.
It’s fatigue with this kind of moral duplicity that is drawing
many of us into the streets of Ottawa today and tomorrow: not just to
protest Bush but to demand that Canada live up to its rhetoric as a
genuine alternative, rather than a second-class citizen in Fortress
North America. Up until now, we have justified our weak positions by
telling ourselves that nobody expects strength from us. While countries
like France and Germany strutabout the world stage like the empires they
once were, Canada tends to deflate its own importance, denying the very
real power we do have.
Jeremy Hinzman’s hearing is a case in point. Already U.S.
and British troops are spread so thin that one infantry battalion
recently had to be diverted from Mosul to Fallujah then back to Mosul
again. Senator John McCain has called for 40,000-50,000 more troops and
the coalition is hemorrhaging members, with Hungary, Poland and the
Netherlands recently announcing plans to withdraw.
And if Hinzman is granted refugee status, it could well be
the last straw, opening the floodgates to other U.S. soldiers who don’t
want to fight. During the Vietnam War, 50,000 draft-age Americans came
to Canada; a fraction of that could break the back of the war. If Canada
once again became a haven for war resisters, it would mean that we were
not just quietly opting out of the illegal and immoral war in Iraq. We
would be helping to end it.
http://www.nologo.org/
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C.
Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those
who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included
information for research and educational purposes.)
War Crime
by Paul Craig Roberts
12/08/04 "Creators Syndicate" -- On December 6 Pentagon
boss Donald Rumsfeld promised four more years of death and destruction
in Iraq. Assuming the war continues to cost the US taxpayers $6 billion
per month – not including reconstruction costs, fat no-bid contracts
for the Bush administration’s major contributors, and replacement costs
of the military equipment that is being blown apart and worn out – that
comes to $288
billion. Add that sum to the $149 billion the war has already
cost US taxpayers for a total of $437 billion.
Turning to the human toll, from March 20, 2003 to December
7, 2004 (approximately 21 months) the Pentagon says 1,280 US troops
have been killed and 9,765 wounded in Iraq. The Pentagon’s wounded figure
conflicts with the report from the US military hospital in Landstuhl,
Germany, that as of Thanksgiving week the hospital has treated almost 21,000
Americans injured in Iraq. According to the hospital, more than half
were too badly
injured to return to their units.
Assuming no escalation in the insurgency, a continuation of
four more years of war would result in another 2,925 US troops being
killed for a total of 4,205. Using the Pentagon’s wounded figure, 22,320
more US troops would be injured for a total of 32,085. Using the US military
hospital’s figure, another 48,000 US troops would be wounded for a total
of 69,000.
Assuming the US is able to keep 138,000 US troops in Iraq during
Bush’s second term, US dead and wounded (Pentagon figure) would comprise
26% of the US force in Iraq. Using the military hospital’s figure, US
dead and wounded would comprise 53% of our entire army in Iraq.
The present military manpower system cannot provide replacements
for these losses. Current troop strengths are being maintained by
calling up reserve and national guard units and by extending soldiers’
tours of duty beyond the contractual period, a practice that US troops
are contesting in court. Tens of thousands of careers, marriages, and
family finances are being disrupted and destroyed by the commitment
of reserve and national guard units to war in Iraq.
What is Bush achieving in return for such horrendous costs?
Bush has destroyed our alliances and the good will of a half
century of US foreign policy.
Busy has created an insurgency where there was none.
Bush has destroyed US prestige in the Middle East and reduced
America’s support among Middle Eastern populations to the single digits.
Bush has made Osama bin Laden a hero and recruited tens of
thousands of terrorists to his ranks, while simultaneously alienating
Middle Easterners from the secular puppet rulers we have imposed on
them.
At a minimum Bush is responsible for between 14,619 and 16,804
Iraqi civilian deaths during the 21 months since the invasion. Compiled
from hospital, morgue, and media reports, these figures understate civilian
deaths. In keeping with Islam’s quick burial requirement, many Iraqis
were buried in sports fields and in back gardens during protracted US
assaults on urban areas. A recent report in the British medical journal,
The Lancet, estimates that 100,000 Iraqis have been killed since March
20, 2003. This figure does not include the large number of Iraqi deaths
from the embargo and US bombing for
more than a decade prior to the US invasion.
Projecting the reported Iraqi civilian deaths for four more
years of US occupation produces a figure of 51,621 civilians killed as
"collateral damage." Projecting the Lancet’s figure produces a figure
of 328,571 civilian deaths by the end of Bush’s second term.
Then there are the civilian injured, for which there appear
to be no figures. If we assume the same ratio of killed to wounded for
civilian deaths as holds for the US military, the reported death figure
gives a civilian wounded figure of 392,320. The Lancet estimate gives
a wounded figure of 2,497,139.
The ratio of 7.6 wounded US troops for each soldier killed
is probably low for calculating civilian Iraqi wounded. US forces travel
in armored vehicles, are protected with helmets and body armor and are
not on the receiving end of artillery and massive bombs that kill everything
in a quarter mile radius. The ratio could easily be 10 or 15 wounded Iraqi
civilians for every one killed.
Did the Americans who reelected Bush know that the president
who will admit to no mistake is locked on a course that will squander
a half trillion dollars for no purpose other than to kill and wound
between 36,290 and 73,205 US troops, with "collateral damage" to Iraqi
civilians ranging from 443,941 to 2,825,710 dead and wounded?
If Saddam Hussein is a "mass murderer," what does that make
President Bush and those who reelected him?
Dr. Roberts PCRoberts@postmark.net
is John M. Olin Fellow at the Institute for Political Economy and
Research Fellow at the Independent Institute. He is a former associate
editor of the Wall Street Journal, former contributing editor for National
Review, and a former assistant secretary of the U.S. Treasury. He is
the co-author of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section
107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information
for research and educational purposes.)
MAMMA's Footnote:
The existing statistics, cited
by Mr. Roberts, are horrendous. The question is...Are his projected
stats on the conservative side? Did he take into consideration the fact
that the violence that prompted these numbers will continue to escalate,
as the Perpetual WAR (on terrorism) that the US launched and continues
to promote, gets into full swing?
An even better question is...Would anyone be dealing with current
and projected statistics from a War that was formulated on an ABUSE
of Power platform if decades worth of Military ABUSE victims had been
properly tallied?
The fact of the matter is...The existing number of military
ABUSE victims make Mr. Roberts' numbers pale in comparison and the projected
figures from the escalation of an abuse situation that continues; unrecognized,
unchallenged and unchecked...go past horrendous and into the realm of
unconscionable!
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-12/15/content_400401.htm
CHINAdaily
Documents show probes of other Iraq abuse cases
(Agencies)
Updated: 2004-12-15 14:13
Internal US Navy documents released as a result of a court order
show that the Navy investigated a number of alleged abuses of Iraqi
prisoners by US Marines, including an alleged mock execution of four
Iraqi juveniles.
The documents, which were obtained by the American Civil Liberties
Union, show that marines were punished in some instances while other
cases were closed after preliminary investigations concluded the allegations
could not be substantiated.
A spread sheet showing the disposition of detainee abuse cases
investigated by the Naval Criminal Investigative Services (NCIS) said
the alleged mock execution was one of several incidents involving four
marine suspects in Adiwaniya, Iraq between June 1 and July 6, 2003.
They were alleged to have "ordered four juvenile looters to kneel
beside two shallow fighting holes and pistol was discharged to conduct
a mock execution," the document said.
Two suspects were found guilty of dereliction of duty and sentenced
to 30 days of hard labor, while another was reduced in rank, forfeited
two-thirds pay for a month and placed under unspecified restriction for
14 days after being found guilty of detainee abuse.
Charges against the fourth were withdrawn, according to the document.
Another entry shows that five marines were alleged to have taken
part in shocking a detainee with an electric transformer at a holding
area at Al Mamudiyah in April 2004.
An unidentified witness reported that "the detainee 'danced'
as he was shocked," according to the document.
A general court martial in May 2004 found one marine guilty of
"assault, cruelty and mistreatment, dereliction of duty and conspiracy
to assault a detainee," the document said. He was sentenced to a year
in prison.
Another marine was sentenced to eight months in prison in the
case after being found guilty of similar charges by a special court martial.
Three other special court martials were pending, according to the document.
In another case in Al Mamudiyah in August 2004, a detainee suffered
second degree burns on the back of his hands.
The document said the detainee asked to use alcohol-based hand
sanitizer liquid during a bathroom visit. A marine guard squirted some
into the detainee's hands, but the excess formed a puddle on the floor.
"As the marine guard turned to dispose of the empty bottle, (the
accused marine) lit a match and threw it into the puddle of hand sanitizer.
The liquid ignited and the flames burned the detainee," it said.
The unidentified marine was found guilty of "assault by means
likely to produce death or grievous bodily harm," and sentenced to 90
days confinement and a reduction in rank.
In another case cited in the documents, a marine guard shot and
killed a detainee identified as Hamdan Shibey on March 29, 2003.
"The investigation determined that the detainee attacked the
marine guard and the guard acted in self-defense when he shot the detainee
that was lunging for the guard's service rifle," the document said.
The ACLU said the documents showed that abuse and even torture
of detainees by marines was widespread.
"This kind of widespread abuse could not have taken place without
a leadership failure of the highest order," said Anthony Romero, ACLU's
executive director.
Pentagon spokesman Lawrence DiRita said he had no information
on the cases cited in the documents, which have not been previously disclosed.
He denied criticism by human rights groups that the military
often investigated abuses only after they had come under media scrutiny.
"Many of the cases that are being celebrated have had disposition
already made," he said. "And there may be a desire that disposition when
it's made be publicized, but that's a different thing from saying that
we're reacting to publicity."
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section
107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information
for research and educational purposes.)
Ignoring Reality in Iraq
by Ron Paul
Texas Straight Talk
December 13, 2004
A recent study by the Pentagon’s Defense Science Task Force on
Strategic Communications concluded that in the struggle for hearts
and minds in Iraq, “American efforts have not only failed, they may
also have achieved the opposite of what they intended.” This Pentagon
report flatly states that our war in Iraq actually has elevated support
for radical Islamists. It goes on to conclude that our active intervention
in the Middle East as a whole has greatly diminished our reputation in
the region, and strengthened support for radical groups. This is similar
to what the CIA predicted in an October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate,
before the invasion took place.
Then, earlier this month we learned that the CIA station chief
in Baghdad sent a cable back to the US warning that the situation in
Iraq is deteriorating, and not expected to improve any time soon. Other
CIA experts also warn that the security situation in Iraq is likely to
get even worse in the future. These reports are utterly ignored by the
administration.
These recent reports are not the product of some radical antiwar
organization. They represent the US government’s own assessment of
our “progress” in Iraq after two and a half years and the loss of thousands
of lives. We are alienating the Islamic world in our oxymoronic quest
to impose democracy in Iraq.
This demonstrates once again the folly of nation building, which
is something candidate Bush wisely rejected before the 2000 election.
The worsening situation in Iraq also reminds us that going to war without
a congressional declaration, as the Constitution requires, leads us into
protracted quagmires over and over again.
The reality is that current-day Iraq contains three distinct
groups of people whom have been at odds with each other for generations.
Pundits and politicians tell us that a civil war will erupt if the
US military departs. Yet our insistence that Iraq remain one indivisible
nation actually creates the conditions for civil war. Instead of an
artificial, forced, nationalist unity between the Sunnis, Shiites, and
Kurds, we should allow each group to seek self-government and choose
voluntarily whether they wish to associate with a central government.
We cannot impose democracy in Iraq any more than we can erase hundreds
of years of Iraqi history.
Even opponents of the war now argue that we must occupy Iraq
indefinitely until a democratic government takes hold, no matter what
the costs. No attempt is made by either side to explain exactly why it
is the duty of American soldiers to die for the benefit of Iraq or any
other foreign country. No reason is given why American taxpayers must pay
billions of dollars to build infrastructure in Iraq. We are expected to
accept the interventionist approach without question, as though no other
options exist. This blanket acceptance of foreign meddling and foreign
aid may be the current Republican policy, but
it is not a conservative policy by any means.
Non-interventionism was the foreign policy ideal of the Founding
Fathers, an ideal that is ignored by both political parties today.
Those who support political and military intervention in Iraq and elsewhere
should have the integrity to admit that their views conflict with the
principles of our nation’s founding. It’s easy to repeat the tired cliché
that “times have changed since the Constitution was written”- in fact,
that’s an argument the left has used for decades to justify an unconstitutional
welfare state. Yet if we accept this argument, what other principles
from the founding era should we discard? Should we
reject federalism? Habeas corpus? How about the Second Amendment?
The principle of limited government enshrined in the Constitution- limited
government in both domestic and foreign affairs- has not changed over
time. What has changed is our willingness to ignore that principle.
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section
107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information
for research and educational purposes.)
MAMMA's Footnote:
QUESTION: Wouldn't it be easier
to do a Reality Check in Iraq if one was done in the US first? Would
anyone be questioning the integrity of political and military intervention
in "Iraq and elsewhere" if there had been intervention in 1993, when "Veterans
at Risk" chronicled "a well-ingrained pattern of abuse"? (read Zeman's series) Congressional leaders
have been asleep at the switch...when will they wake up and Recognize,
Challenge and Check the ABUSE that is running rampant in the military???
Considering Congressman Paul's concern over "what other principles"
should be discarded...it's about time to take a serious look at the 'Take
it home' Recipe (http://www.oocities.org/gold_star_mother/publicalerts.html#Take_Home_Recipe
)....try it!
BACK TO THE TOP
BACK TO PUBLIC ALERTS
December 8, 2004
http://www.infowars.com/articles/ps/patriot2_hitler_powers_bush.htm
Secret Patriot Act II to give Hitler’s Powers
to Bush
Congressman Ron Paul (R-Tex) told the Washington Times that no
member of Congress was allowed to read the first Patriot Act that was
passed by the House on October 27, 2001. The first Patriot Act was universally
decried by civil libertarians and Constitutional SECRET PATscholars from
across the political spectrum. William Safire, while writing for the New
York Times, described the first Patriot Act's powers by saying that President
Bush was
seizing dictatorial control.
On February 7, 2003 the Center for Public Integrity, a non-partisan
public interest think-tank in DC, revealed the full text of the Domestic
Security Enhancement Act of 2003. The classified document had been leaked
to them by an unnamed source inside the Federal government. The document
consisted of a 33-page section by section analysis of the accompanying
87-page bill.
The Patriot Act II bill itself is stamped "Confidential -Not for
Distribution." Upon reading the analysis and bill, I was stunned by the
scientifically crafted tyranny contained in the legislation. The Justice
Department Office of Legislative Affairs admits that they had indeed
covertly transmitted a copy of the legislation to Speaker of the House
Dennis Hastert, (R-Il) and the Vice President of the United States, Dick
Cheney as well as theexecutive heads of federal law enforcement agencies.
It is important to note that no member of Congress was allowed
to see the first Patriot Act before its passage, and that no debate was
tolerated by the House and Senate leadership. The intentions of the
White House and Speaker Hastert concerning Patriot Act II appear to be
a carbon copy replay of the events that led to the unprecedented passage
of the first Patriot Act.
There are two glaring areas that need to be looked at concerning
this new legislation:
1. The secretive tactics being used by the White House and Speaker
Hastert to keep even the existence of this legislation secret would be
more at home in Communist China than in the United States. The fact that
Dick Cheney publicly managed the steamroller passage of the first Patriot
Act, insuring that no one was allowed to read it and publicly threatening
members of Congress that if they didn?t vote in favor of it that they
would be blamed for the next terrorist attack, is by the White House?'
own definition terrorism. The move to clandestinely craft and then bully
passage of any legislation by the Executive Branch is clearly an impeachable
offence.
2. The second Patriot Act is a mirror image of powers that Julius
Caesar and Adolf Hitler gave themselves. Whereas the First Patriot Act
only gutted the First, Third, Fourth and Fifth Amendments, and seriously
damaged the Seventh and the Tenth, the Second Patriot Act reorganizes
the entire Federal government as well as many areas of state government
under the dictatorial control of the Justice Department, the Office of
Homeland Security and the FEMA NORTHCOM military command. The Domestic
Security Enhancement Act 2003, also known as the Second Patriot Act is
by its very structure the definition of dictatorship.
I challenge all Americans to study the new Patriot Act and to
compare it to the Constitution, Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence.
Ninety percent of the act has nothing to do with terrorism and is instead
a giant Federal power-grab with tentacles reaching into every facet of
our society. It strips American citizens of all of their rights and grants
the government and its private agents total immunity.
Here is a quick thumbnail sketch of just some of the draconian
measures encapsulated within this tyrannical legislation:
SECTION 501 (Expatriation of Terrorists) expands the Bush
administration’s enemy combatant definition to all American citizens
who may have violated any provision of Section 802 of the first Patriot
Act. (Section 802 is the new definition of domestic terrorism, and the
definition is any action that endangers human life that is a violation
of any Federal or State law. ) Section 501 of the second Patriot Act directly
connects to Section 125 of the same act. The Justice Department boldly claims
that the incredibly broad Section 802 of the First USA Patriot Act isn?t
broad enough and that a new, unlimited definition of terrorism is
needed.
Under Section 501 a US citizen engaging in lawful activities can
be grabbed off the street and thrown into a van never to be seen again.
The Justice Department states that they can do this because the person
had inferred from conduct that they were not a US citizen. Remember Section
802 of the First USA Patriot Act states that any violation of Federal
or State law can result in the enemy combatant terrorist designation.
SECTION 201 of the second Patriot Act makes it a criminal
act for any member of the government or any citizen to release any information
concerning the incarceration or whereabouts of detainees. It also states
that law enforcement does not even have to tell the press who they have
arrested and they never have to release the names.
SECTION 301 and 306 (Terrorist Identification Database)
set up a national database of suspected terrorists and radically expand
the database to include anyone associated with suspected terrorist groups
and anyone involved in crimes or having supported any group designated as
terrorist. These sections also set up a national DNA database for anyone
on probation or who has been on probation for any crime, and orders State
governments to collect the DNA for the Federal government.
SECTION 312 gives immunity to law enforcement engaging
in spying operations against the American people and would place substantial
restrictions on court injunctions against Federal violations of civil
rights across the board.
SECTION 101 will designate individual terrorists as foreign
powers and again strip them of all rights under the enemy combatant designation.
SECTION 102 states clearly that any information gathering,
regardless of whether or not those activities are illegal, can be considered
to be clandestine intelligence activities for a foreign power. This makes
news gathering illegal.
SECTION 103 allows the Federal government to use wartime
martial law powers domestically and internationally without Congress
declaring that a state of war exists.
SECTION 106 is bone-chilling in its straightforwardness.
It states that broad general warrants by the secret FSIA court (a panel
of secret judges set up in a star chamber system that convenes in an undisclosed
location) granted under the first Patriot Act are not good enough. It
states that government agents must be given immunity for carrying out
searches with no prior court approval. This section throws out the entire
Fourth Amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures.
SECTION 109 allows secret star chamber courts to issue
contempt charges against any individual or corporation who refuses to
incriminate themselves or others. This sections annihilate the last
vestiges of the Fifth Amendment.
SECTION 110 restates that key police state clauses in the
first Patriot Act were not sunsetted and removes the five year sunset
clause from other subsections of the first Patriot Act. After all, the
media has told us: this is the New America. Get used to it. This is forever.
SECTION 111 expands the definition of the enemy combatant
designation.
SECTION 122 restates the government?s newly announced power
of surveillance without a court order.
SECTION 123 restates that the government no longer needs
warrants and that the investigations can be a giant dragnet-style sweep
described in press reports about the Total Information Awareness Network.
One passage reads, thus the focus of domestic surveillance may be less
precise than that directed against more conventional types of crime.
SECTION 126 grants the government the right to mine the
entire spectrum of public and private sector information from bank records
to educational and medical records. This is the enacting law to allow ECHELON
and the Total Information Awareness Network to totally break down any
and all walls of privacy.
The government states that they must look at everything to determine
if individuals or groups might have a connection to terrorist groups.
As you can now see, you are guilty until proven innocent.
SECTION 127 allows the government to takeover coroners’
and medical examiners operations whenever they see fit.
SECTION 128 allows the Federal government to place gag
orders on Federal and State Grand Juries and to take over the proceedings.
It also disallows individuals or organizations to even try to quash a Federal
subpoena. So now defending yourself will be a terrorist action.
SECTION 129 destroys any remaining whistleblower protection
for Federal agents.
SECTION 202 allows corporations to keep secret their activities
with toxic biological, chemical or radiological materials.
SECTION 205 allows top Federal officials to keep all their
financial dealings secret, and anyone investigating them can be considered
a terrorist. This should be very useful for Dick Cheney to stop anyone
investigating Haliburton.
SECTION 303 sets up national DNA database of suspected
terrorists. The database will also be used to stop other unlawful activities.
It will share the information with state, local and foreign agencies
for the same purposes.
SECTION 311 federalizes your local police department in
the area of information sharing.
SECTION 313 provides liability protection for businesses,
especially big businesses that spy on their customers for Homeland Security,
violating their privacy agreements. It goes on to say that these are
all preventative measures â?? has anyone seen Minority Report? This
is the access hub for the Total Information Awareness Network.
SECTION 321 authorizes foreign governments to spy on the
American people and to share information with foreign governments.
SECTION 322 removes Congress from the extradition process
and allows officers of the Homeland Security complex to extradite American
citizens anywhere they wish. It also allows Homeland Security to secretly
take individuals out of foreign countries.
SECTION 402 is titled Providing Material Support to Terrorism.
The section reads that there is no requirement to show that the individual
even had the intent to aid terrorists.
SECTION 403 expands the definition of weapons of mass destruction
to include any activity that affects interstate or foreign commerce.
SECTION 404 makes it a crime for a terrorist or other criminals
to use encryption in the commission of a crime.
SECTION 408 creates lifetime parole (basically, slavery)
for a whole host of crimes.
SECTION 410 creates no statute of limitations for anyone
that engages in terrorist actions or supports terrorists. Remember:
any crime is now considered terrorism under the first Patriot Act.
SECTION 411 expands crimes that are punishable by death.
Again, they point to Section 802 of the first Patriot Act and state
that any terrorist act or support of terrorist act can result in the
death penalty.
SECTION 421 increases penalties for terrorist financing.
This section states that any type of financial activity connected to
terrorism will result to time in prison and $10-50,000 fines per violation.
SECTIONS 427 sets up asset forfeiture provisions for anyone
engaging in terrorist activities.
There are many other sections that I did not cover in the interest
of time. The American people were shocked by the despotic nature of the
first Patriot Act. The second Patriot Act dwarfs all police state legislation
in modern world history.
Usually, corrupt governments allow their citizens lots of wonderful
rights on paper, while carrying out their jackbooted oppression covertly.
From snatch and grab operations to warantless searches, Patriot Act II
is an Adolf Hitler wish list.
You can understand why President Bush, Dick Cheney and Dennis
Hastert want to keep this legislation secret not just from Congress,
but the American people as well. Bill Allison, Managing Editor of the
Center for Public Integrity, the group that broke this story, stated on
my radio show that it was obvious that they were just waiting for
another terrorist attack to opportunistically get this new bill through.
He then shocked me with an insightful comment about how the Federal government
was crafting this so that they could go after the American people in general.
He also agreed that the FBI has been quietly
demonizing patriots and Christians and those who carry around
pocket constitutions.
I have produced two documentary films and written a book about
what really happened on September 11th. The bottom line is this: the military-industrial
complex carried the attacks out as a pretext for control. Anyone who
doubts this just hasn?t looked at the mountains of hard evidence.
Of course, the current group of white collar criminals in the
White House might not care that we're finding out the details of their
next phase. Because, after all, when smallpox gets released, or more
buildings start blowing up, the President can stand up there at his lectern
suppressing a smirk, squeeze out a tear or two, and tell us that See I
was right. I had to take away your rights to keep you safe. And now it’s
your fault that all of these children are dead. From that point on, anyone
who criticizes tyranny will be shouted down by the paid talking head government
mouthpieces in the mainstream media.
You have to admit, it’s a beautiful script.Unfortunately, it’s
being played out in the real world. If we don’t get the word out that
government is using terror to control our lives while doing nothing to
stop the terrorists, we will deserve what we get - tyranny. But our children
won’t deserve it.
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section
107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information
for research and educational purposes.)
MAMMA's Footnote:
It's great that someone is working hard
to oppose the National ID infringement of our freedom. If only they could/would
learn to appreciate the fact that this 'tagging the beast' evil is equitable
to a bow being added to the ABUSE package that has been in the wrapping
department for decades.
The ABUSE of Power that germinated in Presidential Decision Directives,
Executive Orders and the like...sending those in control of the most powerful
military in the world careening out of control...needs to be Recognized,
Challenged and Checked...ASAP! Be sure to visit: http://www.oocities.org/gold_star_mother/publicalerts
and seriously THINK about the 'Take it home'
Recipe (http://www.oocities.org/gold_star_mother/publicalerts.html#Take_Home_Recipe)!
Try it....You might like it!
Our children deserve
a legacy of Peace…not War!
And THINK about this:
SOMETHING EVIL, THIS WAY
COMES
An American Epic For The 21st Century
by Rick Stanley
I can feel it, taste it, smell it.
Makes the skin crawl, all the way to the bone.
Bearing down on America and the world.
Like the Black Plague, only worse this time.
Feels like, the hand that switched on the Nazi ovens.
Something Evil, This Way Comes.
The kind of evil, that steals your children.
May come in the middle of the night, while you sleep.
Wearing black, malevolence shining light in your eyes.
Screaming so loud, mouthing obsenities, spittle flying.
Violence smashing in, ending tranquility, you try to hide your nudity.
Something Evil, This Way Comes
Takes what you give it, you think it is right.
What used to be right, made wrong now, just because.
What used to be wrong, is right, by default.
Steals your wages, your property, your guns.
Demands answers, when you should give none.
Something Evil, This Way Comes.
Which way is up? You always feel down.
Buried by problems, too much work, all with doubt.
Now you lost your job, company left town. Moved overseas.
You feel so helpless, where is God? What do I do?
Everyone you know, tells you, all will be right.
Something Evil, This Way Comes
Our rights, once carved in stone, all taken.
Government man tells you, all you need to know.
Where once proud, now the head is held low.
Trading rights away, for privileges. Rape for freedom.
No constitutional rights in our courts, what's wrong fool?
Something Wicked, This Way Comes.
Sirens blaring, lights flashing, injustice sown.
Cops killed another child, had to, you know.
Came inside twenty one feet, thugs have guns, your dead meat.
No charges filed ever, never need to see the truth.
Whitewash and cover-up, are the order of the day.
Something Wicked, This Way Comes.
Want to be safe? Homeland Security here.
Guns at the airport, but not for you. No defense for you.
Security check points, it is for your own good.
Our military is strong, don't you feel safe?
Controllers will liberate your money supply, pipelines, poppyfields,
and oil.
Something Wicked, This Way Comes.
Politicians to the Rescue, they know better.
Who are you? You're just the people.
Pay your taxes. Don't complain. Give it up.
They make promises, sheep must be shorn.
Don't worry, lead them to slaughter.
Something Wicked, This Way Comes.
Protect yourself? What for? Cops do that.
Serve and protect. That's the motto.
Not anymore. Cops make revenue now.
Pass out those tickets, fill the state coffers.
That's not enough? Pass more laws. Rights no, laws yes.
Evil And Wicked, This Way Comes.
Where's the media? Nothing exposed.
Where is Bob Woodward? Bought and paid for.
Propaganda will fill the people's minds.
Politically and socially correct, this is your time.
Everyone is happy, no matter what, Big Brother is watching.
Evil And Wicked, This Way Comes.
Our money is worthless? How come?
Federal Reserve is a corporation? Not true!
Oh, but it is, and so is the government.
Money is debt and credit. What about gold?
Sold down the river. Politician's word is his bond.
Evil And Wicked, This Way Comes.
International Bankers. Laughing it up.
Stealing our assets. Giving us lies and fraud.
Social Security the perfect Ponzi scheme for the sheep.
Take it from wages. Trust fund to keep.
Sixty years later, it's all gone.
Evil And Wicked, This Way Comes.
We fell for it all. America dethrowned.
Our troops all over the globe, spearpoint, you know.
UN troops guard us now, in white vehicles.
Lurking in shadows, hiding for now.
FEMA builds camps, to house and make us safe one day.
Minions Now, Of Satan, This Way Comes.
They gave us the Patriot Act - Victory Act too.
Turned everyone into a terrorist, as darkness fell on America.
Waving your flags, stealing our rights, making more laws.
Once we were citizens, now subjects, comfortable slaves.
Presidents, Democrats and Republicans, saved the day.
Minions Now, Of Satan, This Way Comes.
America slept through the 20th Century.
We had integrity, honor, strength of character, and Mickey Mouse.
We trusted public servants, they stole us blind.
They live in comfort, while the people scratch and claw.
A new aristocracy, the Government of America.
Minions Now, Of Satan, This Way Comes.
How did this happen? What can be done?
Who will save us? We know this is wrong.
We used to be self reliant. We stood so strong.
We need more laws, more government, more.....
I think this is stupid, I won't take it anymore!
Free Will And God, This Way Comes.
I will stand tall. The line is drawn.
It is time to defend. End this charade.
Band together. United we stand, divided we fall.
I have heard of an answer. The PACT.
Mutual Defense Pact. It started with one.
Free Will And God, This Way Comes.
It happened out West, Denver it started.
Many scoffed. Most sat on their hands.
The messenger called. A website was formed.
The call continued to go out. www.stanley2002.org.
It grew. More came. The Pact was no longer small.
Free Will And God, This Way Comes.
Time went on. The Government laughed.
The Government trembled. They were on the run.
The people were gathering. God's People stood strong.
No one wavered. People came when called.
It finally started, one day in the Fall.
Free Will And God, This Way Comes.
The battle erupted. From both sides they came.
The evil. The good. From government. From "We The People".
It spread from shore to shore. From defense it came.
Deadly and triumphant, the Lion joined the fray.
The New World Order, smashed by God's Order.
Free Will And God, This Way Comes.
http://www.stanley2002.org/
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C.
Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those
who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information
for research and educational purposes.)
Full transcript of
bin Ladin's speech
Al-Jazeera aired only four minutes of Osama bin Laden's videotape
released last week, this is the transcript for the full 18 minutes.
Following is the full English transcript of Usama bin Ladin's
speech in a videotape sent to Aljazeera.
11/01/04 "Aljazeera"
Praise be to Allah who created the creation for his worship and
commanded them to be just and permitted the wronged one to retaliate
against the oppressor in kind. To proceed:
Peace be upon he who follows the guidance: People of America this
talk of mine is for you and concerns the ideal way to prevent another
Manhattan, and deals with the war and its causes and results.
Before I begin, I say to you that security is an indispensable
pillar of human life and that free men do not forfeit their security,
contrary to Bush's claim that we hate freedom. If so, then let him explain
to us why we don't strike for example – Sweden? And we know that freedom-haters
don't possess defiant spirits like those of the 19 – may Allah have mercy
on them.
No, we fight because we are free men who don't sleep under oppression.
We want to restore freedom to our nation, just as you lay waste to our
nation. So shall we lay waste to yours.
No-one except a dumb thief plays with the security of others and
then makes himself believe he will be secure. Whereas thinking people,
when disaster strikes, make it their priority to look for its causes, in
order to prevent it happening again.
But I am amazed at you. Even though we are in the fourth year
after the events of September 11th, Bush is still engaged in distortion,
deception and hiding from you the real causes. And thus, the reasons
are still there for a repeat of what occurred.
So I shall talk to you about the story behind those events and
shall tell you truthfully about the moments in which the decision was
taken, for you to consider.
I say to you, Allah knows that it had never occurred to us to
strike the towers. But after it became unbearable and we witnessed the
oppression and tyranny of the American/Israeli coalition against our
people in Palestine and Lebanon, it came to my mind.
The events that affected my soul in a direct way started in 1982
when America permitted the Israelis to invade Lebanon and the American
Sixth Fleet helped them in that. This bombardment began and many were killed
and injured and others were terrorized and displaced.
I couldn't forget those moving scenes, blood and severed limbs,
women and children sprawled everywhere. Houses destroyed along with
their occupants and high rises demolished over their residents, rockets
raining down on our home without mercy.
The situation was like a crocodile meeting a helpless child, powerless
except for his screams. Does the crocodile understand a conversation
that doesn't include a weapon? And the whole world saw and heard but it
didn't respond.
In those difficult moments many hard-to-describe ideas bubbled
in my soul, but in the end they produced an intense feeling of rejection
of tyranny, and gave birth to a strong resolve to punish the oppressors.
And as I looked at those demolished towers in Lebanon, it entered
my mind that we should punish the oppressor in kind and that we should
destroy towers in America in order that they taste some of what we tasted
and so that they be deterred from killing our women and children.
And that day, it was confirmed to me that oppression and the intentional
killing of innocent women and children is a deliberate American policy.
Destruction is freedom and democracy, while resistance is terrorism and
intolerance.
This means the oppressing and embargoing to death of millions
as Bush Sr. did in Iraq in the greatest mass slaughter of children mankind
has ever known, and it means the throwing of millions of pounds of bombs
and explosives at millions of children – also in Iraq – as Bush Jr. Did,
in order to remove an old agent and replace him with a new puppet to assist
in the pilfering of Iraq's oil and other outrages.
So with these images and their like as their background, the events
of September 11th came as a reply to those great wrongs, should a man
be blamed for defending his sanctuary?
Is defending oneself and punishing the aggressor in kind, objectionable
terrorism? If it is such, then it is unavoidable for us.
This is the message which I sought to communicate to you in word
and deed, repeatedly, for years before September 11th.
And you can read this, if you wish, in my interview with Scott
in Time Magazine in 1996, or with Peter Arnett on CNN in 1997, or my meeting
with John Weiner in 1998.
You can observe it practically, if you wish, in Kenya and Tanzania
and in Aden. And you can read it in my interview with Abdul Bari Atwan,
as well as my interviews with Robert Fisk.
The latter is one of your compatriots and co-religionists and
I consider him to be neutral. So are the pretenders of freedom at The
White House and the channels controlled by them able to run an interview
with him? So that he may relay to the American people what he has understood
from us to be the reasons for our fight against you?
If you were to avoid these reasons, you will have taken the correct
path that will lead America to the security that it was in before September
11th. This concerned the causes of the war.
As for it's results, they have been, by the grace of Allah, positive
and enormous, and have, by all standards, exceeded all expectations.
This is due to many factors, chief amongst them, that we have found it
difficult to deal with the Bush administration in light of the resemblance
it bears to the regimes in our countries, half of which are ruled by the
military and the other half which are ruled by the sons of kings and presidents.
Our experience with them is lengthy, and both types are replete
with those who are characterized by pride, arrogance, greed and misappropriation
of wealth. This resemblance began after the visits of Bush Sr. to the
region.
At a time when some of our compatriots were dazzled by America
and hoping that these visits would have an effect on our countries, all
of a sudden he was affected by those monarchies and military regimes,
and became envious of their remaining decades in their positions, to embezzle
the public wealth of the nation without supervision or accounting.
So he took dictatorship and suppression of freedoms to his son
and they named it the Patriot Act, under the pretense of fighting terrorism.
In addition, Bush sanctioned the installing of sons as state governors,
and didn't forget to import expertise in election fraud from the region's
presidents to Florida to be made use of in moments of difficulty.
All that we have mentioned has made it easy for us to provoke
and bait this administration. All that we have to do is to send two
Mujahideen to the furthest point East to raise a piece of cloth on which
is written al-Qaida, in order to make the generals race there to cause
America to suffer human, economic, and political losses without their
achieving for it anything of note other than some benefits for their private
companies.
This is in addition to our having experience in using guerrilla
warfare and the war of attrition to fight tyrannical superpowers, as
we, alongside the Mujahideen, bled Russia for ten years, until it went
bankrupt and was forced to withdraw in defeat.
All Praise is due to Allah.
So we are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point
of bankruptcy. Allah willing, and nothing is too great for Allah.
That being said, those who say that al-Qaida has won against the
administration in the White House or that the administration has lost
in this war have not been precise, because when one scrutinizes the results,
one cannot say that al-Qaida is the sole factor in achieving those spectacular
gains.
Rather, the policy of the White House that demands the opening
of war fronts to keep busy their various corporations – whether they be
working in the field of arms or oil or reconstruction – has helped al-Qaida
to achieve these enormous results.
And so it has appeared to some analysts and diplomats that the
White House and us are playing as one team towards the economic goals
of the United States, even if the intentions differ.
And it was to these sorts of notions and their like that the British
diplomat and others were referring in their lectures at the Royal Institute
of International Affairs. (When they pointed out that) for example, al-Qaida
spent $500 000 on the event, while America, in the incident and its
aftermath, lost – according to the lowest estimate – more than 500 billion
dollars.
Meaning that every dollar of al-Qaida defeated a million dollars
by the permission of Allah, besides the loss of a huge number of jobs.
As for the size of the economic deficit, it has reached record
astronomical numbers estimated to total more than a trillion dollars.
And even more dangerous and bitter for America is that the Mujahideen
recently forced Bush to resort to emergency funds to continue the fight
in Afghanistan and Iraq, which is evidence of the success of the bleed
-until-bankruptcy plan – with Allah's permission.
It is true that this shows that al-Qaida has gained, but on the
other hand, it shows that the Bush administration has also gained, something
of which anyone who looks at the size of the contracts acquired by the
shady Bush administration-linked mega-corporations, like Haliburton and
its kind, will be convinced. And it all shows that the real loser is...you.
It is the American people and their economy. And for the record,
we had agreed with the Commander-General Muhammad Ataa, Allah have mercy
on him, that all the operations should be carried out within twenty
minutes, before Bush and his administration notice.
It never occurred to us that the commander-in-chief of the American
armed forces would abandon 50 000 of his citizens in the twin towers
to face those great horrors alone, the time when they most needed him.
But because it seemed to him that occupying himself by talking
to the little girl about the goat and its butting was more important than
occupying himself with the planes and their butting of the skyscrapers.
We were given three times the period required to execute the operations
– All Praise is Due to Allah.
And it's no secret to you that the thinkers and perceptive ones
from among the Americans warned Bush before the war and told him, "All
that you want for securing America and removing the weapons of mass destruction
– assuming they exist – is available to you, and the nations of the world
are with you in the inspections, and it is in the interest of America
that it not be thrust into an unjustified war with an unknown outcome."
But the darkness of the black gold blurred his vision and insight,
and he gave priority to private interests over the public interests of
America.
So the war went ahead, the death toll rose, the American economy
bled, and Bush became embroiled in the swamps of Iraq that threaten his
future. He fits the saying, "Like the naughty she-goat who used her hoof
to dig up a knife from under the earth"
So I say to you, over 15 000 of our people have been killed and
tens of thousands injured, while more than a thousand of you have been
killed and more than 10 000 injured. And Bush's hands are stained with
the blood of all those killed from both sides, all for the sake of oil
and keeping their private companies in business.
Be aware that it is the nation who punishes the weak man when
he causes the killing of one of its citizens for money, while letting
the powerful one get off, when he causes the killing of more than 1000
of its sons, also for money.
And the same goes for your allies in Palestine. They terrorize
the women and children, and kill and capture the men as they lie sleeping
with their families on the mattresses, that you may recall that for every
action, there is a reaction.
Finally, it behooves you to reflect on the last wills and testaments
of the thousands who left you on the 11th as they gestured in despair.
They are important testaments, which should be studied and researched.
Among the most important of what I read in them was some prose
in their gestures before the collapse, where they say, "How mistaken we
were to have allowed the White House to implement its aggressive foreign
policies against the weak without supervision." It is as if they were
telling you, the people of America, "Hold to account those who have caused
us to be killed, and happy is he who learns from others' mistakes," And
among that which I read in their gestures is a verse of poetry, "Injustice
chases its people, and how unhealthy the bed of tyranny."
As has been said, "An ounce of prevention is better than a pound
of cure."
And know that, "It is better to return to the truth than persist
in error." And that the wise man doesn't squander his security, wealth
and children for the sake of the liar in the White House.
In conclusion, I tell you in truth, that your security is not
in the hands of Kerry, nor Bush, nor al-Qaida.
No.
Your security is in your own hands. And every state that doesn't
play with our security has automatically guaranteed its own security.
And Allah is our Guardian and Helper, while you have no Guardian
or Helper. All Peace be Upon he who follows the Guidance.
Copyright: Aljazeera
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section
107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed
a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and
educational purposes.)
MAMMA's Footnote:
OK....you may not like the messenger, but....could there be any
TRUTH in anything he has to say that could/should make you THINK?
- WHY did the U.S. invade Iraq?
- Is it possible to save a city by destroying it?
- Does launching an assault really PREVENT violence?
- Wouldn't it be easier to fight terrorism if we weren't creating
terrorists (AKA collateral damage)?
- Is it fair to burden the elderly and infirm with financial woes
by using ALL of the TRUST from Social Security to pay for this war?
- Do you really want to leave your children and grandchildren a
legacy of perpetual WAR...what kind of security is that???
- Considering that...
...Pres. Bush invoked the 'Powers Act' to "Shock and Awe" the Sovereign
Nation of Iraq (and the rest of the world),
...Pres. Bush called for a 'Halt of all Hostilities',
...Pres. Bush passed the mantle of Responsibility and Accountability
to Iraqis, when he restored their (stolen) Sovereignty,
...Pres. Bush says that if there is ONE more RED 'ALERT', the constitution
will be suspended and Martial Law will be instituted...
- WHY are
coalition forces continuing to occupy and DIE in Iraq...in the name of
democracy and freedom????
The war on
Iraq has made moral cowards of us all
More than 100,000 Iraqis have been killed - and where is
our shame and rage?
Scott Ritter
11/01/04 "The Guardian" -- The full scale of the human cost
already paid for the war on Iraq is only now becoming clear.
Last week's estimate by investigators, using credible methodology, that
more than 100,000 Iraqi civilians - most of them women and children -
have died since the US-led invasion is a profound moral indictment of our
countries. The US and British governments quickly moved to cast doubt on
the Lancet medical journal findings, citing other studies. These mainly
media-based reports put the number of Iraqi civilian deaths at about 15,000
- although the basis for such an endorssement is unclear, since neither the
US nor the UK admits to collecting data on Iraqi civilian casualties.
Civilian deaths have always been a tragic reality of modern war.
But the conflict in Iraq was supposed to be different - US and British
forces were dispatched to liberate the Iraqi people, not impose their
own tyranny of violence.
Reading accounts of the US-led invasion, one is struck by
the constant, almost casual, reference to civilian deaths. Soldiers and
marines speak of destroying hundreds, if not thousands, of vehicles that
turned out to be crammed with civilians. US marines acknowledged in the
aftermath of the early, bloody battle for Nassiriya that their artillery
and air power had pounded civilian areas in a blind effort to suppress
insurgents thought to be holed up in the city. The infamous "shock and
awe" bombing of Baghdad produced hundreds of deaths, as did the 3rd Infantry
Division's "Thunder Run", an armoured thrust in Baghdad that slaughtered everyone
in its path.
It is true that, with only a few exceptions, civilians who
died as a result of ground combat were not deliberately targeted, but
were caught up in the machinery of modern warfare. But when the same claim
is made about civilians killed in aerial attacks (the Lancet study estimates
that most of civilian deaths were the result of air attacks), the comparison
quickly falls apart. Helicopter engagements apart, most aerial bombardment
is deliberate and pre-planned. US and British military officials like
to brag about the accuracy of the "precision" munitions used in these
strikes, claiming this makes the kind
of modern warfare practised by the coalition in Iraq the most
humanitarian in history.
But there is nothing humanitarian about explosives once they
detonate near civilians, or about a bomb guided to the wrong target.
Dozens of civilians were killed during the vain effort to eliminate Saddam
Hussein with "pinpoint" air strikes, and hundreds have perished in the
campaign to eliminate alleged terrorist targets in Falluja. A "smart
bomb" is only as good as the data used to direct it. And the abysmal
quality of the intelligence used has made the smartest of bombs just as
dumb and indiscriminate as those, for example, dropped during the second
world war.
The fact that most bombing missions in Iraq today are pre-planned,
with targets allegedly carefully vetted, further indicts those who wage
this war in the name of freedom. If these targets are so precise, then
those selecting them cannot escape the fact that they are deliberately targeting
innocent civilians at the same time as they seek to destroy their intended
foe. Some would dismiss these civilians as "collateral damage". But we
must keep in mind that the British and US governments made a deliberate
decision to enter into a conflict of their choosing, not one that
was thrust upon them. We invaded Iraq to free
Iraqis from a dictator who, by some accounts, oversaw the killing
of about 300,000 of his subjects - although no one has been able
to verify more than a small fraction of the figure. If it is correct,
it took Saddam decades to reach such a horrific statistic. The US and
UK have, it seems, reached a third of that total in just 18 months.
Meanwhile, the latest scandal over missing nuclear-related high
explosives in Iraq (traced and controlled under the UN inspections regime)
only underscores the utter deceitfulness of the Bush-Blair argument
for the war. Having claimed the uncertainty surrounding Iraq's WMD capability
constituted a threat that could not go unchallenged in a post-9/11 world,
one would have expected the two leaders to insist on a military
course of action that brought under immediate coalition control any aspect
of potential WMD capability, especially relating to any possible nuclear
threat. That the US military did not have a dedicated force to locate and
neutralise these explosives underscores the fact that both Bush and Blair
knew that there was no threat from Iraq, nuclear or otherwise.
Of course, the US and Britain have a history of turning a blind
eye to Iraqi suffering when it suits their political purposes. During
the 1990s, hundreds of thousands are estimated by the UN to have died
as a result of sanctions. Throughout that time, the US and the UK maintained
the fiction that this was the fault of Saddam Hussein, who refused to
give up his WMD. We now know that Saddam had disarmed and those deaths
were the responsibility of the US and Britain, which refused to lift sanctions.
There are many culpable individuals and organisations history
will hold to account for the war - from deceitful politicians and journalists
to acquiescent military professionals and silent citizens of the world's
democracies. As the evidence has piled up confirming what I and others
had reported - that Iraq was already disarmed by the late 1990s - my personal
vote for one of the most culpable individuals would go to Hans
Blix, who headed the UN weapons inspection team in the run-up to war.
He had the power if not to prevent, at least to forestall a war with
Iraq. Blix knew that Iraq was disarmed, but in his mealy-mouthed testimony
to the UN security council helped provide fodder for war. His failure
to stand up to the lies used by Bush and Blair to sell the Iraq war must
brand him a moral and intellectual coward.
But we all are moral cowards when it comes to Iraq. Our collective
inability to summon the requisite shame and rage when confronted by an
estimate of 100,000 dead Iraqi civilians in the prosecution of an illegal
and unjust war not only condemns us, but adds credibility to those
who oppose us. The fact that a criminal such as Osama bin Laden can broadcast
a videotape on the eve of the US presidential election in which his
message is viewed by many around the world as a sober argument in support
of his cause is the harshest indictment of the failure of the US and Britain
to implement sound policy in the aftermath of 9/11. The death of 3,000
civilians on that horrible day represented a tragedy of huge proportions.
Our continued indifference to a war that has slaughtered so many Iraqi
civilians, and will continue to kill more, is in many ways an even greater
tragedy: not only in terms of scale, but also because these deaths
were inflicted by our own hand in the course of an action that has no
defence.
Scott Ritter was a senior UN weapons inspector in Iraq between
1991 and 1998 and is the author of Frontier Justice: Weapons of Mass Destruction
and the Bushwhacking of America email - WSRitter@aol.com
Copyright: The Guardian
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section
107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed
a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and
educational purposes.)
Marine:
US Soldiers Routinely Killed Civilians, Including Woman and Children
By: Andrew Buncombe
September 12, 2004
Independent, The
A former US Marine has claimed that he saw American troops in Iraq
routinely kill unarmed civilians, including women and children. He said
he had also witnessed troops killing injured Iraqi insurgents.
Jimmy Massey, 33, a staff sergeant who served in Iraq before being
honourably discharged after 12 years' service, said he had seen troops
shooting civilians at road blocks and in the street. A code of silence,
similar to that found in organised crime gangs, prevented troops from
speaking about it.
"We were shooting up people as they got out of their cars trying
to put their hands up," said Mr Massey. "I don't know if the Iraqis thought
we were celebrating their new democracy. I do know that we killed innocent
civilians." Mr Massey said US troops in Iraq were trained to believe that
all Iraqis were potential terrorists. As a result, he had watched his colleagues
open fire indiscriminately. In one 48-hour period, he estimated his unit
killed more than 30 civilians in the Rashid district of southern Baghdad.
"I was never clear on who the enemy was," he explained. "If you have
no enemy or you do not know who the enemy is, what are you doing there?"
His claims were made during an immigration hearing in Toronto, Canada,
to assess a claim for refugee status made by a former US soldier, Jeremy
Hinzman. Mr Hinzman, 26, fled to Canada after refusing to go to Iraq with
his colleagues in the 82nd Airborne Division based at Fort Bragg.
Mr Hinzman is seeking permission to remain in Canada with his wife
and child and believes he will face a court martial if he returns to
the US. "We were told that we would be going to Iraq to jack up some
terrorists," he told the hearing.
"We were told it was a new kind of war, that these were evil people
and they had to be dealt with." Mr Hinzman is among several American soldiers
seeking refugee status in Canada, hoping the country's opposition to the
war will help.
Some 30,000 to 50,000 Americans fled to Canada during the Vietnam
War and settled there.
Original Link:
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=591171
© Copyright 2004 Independent, The
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section
107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed
a prior interest in receiving the included information for research
and educational purposes.)
US admits the war for ‘hearts and minds’
in Iraq is now lost
By: Neil
Mackay, Investigations Editor
December
5, 2004
THE
Pentagon has admitted that the war on terror and the invasion and occupation
of Iraq have increased support for al-Qaeda, made ordinary Muslims hate
the US and caused a global backlash against America because of the “self-serving
hypocrisy” of George W Bush’s administration over the Middle East. The
mea culpa is contained in a shockingly frank “strategic communications”
report, written this autumn by the Defence Science Board for Pentagon supremo
Donald Rumsfeld.
On “the
war of ideas or the struggle for hearts and minds”, the report says, “American
efforts have not only failed, they may also have achieved the opposite
of what they intended”.
“American
direct intervention in the Muslim world has paradoxically elevated the
stature of, and support for, radical Islamists, while diminishing support
for the United States to single digits in some Arab societies.”
Referring
to the repeated mantra from the White House that those who oppose the
US in the Middle East “hate our freedoms”, the report says: “Muslims do
not ‘hate our freedoms’, but rather, they hate our policies. The overwhelming
majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in
favour of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the long-standing,
even increasing support, for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies,
most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan and the Gulf states.
“Thus when
American public diplomacy talks about bringing democracy to Islamic societies,
this is seen as no more than self-serving hypocrisy. Moreover, saying
that ‘freedom is the future of the Middle East’ is seen as patronising
… in the eyes of Muslims, the American occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq
has not led to democracy there, but only more chaos and suffering. US actions
appear in contrast to be motivated by ulterior motives, and deliberately
controlled in order to best serve American national interests at the expense
of truly Muslim self-determination.”
The way
America has handled itself since September 11 has played straight into the
hands of al-Qaeda, the report adds. “American actions have elevated the authority
of the jihadi insurgents and tended to ratify their legitimacy among
Muslims.” The result is that al-Qaeda has gone from being a marginal
movement to having support across the entire Muslim world.
“Muslims
see Americans as strangely narcissistic,” the report goes on, adding
that to the Arab world the war is “no more than an extension of American
domestic politics”. The US has zero credibility among Muslims which means
that “whatever Americans do and say only serves … the enemy”.
The report
says that the US is now engaged in a “global and generational struggle
of ideas” which it is rapidly losing. In order to reverse the trend, the
US must make “strategic communication” – which includes the dissemination
of propaganda and the running of military psychological operations – an
integral part of national security. The document says that “Presidential
leadership” is needed in this “ideas war” and warns against “arrogance,
opportunism and double standards”.
“We face
a war on terrorism,” the report says, “intensified conflict with Islam,
and insurgency in Iraq. Worldwide anger and discontent are directed at
America’s tarnished credibility and ways the US pursues its goals. There
is a consensus that America’s power to persuade is in a state of crisis.”
More than 90% of the populations of some Muslims countries, such as Saudi
Arabia, are opposed to US policies.
“The war
has increased mistrust of America in Europe,” the report adds, “weakened
support for the war on terrorism and undermined US credibility worldwide.”
This, in turn, poses an increased threat to US national security.
America’s
“image problem”, the report authors suggest, is “linked to perceptions
of the US as arrogant, hypocritical and self- indulgent”. The White House
“has paid little attention” to the problems.
The report
calls for a huge boost in spending on propaganda efforts as war policies
“will not succeed unless they are communicated to global domestic audiences
in ways that are credible”.
American
rhetoric which equates the war on terror as a cold-war-style battle against
“totalitarian evil” is also slapped down by the report. Muslims see what
is happening as a “history-shaking movement of Islamic restoration … a
renewal of the Muslim world … (which) has taken form through many variant
movements, both moderate and militant, with many millions of adherents
– of which radical fighters are only a small part”.
Rather than
supporting tyranny, most Muslim want to overthrow tyrannical regimes
like Saudi Arabia. “The US finds itself in the strategically awkward
– and potentially dangerous – situation of being the long-standing prop
and alliance partner of these authoritarian regimes. Without the US, these
regimes could not survive,” the report says.
“Thus the
US has strongly taken sides in a desperate struggle … US policies and
actions are increasingly seen by the overwhelming majority of Muslims
as a threat to the survival of Islam itself … Americans have inserted
themselves into this intra-Islamic struggle in ways that have made us
an enemy to most Muslims.
“There is
no yearning-to- be-liberated-by-the-US groundswell among Muslim societies
… The perception of intimate US support of tyr-annies in the Muslim world
is perhaps the critical vulnerability in American strategy. It strongly
undercuts our message, while strongly promoting that of the enemy.”
The report
says that, in terms of the “information war”, “at this moment it is the
enemy that has the advantage”. The US propaganda drive has to focus on
“separating the vast majority of non-violent Muslims from the radical-
militant Islamist- Jihadist”.
According
to the report, “the official take on the target audience [the Muslim
world] has been gloriously simple” and divided the Middle East into “good”
and “bad Muslims”.
“Americans
are convinced that the US is a benevolent ‘superpower’ that elevates
values emphasising freedom … deep down we assume that everyone should
naturally support our policies. Yet the world of Islam – by overwhelming
majorities at this time – sees things differently. Muslims see American
policies as inimical to their values, American rhetoric about freedom and
democracy as hypocritical and American actions as deeply threatening.
“In two
years the jihadi message – that strongly attacks American values – is being
accepted by more moderate and non-violent Muslims. This in turn implies that
negative opinion of the US has not yet bottomed out
Equally
important, the report says, is “to renew European attitudes towards America”
which have also been severely damaged since September 11, 2001. As “al-Qaeda
constantly outflanks the US in the war of information”, American has to adopt
more sophisticated propaganda techniques, such as targeting secularists in
the Muslim world – including writers, artists and singers – and getting US
private sector media and marketing professionals involved in disseminating
messages to Muslims with a pro-US “brand”.
The Pentagon
report also calls for the establishment of a national security adviser
for strategic communications, and a massive boost in funding for the “information
war” to boost US government TV and radio stations broadcasting in the
Middle East.
The importance
of the need to quickly establish a propaganda advantage is underscored
by a document attached to the Pentagon report from Paul Wolfowitz, the
deputy defence secretary, dated May.
It says:
“Our military expeditions to Afghanistan and Iraq are unlikely to be
the last such excursion in the global war on terrorism.”
© Copyright 2004 Sunday Herald
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C.
Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who
have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information
for research and educational purposes.)
Bush
and Blair: Secrets and Lies
The rotting albatross that is Iraq still hangs around Blair’s
neck, and, after the
revelations of secret government papers laying out the dangers of
joining Bush’s war, its
stench has become impossible for anyone to ignore but for the man
closest to it – the
Prime Minister
September 19, 2004
BLAIR’S secrets are out, and this is what he knew a full year before
the invasion of Iraq: the war was illegal, it would turn into a quagmire
that could last for generations and it was more than likely that, once
Saddam was overthrown, a new Iraqi government, even a democratic one, would
start developing weapons of mass destruction.
These warnings were contained in a series of top-secret documents
that Blair read and digested long before the invasion. It’s little wonder
that Menzies Campbell, the Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman,
says these revelations are “the crown jewels”.
The documents show that, despite the reservations of his own foreign
secretary and the Cabinet Office Overseas and Defence Secretariat, Blair
was swept along by George W Bush into a war that the British people did
not want. His motive? The preservation of the transatlantic special relationship.
America, under Bush, was going to take out Saddam no matter what happened
– and the White House clearly expected its loyal ally the UK to follow
in step behind the US.
On Monday, Blair began his week by trying to draw a line under Iraq.
At the TUC conference in Brighton, he attempted to put Iraq on the back
burner by talking up his domestic agenda. His choice of words couldn’t
have been more ironic: “Even if I’ve never been away, it’s time to show
I’m back”. He could have been talking about the spectre of Iraq hanging
over his career and British politics: Iraq has never been away, but today
it’s back with a vengeance.
The contents of the documents couldn’t have been revealed at a worse
time for Blair. Last week, Kofi Annan said the invasion of the Iraq was
“illegal”. The forthcoming report by the Iraq Survey Group, which has
been hunting for WMD in Iraq, will say Saddam had no stockpiles of banned
weapons.
President Bush, yesterday, warned that guerrilla attacks in Iraq
will probably get worse, and a highly classified US National Intelligence
Estimate, put together this summer by the government’s most senior analysts,
says Iraq could spiral into full-blown civil war. The Foreign Relations
Committee in the US is also furious at a request from the State Department
to divert some £2.82 billion out of reconstruction funds, worth £15bn,
to security and economic development, such as the improvement of the oil industry.
The claims in the secret documents are yet another nail in the coffin
for a Prime Minister who is fixated on his place in the history books.
They show that he was not motivated by passion or commitment but by a carefully
calculated mix of electoral self-interest and loyalty to America.
The secret documents show that, a full year before the invasion,
Blair was told that any hope of getting a stable government for post-invasion
Iraq would take “many years” and would be impossible without putting thousands
of British troops into the country. Foreign Secretary Jack Straw also
expressed grave reservations about the war. His officials told Blair that
Iraq could “revert to type” and start to build up stockpiles of anthrax,
sarin and nuclear weapons. Blair was also warned that Bush considered taking
out Saddam Hussein to be “unfinished business” – a “grudge match” – and
that if Britain wanted to go to war legally against Iraq, Blair would have
to “wrongfoot” Saddam and get him to slip up over weapons inspections in
order to give the UK an excuse for war.
Straw told Blair in March 2002, in a letter stamped “Secret and Personal”
that there was no proper understanding of what would happen in Iraq post-invasion.
“There seems to be a larger hole in this than anything,” he wrote. Referring
to the American thirst for regime change, Straw added: “No-one has satisfactorily
answered how there can be any certainty that the replacement regime will
be any better. Iraq has no history of democracy so no-one has this habit
or experience.”
Straw was deeply worried about the legality of any invasion. He said
British action had to be “narrated with reference to the international
rule of law”. Straw added that his legal advisers had told him it would
take a new UN resolution to make the war legal. The US had no interest
in these kinds of niceties.
In an options paper dated March 8, 2002, prepared by senior ministerial
advisers and marked “Secret UK Eyes Only”, the Cabinet Office Overseas
and Defence Secretariat spelled out just how depressing the interlocked
futures of Iraq and Britain had become. It said that: “The greater investment
of Western forces, the greater our control over Iraq’s future, but the greater
the cost and the longer we would need to stay”.
It added: “The only certain means to remove Saddam and his elite
is to invade and impose a new government, but this would involve nation-building
over many years.” Putting a “Sunni strongman” in place in order to get
British troops out of Iraq quickly would be completely counter-productive.
“There would be a strong risk of the Iraqi system reverting to type. Military
coup could succeed coup until an autocratic Sunni dictator emerged who
protected Sunni interests. With time he could acquire WMD,” the paper added.
Even a democratic government would be likely to try to acquire WMD
for two reasons: firstly, because of the nuclear capabilities of its
two enemy states – Israel and Iran – and secondly, because the Palestine
question was the unresolved source of conflict in the Middle East.
If a democratic government was to survive in Iraq, “it would require
the US and others to commit to nation-building for many years. This would
entail a substantial international security force.”
Lord Butler, who oversaw the inquiry into the use of intelligence
to make the case for war, referred to the Cabinet Office options paper
in his report, saying it indicated that regime change was illegal and had
“no basis in international law”. The policy paper said there were serious
difficulties in finding a legal justification for war, adding: “Subject
to law officers’ advice, none currently exists”.
Not only that, but the paper also said Saddam was not an increased
risk and that there was no evidence Saddam was backing international terror.
“This makes moving to invade legally very difficult,” the options paper
concluded.
The US believed a legal basis for war already exis ted, because of
Saddam’s flouting of UN resolutions on disarmament, and was dead set
against continuing a policy of containment. “The swift success of the
war in Afghanistan, distrust of UN sanctions and inspections regimes,
and unfinished business from 1991 are all factors,” the document said.
Washington, the paper warned, would not be “governed by wider political
factors. The US may be willing to work with a much smaller coalition than
we think desirable”. Peter Ricketts, Foreign Office policy director, said
there were “real problems” with the US policy line.
“Even the best survey of Iraq’s WMD programmes will not show much
advance in recent years,” Ricketts wrote. “Military operations need clear
and compelling military objectives. For Iraq, ‘regime change’ does not
stack up. It sounds like a grudge match between Bush and Saddam.”
Ricketts, however, advised that Blair should stick close to Bush:
“By sharing Bush’s broad objective, the Prime Minister can help shape how
it is defined, and the approach to achieving it. In the process, he can
bring home to Bush some of the realities which will be less evident from
Washington. He can help Bush by telling him things his own machine probably
isn’t.” Ricketts also explained why the war was an inevitability. “The truth
is that what has changed is not the pace of Saddam Hussein’s WMD programmes,
but our tolerance of them post-September 11.”
At the same time, MI6 was arguing against Blair’s decision to publish
a dossier of declassified information designed to convince the British
public that Saddam was dangerous. MI6 was saying that the intelligence didn’t
support the claims that Blair wanted to make. Jack Straw felt the dossier
would be meaningless.
A Joint Intelligence Committee assessment dated March 15, said intelligence
on Saddam’s WMD was “patchy”. The toughest the language could get was:
“We believe Iraq retains some production equipment and some small stocks
of chemical precursors, and may have hidden small quantities of agents
and weapons. There is no intelligence on any biological agent production
facilities.”
Blair was advised in the Cabinet Office options paper to work slowly
towards a legal justification for war, by building international support
and ramping up the pressure on Saddam by pushing for weapons inspectors
to return to Iraq.
The chance to wrongfoot Saddam could come from him refusing to re-admit
the inspectors or blocking their inspections. “He has miscalculated before,”
the paper says. Other documents show that the Foreign Office and the
Bush administration were poles apart in terms of how they saw the conflict
unfolding. The Foreign Office was alarmed at just how eager the US was
to hit Iraq, whether or not it had the support of its allies.
In a letter to the Prime Minister marked “Secret – Strictly Personal”,
Sir David Manning, Blair’s foreign policy adviser, summed up the talks
he had in Washington in March 2002, saying: “I think there is a real risk
that the administration underestimates the difficulties. They may agree
that failure isn’t an option, but this does not mean they will necessarily
avoid it.”
Bush “still has to find answers to the big questions”, Manning wrote,
including a solution to the most vital problem: “What happens on the morning
after?”
The Americans were fully aware of the invidious position in which
Blair found himself. He was being dragged two ways at the same time: the
US expected the UK, its closest ally, to get onboard for a war in Iraq,
but more than half the British people were polled as opposed to the war.
Manning had briefed Sir Christopher Meyer, the then British ambassador
to the US, and had spoken to US National Security Adviser Condoleezza
Rice. Manning told her that Blair wanted Bush not to rush into war until
the invasion was deemed legal – something that would need the full support
of the UN Security Council. A memo from Meyer was circulated which warned
UK policy not to underestimate Bush’s passion for ousting Saddam. With Washington
pushing for war with Iraq in the autumn of 2002, Blair’s advisers told
him that: “if any invasion is contemplated this autumn, then a decision
will
need to be taken in principle six months in advance”. That left Blair
little or no time to make the case for war legally watertight.
Manning was dispatched to Washington to explain to the administration
just how difficult life was for Blair. Manning’s memo on the trip read:
“Prime Minister, I had dinner with Condi [Condoleezza Rice] on Tuesday …
these were good exchanges, and particularly frank when we were one-on-one
at dinner. We spent a long time at dinner on Iraq. It is clear that Bush
is grateful for your support and has registered that you are getting flak.
“I said that you would not budge in your support for regime change
but you had to manage a press, a parliament and a public opinion that
was very different than anything in the States. And you would not budge
on your insistence that, if we pursued regime change, it must be very carefully
done and produce the right result. Failure was not an option. Condi’s
enthusiasm for regime change is undimmed. But there were some signs, since
we last spoke, of greater awareness of the practical difficulties and
political risks.
“From what she said, Bush has yet to find the answers to the big
questions: how to persuade international opinion that military action
against Iraq is necessary and justified; what value to put on the exiled
Iraqi opposition; how to co-ordinate a US/allied military campaign with
internal opposition (assuming there is any any); what happens on the
morning after? Bush will want to pick your brains. He will also want
to hear whether he can expect coalition support. I told Condi that we
realised that the administration could go it alone if it chose. But if
it wanted company, it would have to take account of the concerns of its
potential coalition partners.”
Manning told Rice that pushing for weapons inspections could help
bring Europe along, adding: “Renewed refusal by Saddam to accept unfettered
inspections would be a powerful argument.” Manning also told Rice that
it was “paramount” that Israel and Palestine be dealt with. Failure to
do so could lead to the allies “bombing Iraq and losing the Gulf”.
Manning told Blair: “Bush wants to hear your views on Iraq before
making a decision. He also wants your support. He is still smarting from
the comments by other European leaders on his Iraq policy. This gives you
real influence: on the public relations strategy; on the UN and weapons
inspections; and on US planning for a military campaign. This could be
critically important. I think there is a real risk that the administration
underestimates the difficulties. They may agree that failure isn’t an option,
but this does not mean that they will avoid it.”
Manning added that the “US scrambling to establish a link between
Iraq and al-Qaeda is so far unconvincing. To get public and parliamentary
support for military options we have to be convincing that the threat is
so serious/imminent that it is worth sending our troops to die for”.
Blair travelled to Bush’s ranch in Crawford, Texas, in March 2002
to talk war with the President. Here was how Jack Straw interpreted the
meeting: “The rewards from your visit to Crawford will be few. The risks
are high both for you and the government.” Straw said there was a long way
to go before parliament could be convinced about “the scale of the threat
from Iraq and why this has got worse recently; what distinguishes the Iraqi
threat from that of for example Iran and North Korea so as to justify
military action; military action in terms of international law; and whether
the consequences of military
action really would be a compliant, law-abiding replacement government.”
Straw added: “I know there are those who say that an attack on Iraq
would be justified whether or not weapons inspectors were re-admitted,
but I believe that a demand for the unfettered re-admission of weapons inspectors
is essential, in terms of public explanation, and in terms of legal sanction
for military action.”
Straw said there were “two potential elephant traps”: firstly, wanting
regime change did not justify military action; and secondly, US opposition
to a “fresh mandate”. Straw added that: “The weight of legal advice here
is that a fresh mandate may well be required.”
© Copyright 2004 Sunday Herald
http://www.sundayherald.com/44911
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C.
Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who
have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information
for research and educational purposes.)
BACK TO THE TOP
BACK TO PUBLIC
ALERTS
New Papers Suggest Detainee
Abuse Was Widespread
Wed Dec 22, 2:55 PM ET http://www.washingtonpost.com
By R. Jeffrey Smith and Dan Eggen, Washington Post Staff Writers
The Bush administration is facing a wave of new allegations that the
abuse of foreign detainees in U.S. military custody was more widespread,
varied and grave in the past three years than the Defense Department has
long maintained.
New documents released yesterday detail a series of probes by
Army criminal investigators into multiple cases of threatened executions
of Iraqi detainees by U.S. soldiers, as well as of thefts of currency
and other private property, physical assaults, and deadly shootings of
detainees at detention camps in Iraq.
In many of the newly disclosed cases, Army commanders chose noncriminal
punishments for those involved in the abuse, or the investigations were
so flawed that prosecutions could not go forward, the documents show. Human
rights groups said yesterday that, as a result, the penalties imposed were
too light to suit the offenses.
The complaints arose from several thousand new pages of internal reports,
investigations and e-mails from different agencies, which, with other documents
released in the past two weeks, paint a finer-grained picture of military
abuse and criminal behavior at prisons in Cuba, Iraq and Afghanistan than
previously available.
The documents disclosed by a coalition of groups that had sued the
government to obtain them make it clear that both regular and Special Forces
soldiers took part in the abuse, and that the misconduct included shocking
detainees with electric guns, shackling them without food and water, and
wrapping a detainee in an Israeli flag.
The variety of the abuse and the fact that it occurred over a three-year
period undermine the Pentagon (news - web sites)'s past insistence -- arising
out of the summertime scandal surrounding the mistreatment at Baghdad's
Abu Ghraib prison -- that the abuse occurred largely during a few months
at that prison, and that it mostly involved detainee humiliation or intimidation
rather than the deliberate infliction of pain.
After the latest revelations, including the disclosures that officials
in other federal agencies had objected to these actions by soldiers --
to the point of urging, in some cases, war crimes prosecutions -- White
House spokesman Scott McClellan responded yesterday with a promise that
President Bush expects a full investigation and corrective actions "to make
sure that abuse does not occur again."
The details of the abuse appeared to catch some administration officials
by surprise, although five agencies for weeks have been culling releasable
records from their files, under an agreement worked out by U.S. District
Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein. He was responding to a Freedom of Information
Act lawsuit filed by five independent groups seeking anything pertinent
to detainee deaths, abuse and transfers to other countries since Sept. 11,
2001.
McClellan said that he did not know whether the White House was informed
about the incidents detailed in the documents released on Monday. These
included the use of dogs to intimidate prisoners at the U.S. military prison
at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and the impersonation of FBI agents by military
interrogators -- two of many practices that provoked concern among FBI agents
stationed there.
"In terms of specifics, this information is becoming public, so we're
becoming aware of more information as it becomes public, as you are,"
McClellan said. He also said that he did not know whether FBI Director
Robert S. Mueller III has notified the Defense Department about his concerns
but that the Pentagon takes abuse allegations "very seriously."
Amrit Singh -- a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union (news
- web sites), one of the four groups that sued to obtain the documents
-- said that she thinks the disclosure rrequirement will eventually encompass
hundreds of thousands of pages of internal administration documents, although
only 9,000 pages have been released so far. Yesterday, the judge told the
CIA that it could not delay making its own disclosures until an internal
probe of the abuse is completed, Singh said.
"What the documents show so far was that the abuse was widespread
and systemic, that it was the result of decisions taken by high-ranking
officials, and that the abuse took place within a culture of secrecy and
neglect," Singh said.
Col. Joseph Curtin, the Army's top spokesman, urged a different view
of the documents released yesterday, all drawn from the Army's Criminal
Investigation Command. In detailing internal probes of 46 cases of misconduct,
they show "that the Army does take seriously and investigates any allegation
of detainee abuse," he said.
The new documents include several incidents of threatened executions
of teenage and adult Iraqi detainees. In one instance, a soldier in a unit
that lacked any training in interrogation -- but was nonetheless assigned
to process and question detainees -- acknowledged forcing two men to their
knees, placing bullets in their mouths, ordering them to close their eyes,
and telling them they would be shot unless they answered questions about
a grenade incident. He then took the bullets, and a colleague pretended
to load them in the chamber of his M-16 rifle.
The documents indicate that the perpetrator, who was investigated
on charges of assault and a "law of war violation," was given a nonjudicial
punishment by his commander. Threatening detainees with physical harm to
compel their testimony is a violation of the Geneva Conventions.
In a second case, Army investigators concluded that a sergeant committed
offenses including assault, dereliction of duty and cruelty when he conducted
"a mock execution of an Iraqi teenager" in front of the boy's father and
brother, who were suspected of looting an ammunition factory. Investigators
also found that the actions were condoned by a lieutenant who conspired
with the sergeant.
An investigative report also details an incident two days earlier,
in which the lieutenant ordered a suspected looter to kneel, pointed a 9mm
pistol at his head and then pulled the gun away just as he fired a shot.
The outcome of both cases is unclear from the records released yesterday.
The documents also divulge a probe of the beatings of three mosque
security guards in Baghdad in September 2003. After being arrested and
cuffed during a search, the three Iraqis were kicked, stomped and dragged
by a group of U.S. soldiers. Five soldiers were given reprimands and reductions
in rank after being found guilty of maltreatment of prisoners, assault and
other charges, the records show.
In another Baghdad case, a U.S. soldier was accused of trying to force
an Iraqi civilian to hold a gun as a justification for killing him. The
soldier punched the civilian in the face, held an M-16 rifle to his head
and flicked the safety off to threaten him, according to the accounts of
19 witnesses. Another soldier eventually stepped in to protect the civilian,
who had been hired by the U.S. Army to guard the Museum of Iraqi Military
History, the records show.
Other documents describe the death in 2003 of detainee Abdul Kareem
Abdureda Lafta, 44, in a U.S. Army jail in Mosul. He "appeared to be in
good health" when taken into custody, and he quickly gained the attention
of MPs by continually trying to remove the hood placed on his head and
talking when guards told him to be silent, the documents say. One night,
Lafta was put to bed with his hands tied behind him. Even so, one guard
said he spent much of the night "constantly moving around on the ground"
in his cell. In the morning, he was found dead.
A doctor who examined the body told investigators "he did not know
what killed him." Another Army document says he was found to have a small
laceration on his head. The investigators said "there is no documentation
. . . explaining the lack of an autopsy."
In another case, Army investigators found probable cause to court-martial
a soldier for shooting to death an Iraqi detainee, Obede Hethere Radad,
without warning. But he was punished administratively and discharged.
Khalid Odah, the father of one Guantanamo detainee, said in a telephone
interview from Kuwait yesterday that the new revelations make him worry
even more about the fate of his son, Fawzi, who was detained by U.S. forces
three years ago. "For a very long time, every day, we heard such news but
nobody believed us," said Odah, head of the Kuwaiti Family Committee, a
group of relatives of Guantanamo detainees. "Now it is coming from inside
the government, from the FBI and others. . . . It is very frightening to
my family and to other families of Kuwaiti detainees."
U.S. military officials have alleged in legal proceedings that Fawzi
Odah is an admitted member of al Qaeda and had connections to the Taliban
militia in Afghanistan. Khalid Odah says his son is innocent.
Staff writer John Mintz contributed to this report.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/washpost/20041222/ts_washpost/a17883_2004dec21
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section
107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed
a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and
educational purposes.)
MAMMA's Footnote:
When the abused become abusers, the ABUSE cycle continues and escalate
and when those who started the abuse are entrusted to investigate and STOP
the abuse...nothing changes!
FREE TIMES: Ohio’s Premier News,
Arts and Entertainment Weekly
Wednesday, January 05, 2005
http://www.freetimes.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=2354
BACK TO IRAQ
A Cleveland soldier returns to the Persian Gulf to fight a second Bush
war.
By Joshua Greene
EVER SEEN A SOLDIER STRUGGLE between commitment to his country
and to his heart? Ever seen a war rip two lovers apart? Then open your eyes,
'cause it's happening all around. It's happening here at Edison's in Tremont,
just a few stools down.
It's New Year's Eve 2004, and while midnight brings the toasts and
roars, for the couple at the end of the bar, the new year just brings
apprehension. The ringing-in of the new year is like an alarm signifying
that the day of his departure nears and their time left together evaporates.
At 9 p.m. on the first Wednesday of 2005, he leaves for Iraq.
It's a cruel fact: for this soldier and his lover, the past month has
gone by at heart-wrenching speed.
“What the fuck, man? All of a sudden it's like fast forward,” Babe
says with ten days left.
Babe's not his real name. We can't use his real name. The Army owns
him now, and without their permission, he's not allowed to speak freely.
He's pretty sure the Army wouldn't grant him permission to speak his mind.
“The First Amendment doesn't exist for us,” he said, 35 days ago.
The month has flown for many reasons. His commitment to the Army is
for three years. First he had to sell his Jeep. Then he had to pack up the
house, put some stuff in storage and give the rest away. The owner of a
$3,000 terrarium, he's had to figure out what to do with his plants. Specifically,
who did he know who could take his 127-year-old San Pedro cactus, a species
once thought extinct?
And then it was the cat, a playful gray hunter named Professor Dietrich
Von Chubsworth, aka Chubs. As D-Day drew near, the cat came down with the
same sense of apprehension Babe did. Babe had to drink himself to sleep,
but it was Chubs who was puking all over the apartment. Who could blame him?
If Babe couldn't find a home for Chubs, he'd have to drop him off at the
shelter. After all, a soldier can't take his cat to war. Only eight days to
go, and it was Babe's buddy Brian to the rescue: Brian, a fellow pool shark
from Edison's, agreed to adopt him.
Yet the reality of quitting jobs, saying farewells, packing up, moving
out and keeping track of all the details only partly explains why time
launched forward so fast. The rest has to do with chaos and confusion.
The reality is, Babe is heading toward a war with an unknown cadence and
rhyme.
“I see no political objective that is rational,” he says. To hear him
say it, the only reason we're in Iraq is so “some fucking glory whores”
— aka Bush and his keepers — “can save face.”
“There's a good chance I might die,” Babe says with eight days left,
sitting by himself in a quiet booth at Edison's. He's composing a farewell
letter for friends and family.
MEDICALLY SPEAKING, Babe's already died once for his country.
At 33, he's an old soldier. He's been shot seven times. In the leg,
the chest and the head. His leg has been rebuilt. His head has a porcelain
plate in it. He still carries a round in his chest. He was shot in what
he calls “the Gulf War proper,” meaning the first Iraq war. He was shot
in Sarejevo and once in a place the Army says the U.S. never was. Once,
he was even pronounced dead. “Clinically speaking,” he clarifies.
“I took two in the chest. The helicopter was hit. I fell out. It was
pretty fucked up. There were eight of us. It was a cargo helicopter. Six
died. Both of the pilots died. That was Iraq, 1997. We lost a lot of guys,
dude.”
He's justifiably cynical about his fellow citizens' ignorance and apathy.
“Everyone wants to know, did Sharon Stone have boob surgery? Other
than your hardcore peace protester, no one cares [about the war],” he says,
21 days and six hours before his departure. “No one knows about Iraq 1997.”
The reality
“There's a good chance I might die,” says Babe, counting down the days.
In 1998, Babe officially got out of the Army. But on May 19, 2004,
Babe, like many other former soldiers, received “an illegal threat letter”
ordering him to return to uniform.
With 138,000 soldiers already at war, the Pentagon recently announced
that they would add 12,000 more soldiers. Faced with the continuous stream
of solemn news from the front, with 1,340 and counting already dead and 10,000
injured in a war with no clear objectives, recruitment of volunteers has
been failing. Thus, soldiers already in Iraq are having their “voluntary”
service commitments extended, and old soldiers like Babe, who have served
and resigned, are being sent back.
“There was no option,” he says. “They said ‘re-enlist or we're going
to take you and put you back in whatever field we think you should be in.'”
In mid-May, Babe moved to a new address, one he thought no one knew
about. Three days later, the Army and their orders to re-enlist were in
his mailbox. When Babe inquired about how they found him, they informed
him that they had traced his computer.
But there was still hope. The months ahead held the possibility of
a change of national leadership. Surely the campaign season would bring
into focus the obscurity and absurdity of the war in Iraq. But instead
of real debate about real Americans really dying in Iraq right now, the
nation was treated to a discussion about Bush and Kerry's service during
Vietnam. A month before the election, neither candidate was seriously discussing
the war. Then reality set in. Babe was committed for three more years,
and it was looking like they were going to be long ones.
“There is no way out,” Babe says, adding, “It's not our duty to win
the war — it's our duty to win them over. It's a kind of PR thing that's
going to fail.”
THAT'S THE KIND OF REALISM that could be dismissed as fatalism
if not for the fact that Babe, a Shaker Heights High School dropout, is
a committed student of history. His travels around the world with his family
and later with the military awoke within him a thirst for history that runs
as wild as his description of the gorgeous headwaters of the mighty Euphrates
in Northern Iraq.
As a further impetus, he says, getting a formal education helps a soldier
climb in rank. He got an undergraduate degree in mathematics from the
Army. His master's in philosophy is from Cleveland State University. He
got kicked out during his third year of law school at John Marshall after
accusing a professor of a crime during class.
Babe is now dreaming of a Ph.D. in political histography, which he
describes as the “evolution and implementation of and the effects of government
on the people.”
For money, he bar-backed at Edison's and pulled shifts at the downtown
adult bookstore on West 9th Street. Working the porn store was a job he
hated, but it was a place a soldier with a heavy conscience could disappear.
Besides, it was a good place to read. The books he read behind the counter
didn't have pictures.
On the 26th day before his departure, a day when the conversation started
with Babe asking, “Did you hear we're running out of bullets?” he's looking
up from his 1889 copy of Vondel's Lucifer .
“The premise of it is, I guess, the fall of Lucifer,” he says. “There's
a celestial war and, resulting from that, the fall of man. It's about accepting
your destiny because God's an ass.”
Babe's serious about his literature. A $950 tattoo rendition of Picasso's
Don Quixote dominates his back. And why not? Cervantes' Don Quixote is
Babe's favorite work of fiction. But both Don Quixote and Lucifer are light
reading compared to the only book Babe will carry onto the battlefield:
History of the Peloppenesian War , known in certain circles only as “The
History.” Babe says he thinks he's read every translation published since
1920 and considers it his bible.
Written in 420 B.C. by the Athenian general Thucydides, Babe says “The
History” is especially relevant today. It's the story of the Athenians'
failed attempt to force democracy on the Spartans.
“It speaks to me,” Babe says, adding that Thucydides actually lived
through the war but died before he finished the book. “It's about war. It's
about politics. It's about being a better human being in the face of a
terrible, terrible war.”
Babe says the Spartans “were hell on earth,” and it was because they
were willing to take warfare to another level that they overcame the world
superpower of the time, Greece.
“Athens was known for its great fucking navy, but the Spartans outweighed
that by the end,” he says. “Of course, war was fought differently back
then. They fought in lines. Whoever was the host faced the allies of the
enemy. The two warring parties never met each other in battle. The Spartans
said, fuck that. They started meeting Athens at the line. They're the ones
who started the nighttime raids. Literally that — they would send 12 or
13 people with a bunch of knives. They would sneak in, throw poison in the
well and slit a bunch of throats. There are a bunch of parallels, we being
Athens. It was [the Spartans'] glory, dying in battle. Spartan women said,
‘Either you die on your sword or you don't come back.'”
Babe says it's the whole concept of suicide bombers, people who blow
themselves up for a military objective, that is redefining today's war
in Iraq.
“It's a psychological war we are not going to win,” he says. “We're
not willing to do what they're willing to do. We're not willing to strap
a C-4 to ourselves. What was it Patton said? ‘You don't become a hero for
dying for your country. You become a hero by making the other poor dumb
bastard die for his.' The majority of our military is not willing to die
like that. Mainly they're in there for the college tuition.”
He says suicide bombers “are going to fuck with the nerve of every
soldier over there.”
The larger parallel Babe points out is the overarching theme of forcing
democracy on an unwilling nation.
“The Athenians were trying to enforce democracy in the surrounding
city states. The Spartans noticed what was going on and challenged the
Athenians. The Spartans? They whooped ass. The Spartan confederacy won
the war. They adapted so fast into a better way of warfare then the Athenians.
[The United States] thought they were going to blast into Iraq and teach
these people democracy,” Babe said 30 days before departure. “You can't
teach a blind man to see. Now they don't want to admit they're wrong, and
they're willing to lose as many men as they need to prove it. They're a
bunch of glory-hound assholes willing to kill me and my brothers so they
can go into the history books.”
On this day, Babe's reading “ The History”'s funeral speech by the
Athenian Pericles. Babe says the speech is “supposed to honor the dead,
sort of like Veterans Day when it meant something. But he turns it into
a political speech. It's the same sort of bullshit the Republicans do.
It's a bunch of crap.”
DAY 26, BABE IS ANGRY about the controversy surrounding Secretary
of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's answer to the question of why soldiers in
Iraq had to rummage through the dumps to find “compromised ballistic glass”
to armor their vehicles.
Babe explains that compromised ballistic glass is actually broken bulletproof
glass. Somehow the major news story has changed from the fact that U.S.
soldiers are unprotected to the less important story about how a reporter
scripted the question for the soldier to ask Rumsfeld. All of this angers
Babe, but it's Rumfeld's response that boils him over.
“Sure, you go to war with the Army you have, but you should be ready
before you go to war,” Babe says.
By day 20, Babe has given up on politics.
“Did you see that Pentagon report that said every single Humvee will
be armored by June? By June? What the fuck?” Babe says. “I definitely have
my opinions about it, but politics are not going to save my life. Politics
start to give way to survival. My opinions are not changing, but I find
myself not caring.”
Babe says it took him a few years after he left the Army, a few years
of not being shot at and a few years of not seeing dead people, before he
stopped being over-the-edge paranoid. Even so, he continued to be overly
cautious. Yet as soon as he began returning to the soldier's mindset of
war, he found that old friend, paranoia, returning too.
He found himself second-guessing people's motives and predicting their
motions. He noticed himself noticing “a box in the middle of an empty
parking lot.” He began scanning rooms for LED lights, putting imaginary
crosshairs on strangers and estimating the best location to call in an
artillery round on a group of people if he needed to take out any one
of them.
That's what Babe does for a living now. He's half-Greek and half-Persian,
speaks Arabic and several tribal languages, and has no problem disappearing
in a crowd. He rides in a helicopter or hides out in the mountains or
in the marketplace and calls in artillery rounds. He brings death.
He says his regiment's specialization in the Army is traditionally
known as the Red Legs, because they are the ones who march through the
recently lit-up targets. They are in front of the scouts and given their
name because of the blood they march through.
“Artillery is such an efficient killer in the battlefield,” he says.
“One artillery round would eliminate this whole bar. It neutralizes or
destroys the enemy. We simply neutralize them and walk forward. Yeah, it
does fuck you up to see it. Lots of people have seen a couple bullets here
and there, but when you see something freshly lit up with artillery and
organs are still moving…the smell has to be the most godawful thing I ever
smelled. But just keep marching forward.”
BABE'S PART OF THE ARMY'S 101st Airborne Division. He's jumped
out of a plane 4,426 times. The last time was in the North Atlantic Ocean,
known as the coldest, stormiest and saltiest body of water on the planet.
His parachute got tangled, and he began falling out of control. He tried
to cut himself free but cut himself instead. When he looked up he got blood
in his eyes. He tried to remember the mantra “don't panic,” but it was
getting harder by the second. When he finally pulled his reserve chute,
it too got tangled, and that's all he remembers. When the Coast Guard fished
him out, he was way
under. He broke both legs.
Moreover, Babe's been court-martialed several times. Once was for stealing,
or rather, “tactically acquiring” a Humvee to get a fellow soldier to
a hospital where his wife was having emergency complications during childbirth.
The commanding officer had forbidden the soldier leave during a training
exercise. Babe was brought up on charges. The charges were dropped, but Babe
was given 45 days of restriction to barracks and 45 days' extra service.
But it was the first time Babe was court-martialed, after the first
Gulf War, that has given Babe room for thought. He was charged with murder,
and the situation was very similar to the recent highly publicized case
in which a marine was captured on video shooting an unarmed “enemy.” Babe's
situation involved an injured Republican Guard soldier. Babe was supposed
to help the man get medical attention. Instead, he shot him.
“The flight commander was like, ‘What the fuck did you just do?'” Babe
recalls. He told the commander that it was utilitarian. He told his military
lawyer to argue that the Geneva Conventions didn't apply because Congress
had not declared war. He was found not guilty.
“I have since changed my opinion about what I did. I was 18,” he says.
“It seems like the gung-ho military thing to do, but it's not the human
thing to do. It's about being human first. It's this balance thing.”
Babe pulls out a handwritten passage from his wallet. It's a quote
from an editorial about the similar incident involving the marine in Fallujah.
It reads, “The highest and most difficult challenge is to behave well in
the face of everything that drives us towards revenge, retaliation, towards
the worst in ourselves…To maintain one's moral balance in the desperation
and chaos of war is the highest measure of military discipline, of humanity,
of maturity.”
It's somewhere in this balance between being human and being part of
something whose “main business is exporting violence” that Babe finds
his primary call to duty: helping the young men we've sent to war.
A FEW DAYS BEFORE CHRISTMAS, he says, “Despite what you hear,
suicide is alive and well amongst American troops right now.” He says
the holidays are the hardest.
And over a month of conversations, he frequently brings up what he
sees as the Army's greatest shortfall: that there is no support structure
for the troops. He says it is especially hard on the younger soldiers, and
that the Army is all about personal training but offers nothing for personal
growth.
Babe says when he makes it home alive, he can step toward his dream
of becoming a history professor. But for the time being, he has a more important
aim.
“I think I'm here for a reason,” he says. “I think I'm a damn good
teacher. I plan to teach my soldiers just, basically, how to keep their
asses alive. I want to go over there to keep those boys alive.”
Sent to do our dirty work, Babe carries a constant reminder to keep
a humble state of mind.
Along with the dog tags around his neck is a 2,500-year-old carbon-dated
Roman Legionnaire's ring. He says he found it while digging trenches in
Germany. The Romans would bury their prized possessions before heading
into battle. If they lived, they would return and exhume their things.
“I found some dude's soul,” he says and smiles a sad smile.
THE LAST WEEK before Babe left went even faster than the rest.
With only eight days to go, he was informed that his departure date
had been bumped up. And so the eighth day became the seventh. The seventh
night he lay awake in bed until the sun rose, unable even to drink himself
to sleep.
“I'm starting to get scared,” he said.
On the sixth night he drank too much, blacked out and ended up locked
out of his empty house. So he slept in the garage.
He agreed that it was probably just the uncertainty of not knowing
where he's going and the million details that are out of his control that
were driving him crazy.
But then, too, he's in love.
“I finally found someone, finally really hitting it off with someone,”
he confided at the beginning of this story. “Isn't that how it always
happens?”
When asked what he's going to miss while he's gone, only her name kisses
his lips.
He planned to spend the last night in her arms.
“That's the last safe night I'm gonna have in a long time,” he says.
“They're downplaying the fact that a whole lot of motherfuckers are dying
right now.”
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107,
this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed
a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and
educational purposes.)
Richard W. Behan: 'A
Republican businessman vilifies George Bush'
Posted on Monday, October 18 @ 10:21:17 EDT
Mr. Karl Schwarz -- Conservative and Devoutly Christian -- and His
Wild Book of Outrage
By Richard W. Behan
George Bush is not a Christian, Karl Schwarz tells you. He is a liar,
and Christians don't lie.
Schwarz is telling this to anyone who might listen, including President
Bush, to whom he fired off a smoking email entitled "An American Demands
the Truth From You."
Other listeners are adding up quickly. First he sent to his stockholders--300,000
people or so--a PowerPoint presentation daylighting the greed, deception,
and stupefying corruption of the Bush Administration. Lately he is making
the rounds of the talk show circuit, and the wild book of outrage will soon
be on the streets.
It is a formidable read. 810 pages. And a comprehensive title to match:
One Way Ticket to Crawford, Texas: A Conservative Republican Speaks Out
on September 11, 2001; Afghanistan; Iraq; Bush-Cheney 2004; Imperial Oil
"Strategeries".
Mr. Schwarz' faith does not surface in the book, but his disgust as
a citizen is apparent, and his white-hot anger about the Bush Administration
is supported by vivid descriptions of graft and corruption, with dates,
names, and places.
The book displays the ongoing transformation of a decent democracy into
the functional fascism of corporate empire. The Republicans are not uniquely
responsible for this--Schwarz takes directed swipes at the Clinton years--but
the Bush Administration's frenzied, happy sellout to the corporate and the
wealthy is rapidly completing the process. George Bush and his henchmen,
Schwarz asserts, are brazenly using the military might of the United States
to enrich their political supporters and their associated corporate interests.
Karl W. B. Schwarz lives in Little Rock, Arkansas. He was twice asked
by his party (but declined) to run for governor, opposing Bill Clinton.
He was a top fundraiser for the Republican National Committee, as a close
personal friend of RNC treasurer, William J. "Mr. Mac" McManus. Schwarz
was active at the highest levels in the re-election campaign of George H.W.
Bush. He has not been a lightweight Republican.
But neither is he dogmatically partisan. More than victory in politics,
Schwarz seeks integrity in public life and truth in the flow of information
to the public.
One Way Ticket to Crawford, Texas is a comprehensive expose of the Bush
Administration's systematic deflecting of public policy to favor private,
corporate interests. The Administration leapt on the opportunity provided
by the anthrax scare, for example, to inoculate 550,000 servicemen and
women with a vaccine known to be dangerous. Hugely profitable to a pharmaceutical
corporation benefactor, there is clinical evidence the vaccine caused widespread
respiratory disease, heart attacks, strokes, and pulmonary embolisms. The
book also details the Bush Administration complicity in Enron's savaging
of the California electricity market. And so forth.
Schwarz' signature revelation is the story of what happened to an obscure
Argentinean company, the Bridas Corporation--and how that might explain
9/11, Afghanistan, and Iraq.
There is $7.34 trillion worth of petroleum and another $3 trillion of
natural gas in the Caspian Basin. A pipeline across Afghanistan, Pakistan,
and India could bring it to market. (Included in this "market" are a number
of gas-fired power plants in Pakistan, owned by US corporations, and, at
the time, an Enron project in Dabhol, India.)
In 1995 the Bridas Corporation was negotiating with the Taliban in Afghanistan
to build the pipeline. The U.S. Government and the Unocal Corporation were
pressing the Taliban fiercely to decline. In January of 1996, however, Bridas
signed the contract to proceed: it now controlled the flow of Caspian riches.
Fast forward to1998. The Project for a New American Century is staffed
by a group of "neoconservatives," starkly rightwing political thinkers and
activists. It is committed to maintaining the military and economic supremacy
in the world accorded the United States by the collapse of the Soviet Union.
On January 26, 1998, the PNAC sent a letter to President Clinton urging
the removal of Saddam Hussein by military means, if necessary. Should he
remain in power, much would be put at hazard, including "a significant portion
of the world's supply of oil." Signing the letter were Donald Rumsfeld, Paul
Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, James Woolsey, Zalmay Khalilzad, John Bolton, Richard
Armitage, and Elliott Abrams.
Fast forward now to 2000, an election year. Eleven members of the PNAC
would assume prominent roles in the upcoming administration of George W.
Bush: the signers of the 1998 letter to Clinton, plus Richard Cheney, Douglas
Feith, and Lewis Libby. In September the PNAC made public another document,
a 90-page report entitled, "Rebuilding America's Defenses." The new document
advocated pre-emptive war--something never done in the history of the nation--but
it realized how sharp a departure this would be. The "transformation" would
be long and difficult, in the absence of "some catastrophic and catalyzing
event, like a new Pearl Harbor." President Bush, early in his Administration,
formally adopted the concept when he signed and issued the National Security
Strategy document.
One more fast forward: to January of 2001. The Bush Administration has
taken office, and the linkages with the oil industry are intimate, historic,
and huge. The president and vice president are just the openers: eight cabinet
members and the National Security Advisor were drafted directly from the
oil industry, and so were 32 other officials, in the Departments of Defense,
State, Energy, Agriculture, Interior, and the Office of Management and Budget.
Vice President Dick Cheney convenes his supersecret "Energy Task Force."
Its membership and deliberations remain deliberately obscured, but Schwarz
is certain the forced removal of the Taliban and the Bridas Corporation
was discussed. The citizen group Judicial Watch did force the release of
a few documents, however, with a lawsuit. Prominent among them is a map of
the Iraqi oilfields, pipelines, tanker terminals, and oil exploration blocks:
the Cheney Task Force had more than a passing interest in Iraqi oil, as well.
From Paul O'Neill and others we know the new Bush people, from their
first days in office, intended to invade Iraq. Less well known was the covert
planning, undertaken in the spring of 2001, for an attack on Afghanistan.
The State Department gained the concurrence of both India and Pakistan for
the attack, but as late as August 2, U.S. negotiators were still asking the
Taliban to rescind the pipeline contract with the Bridas Corporation. The
negotiations were fruitless.
On August 6, 2001, President Bush ignored the CIA's warning of a terrorist
attack contained in the "Presidential Daily Briefing," and 36 days later
the World Trade Center was rubble. Was this the "catastrophic and catalyzing
event" the Project for a New American Century anticipated, and was the Bush
Administration in any way involved?
The Internet is full of assertions that it was. Websites, books, and
DVD's abound, making their cases--some alarming, others hyperbolic, conspiratorial,
or looney. Michael Ruppert's book Crossing the Rubicon is alarming. Ruppert
lays the blame for 9/11 directly at the feet of Vice President Cheney, and
his argument was worthy enough to stimulate an invitation from the Commonwealth
Club of San Francisco--hardly on the lunatic fringe--to present it in person.
Speaking on August 31, 2004, Ruppert did so. Attorney Stanley Hilton, on
the other hand, claims George Bush personally signed the order
authorizing the attacks of 9/11, and he intends to prove it in a court
of law. Mr. Hilton was chief of staff for Senator Robert Dole, which is
a decent enough credential to keep him out of the looney bin, but his assertion
does give pause to reasonable people.
The reasonable people of New York City, however, are evenly split: a
Zogby International poll in late August found 49.3% of those interviewed
believed the Bush Administration had foreknowledge of the attacks on the
Trade Towers and "consciously failed" to act.
To Karl Schwarz' credit, he chooses only to establish the dots of fact,
leaving it to others to connect them and find culpability. But his dots
show the Bush Administration was fully aware of the Bridas contract and
its threat to the domestic oil industry.
Anyone past middle school can understand how desperately the Bush Administration
needed a credible excuse to proceed with its planned attack on Afghanistan.
To suggest 9/11 was engineered is risky, but to consider it an unrelated
coincidence is asking a great deal. Can anyone be that lucky? There is, of
course, a middle ground between engineering and random good fortune: the
Bush Administration might in fact have known about the impending disaster
but chose, as half of the New Yorkers believe, to do nothing.
On October 7, 2001 the attack on Afghanistan--planned long before 9/11--was
undertaken. On December 31, Hamid Karzai is appointed by the Bush Administration
to be interim president of Afghanistan, and much has been made of his former
service to the Unocal Corporation, as a consultant on the Trans Afghanistan
pipeline.
With the Taliban deposed, the Bridas Corporation's contract to build
the pipeline was now in play, and on February 8, 2002 its fate was sealed.
Presidents Karzai of Afghanistan and Musharraf of Pakistan agreed to a new
plan for a pipeline, and by the end of the year a project known as the Central
Asia Pipeline was born. The Bridas contract was, in Karl Schwarz' words,
breached by US military force.
On February 23, 2003 the Bush Administration agreed to finance the Central
Asia Pipeline and protect it with US troops, stationed at permanent bases
in the region.
The $10 trillion of hydrocarbon fluids in the Caspian Basin are now
firmly controlled by US oil companies, including BP/Amoco, Chevron-Texaco,
Amerada Hess, Devon Energy, and Remington/Western Resources. (These companies
also have in common a law firm to represent them: Baker Botts of Houston,
Texas. The senior partner in the firm is James Baker, the engineer of George
Bush's selection as President by the Supreme Court, and former Secretary
of State in the first Bush Administration. Baker Botts has been retained
also by Prince Sultan bin Abdul Aziz, the Defense Minister of Saudi
Arabia. Prince Aziz has been accused of complicity in 9/11--and sued--by
the families of World Trade Center victims, and Baker Botts is defending
him.)
In Afghanistan, neither the Bridas Corporation--nor Osama bin Laden--has
been seen or heard of since.
Does the Afghanistan episode demonstrate the influence of the oil industry
in the administration of George W. Bush? Does it explain what happened next?
With "Mission Accomplished" in Afghanistan, the doctrine of pre-emptive
war can now be applied elsewhere.
President Bush spoke repeatedly of an al Qaida-Iraqi linkage, deliberately
and successfully (and we know now falsely) persuading the American public
Saddam Hussein was an accessory to 9/11. Chemical weapons, biological weapons,
soon-to-be nuclear weapons. Months and months of lies and deception at home,
of arm twisting abroad and at the United Nations. And then came the "pre-emptive"
invasion.
Now that the lies of the Bush Administration have been exposed, we are
told the Iraqi adventure was undertaken to bring freedom and democracy to
that tragic region of the world. Liberation to the Iraqis, however, looks
more like occupation. And the construction, once more, of permanent military
bases in Iraq provides ample reason to feel that way.
US military might has now cordoned off, during the Bush Administration,
both the $10 trillion in Caspian Basin resources and the world's second
largest pool of petroleum in Iraq. This is a fact, one of Karl Schwarz'
dots. Is it truly just a collateral result, a mere by-product of bringing
freedom and democracy to the Middle East?
Ask who benefits from the fact. Ask who bears the costs. And ask how
it happened. Karl Schwarz can answer all three questions, with names, dates,
and places. He will let you connect his dots.
Mr. Schwarz has seen what other Republicans need to see: Emperor Bush
is utterly naked. He is a geopolitical Wizard of Oz. Behind the curtain
of his "freedom and democracy" rhetoric there lies indeed a world-class
liar, a wretched charlatan.
As no other president in history, George W. Bush has directed a Big
Lie campaign against his own country, disgracing our nation in the eyes
of the world and dividing our people at home
We need to honor, by reinstating it, our proud national heritage of
honesty, decency, and generosity in both foreign and domestic affairs.
We need to regain the respect of the community of nations. We need to salvage
our democracy.
We need to give George W. Bush a one-way ticket home.
This essay is deliberately not copyrighted, so permission to reproduce
it is unnecessary. Richard W. Behan's latest book is Plundered Promise:
Capitalism, Politics, and the Fate of the Federal Lands (Island Press, 2001).
For information about the book go to http://www.rockisland.com/~rwbehan/.
Behan is currently working on a more broadly rendered critique, Degenerate
Democracy: A Failing U.S. Constitution and the Triumph of Corporate Avarice.
He can be reached at rwbehan@rockisland.com.
Karl W. B. Schwarz,
President, Chief Executive Officer, Patmos Nanotechnologies, LLC
Bush, Osama and Israel
Concealing Causes and Consequences
By William A. Cook
01/10/05 "Counterpunch.org" -- As we approach the crowning of
our Emperor for another four years, a short two months to the day when he
launched the United States into its imperialist policy of pre-emptive invasions
of foreign states, we might pause to reflect on how deeply this administration
analyzed the causes that gave rise to the atrocity of 9/11, the ostensible
basis for our attacking a nation that had done nothing to the US to warrant
its destruction and occupation. Consideration might be given, for example,
to the two antagonists who entered the lists recently, appearing almost
simultaneously before
the American public, Osama bin Laden via a recent tape aired by al Jazeera
and Mr. Anonymous, Michael Scheuer, author of the recent CIA approved Imperial
Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror. Interestingly, while they
carry lances from opposing Lords, bin Laden's lifted on behalf of Allah
and Scheuer's questioning our Lord of Misrule, George W, both proffered the
same perspective, the causes that gave rise to the atrocity of 9/11 have
never been addressed.
Osama stated it this way in his address
to the American people: "thinking people, when disaster strikes, make
it their priority to look for causes, in order to prevent it happening again.
But I am Amazed at you. Even though we are in the fourth year after the events
of September 11th, Bush is still engaged in distortion, deception and hiding
from you the real causes. And thus, the reasons are still there for a repeat
of what occurred." Scheuer made this observation: "(Osama's) genius lies
in his ability to isolate a few American policies that are widely hated across
the Muslim world. And that growing hatred is going to yield growing violence."
Scheuer goes on to say that Osama " is remarkably eager for Americans to
know why he doesn't like us, what he intends to do about it, and then following
up and doing something about it in terms of military actions." Yet our President
continues to claim that the al Quaeda terrorists hate us because of our
freedoms while the real causes for their actions go unaddressed.
As I contemplate the horrendous consequences of this election and the
solidifying of Bush's neo-con crew and right-wing evangelical Zionist supporters
into positions of power, I am forced to reflect on 9/11 once again, the
catalyst that propelled America into Bush's unending war against the forces
of evil. America awoke that morning to an atrocity incomprehensible to contemplate,
an act that defied common sense, a wanton act of inane dimensions that inflicted
catastrophic destruction on innocent people, an act we could not grasp
because we had never experienced its like before, an act that galvanized
our people in brotherhood, in anger, and in fear.
I was driving my stepdaughter to her high school that morning and stopped
at a convenience store. As we entered, we saw two proprietors, mid-eastern
by descent, transfixed before the TV screen, horror struck at the burning
towers, transfixed by images that seemed at the time to come from some Hollywood
action film. There before us, she in her teens, I having lived sixty years
in the last century, lay the ruins of America's might symbolically destroyed
in the World Trade Towers, the first instance of such destruction on American
soil by a foreign force.
How incomprehensible those images to a teenager, the unfathomable realization
that humans could inflict such suffering on another human; indeed, how incomprehensible
to a man who lived while the firestorms of Dresden raged, while the US
firebombed 64 Japanese cities before the dropping of the atom bombs on
Hiroshima and Nagasaki, while Nixon lit up the skies with the Christmas
bombing of Cambodia and Hanoi, and while I witnessed in a hotel room in
Prague the shock and awe destruction of Baghdad less than two years ago.
Though I had lived five decades longer than she, I had not, as is true
of all Americans who have lived between our far flung shores, ever heard
the drone of Super fortresses far overhead, the screech of bombs hurtling
toward earth, the wrenching split of buildings bursting beneath the explosive
power of tons of TNT, the intense heat generated by thousands of phosphorus
bombs that roll in waves of fire over cars, down streets, into buildings
turning everything into an inferno of searing heat that melts human flesh,
sucks the breath of life from the lungs, and leaves the landscape a barren
waste, miles and miles of debris, the shattered remnants of human toil.
These reflections struck home with a vengeance, when I received an email
in response to an article I wrote for Counterpunch, October 22, titled "Killing
for Christ." That article described pictures of death in Iraq, death wrought
in part by Christians goaded to war by fanatical ministers. "Not until
the US lies in ruin - the same carnage I witnessed as a child in post-war
Europe - will Americans be forced to face the kind of evil they have unleashed
upon the world," Sandy wrote; "....These wars are not about religion, or
even oil they're about ignorance. Ignorant people who have never watched
their cities burned, have never dug through the rubble of their bombed out
home for the dismembered remains of their children, have never shuddered
to hear the tanks and planes coming to destroy their homeland."
The thought contained in that letter, ignorance and hence indifference
resulting from America's isolation from aerial devastation, surfaced again
in Osama bin Laden's "talk to the American people" printed in al Jazeera,
October 24. As Osama describes the events that brought him to imagine the
destruction of the Twin Towers, events resulting from "the oppression and
tyranny of the American/Israeli coalition against our people in Palestine
and Lebanon," he recounts unforgettable scenes of carnage, "blood and severed
limbs, women and children sprawled everywhere. Houses destroyed along with
their occupants and high rises demolished over their residents, rockets
raining on our home without mercy And as I looked at those demolished towers
in Lebanon, it entered my mind that we should punish the oppressor in kind
and that we should destroy towers in America in order that they taste some
of what we tasted and so that they be deterred from killing our women and
children."
How terrible the thought, ignorance of what we Americans have wrought
on others believing in our hearts that what our leaders did in our name
was done to ensure peace, to ensure our freedom, to bring Democracy to the
rest of the world. But that is not the thought present in Osama's head. He
reacted to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon as it hurled American bombs from
American supplied planes in a totally different and personal way. "And that
day, it was confirmed to me that oppression and the intentional killing
of innocent women and children is a deliberate American policy. Destruction
is freedom and
democracy, while resistance is terrorism and intolerance."
Michael Scheuer confirms what bin Laden says according to the CBS "60
Minutes" interview: "Right or wrong, he (Scheuer) says Muslims are beginning
to view the United States as a colonial power with Israel its surrogate,
and with a military presence in three of the holiest places in Islam: the
Arabian peninsula, Iraq, and Jerusalem. And he says it is time to review
and debate American policy in the region, even our relationship with Israel."
But there is no discussion of this as a cause in the United States;
indeed, as Scheuer notes, "But the idea that anything in the United States
is too sensitive to discuss or too dangerous to discuss is really, I think,
absurd," a comment directed specifically at the Congress, the administration,
and the main stream media to open discussion about the impact of our Israeli
policies as it can be a cause of the terror that confronts America. "No one
wants to abandon the Israelis," Scheuer comments, "but I think the perception
is, and I think it's probably an accurate perception, that the tail is leading
the dog that we are giving the Israelis carte blanche ability to exercise
whatever they want to do in their area." In short, Bush policy, essentially
that designed by his neo-con controllers, has put the United States in
danger, made it an accomplice in Sharon's oppression and occupation of
the Palestinian land and his savagery against its people, not the least
of which is the stridently visible manifestation of it in the illegal and
inhumane Wall of Fear he's erected around their homes and villages, and,
for the past year and a half, the occupation and devastation of Iraq by America,
seen as a joint venture by the United States with Israel.
From Osama's perspective, the United States has moved to take control
of Arab land and resources using Israel as its accomplice in the area.
That perception of US policy nourishes the hate, a hate that flows from
two sources: the hard right Israeli Zionists and the mentality that guides
Osama's fanatical brethren who drink from the same well, the mythological
stories that prophecy an inevitable war of destruction between Jews and
Arabs, the religious war of Armageddon. America's support for Zionist goals
is, therefore, a direct attack on Allah and can only be repelled by counteractions
that will result in
destruction of America. That is the kernel of Osama's talk to America.
Address the cause or suffer the consequences. That means, as Scheuer notes,
open debate on America's policies in support of Israel or we continue our
steady march to the ditch of doom.
Open debate, however, means more than an investigation into the neo-cons'
paper trail from 1991 to March of 2003 calling for and carrying through
the invasion of Iraq; it means as well an opening of America's soul to a
catharsis caused by an acute and painful examination of the chaos and havoc
it has wrought throughout the world. Osama's glib yet understandable comment
that Sweden was not attacked points the finger at America as an instigator
of actions that have raised the hatred of people in nations throughout the
world. Witness our emperor's recent reception in Chile.
But Americans, for the most part, know little or nothing of the actions
taken in their name that have given birth to the visceral hatred, evident
throughout the world, that plagues their every step. What graphic pictures
have we seen of our devastation of the holy city of Falujah? What pictures
show the bodies buried beneath the rubble of bombed homes? What images
of humans mangled and eaten by roaming dogs have we seen in our press or
on TV? What pictures show the terrorism of Israeli forces and their indiscriminate
murder of innocent civilians? What graphics depict the horror of the wall
that incarcerates women and children, steals farms and orchids depriving
families of their livelihood? What graphs show the American taxpayer how
his or her money is being used, not just to surround and decimate a people
but to implicate America in the carnage caused by Sharon and his government?
How terrible the thought: the ignorance and indifference of the perpetrators
of the devastation, that allows for its continuation, becomes the source
of hatred for those who see themselves the victims of the government Americans
elect to lead them.
The Twin Tower atrocity allowed for a moment of reflection, a chance
for Americans to look inward, to see the world as those beyond our borders
see us, victims of a horror too incredible to contemplate, the intentional
detonation of civilian structures with the explicit and calculated knowledge
that innocent lives would be cremated beyond recognition. And, indeed, the
reaction was visceral in the heart of every American! How instantaneous
the response to the crumbling towers, not only by my teenager 3000 miles
away from the carnage, but on the part of all Americans. How galvanized the
response across America, with an outpouring of money for the fallen firefighters
and police, the mourning for the relatives of the victims, and the flooding
of the blood banks. All felt the impact, shared the loss, and suffered
the anguish of those who fled in terror the flaming debris, the falling
stone, the blowing ash. Americans knew first hand the horror of war at
home.
That awareness drove them to follow without question their leader's
plea to go to war against the evil forces that wanted to destroy America's
"freedoms." That war, first in Afghanistan, then in Iraq, sent wave upon
wave of bombers to unleash untold tons of explosives on untold numbers
of civilians who suffered the revenge of America's determination to destroy
its unknown enemy. But as I reflect on this galvanizing of America's desire
to eradicate its enemy, I begin to understand that we have not merged our
feelings with the feelings of those who have suffered at our hands in Europe,
in Asia, and in the mid-East. What we experienced on 9/11, a deplorable
atrocity that took the lives of 3000 people, that brought havoc and chaos
to our people for weeks on end, that destroyed a collection of buildings
on approximately four acres of land in the middle of a city, could not compare
to the totality of devastation wrought by American bombing on Falujah, or
Baghdad, or Lebanon, or Hanoi, or Tokyo, or Hiroshima, or Dresden. That
these acts were seen as acts of war by most Americans does not erase the
impact of the slaughter they brought to thousands of innocent people caught
in the accepted euphemism that allows the innocent to be sacrificed on the
altar of collateral damage.
To bring the American mind to a point of recognition that allows for
comparison of the suffering we have inflicted against others as a possible
rationale for the hatred that has been leveled at America is a task beyond
our powers. But something has driven millions around the world to look at
America as a fearsome power willing and able to devastate smaller states
to achieve its goals and to protect its purported interests. Why? Why this
attitude about America?
As I reflect on times in my own life when America unleashed its mighty
power on those incapable of defending themselves, I need only consider the
firebombing of Dresden. "On the evening of February 13, 1945, an orgy of
genocide and barbarism began against a defenseless German city, one of
the great cultural centers of northern Europe. Within less than 14 hours,
not only was it reduced to flaming ruins, but an estimated one third of
its inhabitants, possibly as many as half a million, had perished in what
was the worst single event massacre of all time." ("The WWII Dresden Holocaust").
Dresden had no military installations, no aircraft to defend it, no munitions
factories, only factories that produced cigarettes and china, and a hospital
filled to overflowing.
Winston Churchill and Roosevelt needed a "trump card" over Stalin for
the upcoming Yalta meeting, "a devastating 'thunderclap' of Anglo-American
annihilation' with which to impress him," in effect, an act of unimaginable
terror. That thunderclap took the lives of half a million people. It took
the form of a firestorm where huge masses of "air are sucked in to feed
the inferno, causing an artificial tornado. Those persons unlucky enough
to be caught in the rush of wind are hurled down entire streets into the
flames. Those who seek refuge underground often suffocate as oxygen is pulled
from the air to feed the blaze, or they perish in a blast of white heat,
heat intense enough to melt human flesh." 700,000 phosphorus bombs dropped
on 1.2 million people, 1 for every 2 people, where the heat reached 1600
degrees centigrade, in a bombing raid that lasted over 14 hours. Those who
lived through this Hell on earth had to pile the bodies on huge pyres for
cremation, 260,000 bodies counted; the remaining dead, indistinguishable,
melted into the cement or charred beyond recognition. "In just over an hour,
four square miles of the city equivalent to all of lower Manhattan
from Madison Square Garden to Battery Park
was a roaring inferno." (Murray Sayle, "Did the Bomb End the War?")
We Americans gasped at the horror of four acres of destruction and 3000
dead; we could now, should we but reflect on time past, understand how
others felt when they endured a slaughter of far greater proportions.
This horrendous description of our might has been repeated over and
over again since WWII and during it. Tokyo and 63 other Japanese cities
felt the brunt of America's air power. "334 Super fortresses flew at altitudes
ranging from 4,900 feet to 9,200 feet above their target (Tokyo) ... For
three hours waves of B-29s unleashed their cargo upon the dense city below...
the water in the rivers reached the boiling point. ...83,793 killed and 40,918
injured, a total of 265,171 buildings were destroyed and 15.8 square miles
of the city burned to ashes."(Christian Lew, "The Strategic Bombing of Japan").
Then came Hiroshima. "... the bomb instantly vaporized, at a temperature
of several million degrees centigrade, creating a fireball and radiating
immense amounts of heat....Heat radiated by the bomb exposed skin more than
two miles from the hypocenter...between seventy thousand and eighty thousand
people are estimated to have died on August 6th, with more deaths from radiation
sickness spread over the ensuing days, months, and years." (Murray Sayle,
"Did the Bomb End the War"?). Why did we drop the bomb? Without going into
detail, suffice it to say, "Some scholars ... have found it hard to believe
that the act that launched the world into nuclear war could have come about
so thoughtlessly, by default."
Consider these statistics: the Germans "dropped 80,000 tons of bombs
on Britain in more than five years"; America dropped over 100,000 tons in
a month on Indochina, and between Lyndon Johnson and Nixon, America delivered
"7 million tons of bombs on Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos," far more than we,
and the British, unleashed on Germany and Japan in all of WWII. Nixon found
reason for this devastation in his anger that North Vietnam had broken off
peace talks in Paris.
That brings us to our illegal invasion of Iraq, an invasion we now know
was engineered years in advance of 9/11 and for reasons that had nothing
to do with the purported "war on terror." We also know that we did it to
aid Israel in its desire to destroy one of their enemies, a nemesis that
supported "freedom fighters" against Israeli occupation of the land of Palestine.
And today we have a second letter from Osama bin Laden, delivered via video,
that proclaimed for a second time that Israel's subjugation of the indigenous
population in Palestine and its continued "cleansing" to rid the land of
them, is a reason for the destruction caused by 9/11. Now, 100,000 civilian
deaths later, more than 1300 American soldiers dead, cities in ruins, and
the people in revolution against the American oppressor, we, as a nation,
have chosen to continue our unilateral aggression making America more of
a pariah nation and even less likely to share the grief of millions who have
suffered at our hands.
And that returns me to that horrific morning of 9/11 when I attempted
to share with a teenager the inhumane nature of humans. How to demonstrate
the enormity of that act, yet put it in relationship to time past that we
might share the torment of those who have felt the oppressor's boot and
the wanton slaughter of innocents? In reflection days after 9/11, I had
a vision of Hiroshima's ashen landscape stretching for miles as far as the
eye could see, an image indelibly marked on my mind as a young child, but
in that barren waste rose the Twin Towers, silhouetted against the distant
hills and sky, a reference
point for reflection just before the planes struck, turning them into
candles to light the darkness that shrouds the fields of death that once
stood as the city of Hiroshima. Perhaps in the light of those candles we
might see, what we have not wanted to see in our ignorance, that we have
spread pestilence and death throughout the world and now we are reaping
the whirlwind.
William A. Cook isa professor of English at the University of La
Verne in southern California. His new book, Psalms for the 21st Century,
was published by Mellen Press. He can be reached at: cookb@ULV.EDU
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107,
this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed
a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and
educational purposes.)
MAMMA's Footnote:
Professor Cook's reflective comments have stirred some very disquieting
thoughts, thoughts centered on perspective.
Have you seen the movie; "Independence
Day"? Do you recall the scenes where...
- Following the 'Shock and Awe' destruction of some major cities and
the capture of an 'alien', the query of peaceful coexistence meets with
the reply: "Peace? NO Peace!"?
- Following an unsuccessful onslaught of weaponry, the call goes out
to "plow the road" for Mr. Case who is "packing" and ends up making the
ultimate sacrifice as he notes the words of his generation, "Ain't pay back
a bitch?" and his son is told he should be proud of his dad?
- The crumpled wreckage of the invading 'ship' serves as a backdrop
for a jubilant celebration of 'Independence Day!'?
Depending on the location (New York City or Bagdad) and the casting:
- President...Bush or Hussein?
- 'alien'...American or Iraqi?
- Mr. Case...Patriot or Insurgent (refer to 'alien' casting)?
- 'ship'...vehicle or (ship of) state?
the disturbing question that
clamors for an answer is...Does
Art reflect Life or does Life reflect Art?
BACK TO THE TOP
BACK TO
PUBLIC ALERTS
Friday, January 14, 2005
posted by POA: 10:31 AM
Is Al Qaeda Just a Bush Boogeyman?
Robert Scheer
January 11, 2005 - Is it conceivable that Al Qaeda, as defined by President
Bush as the center of a vast and well-organized international terrorist
conspiracy, does not exist?
To even raise the question amid all the officially inspired hysteria
is heretical, especially in the context of the U.S. media's supine acceptance
of administration claims relating to national security. Yet a brilliant
new BBC film produced by one of Britain's leading documentary filmmakers
systematically challenges this and many other accepted articles of faith
in the so-called war on terror.
"The Power of Nightmares: The Rise of the Politics of Fear," a three-hour
historical film by Adam Curtis recently aired by the British Broadcasting
Corp., argues coherently that much of what we have been told about the threat
of international terrorism "is a fantasy that has been exaggerated and
distorted by politicians. It is a dark illusion that has spread unquestioned
through governments around the world, the security services and the international
media."
Stern stuff, indeed. But consider just a few of the many questions the
program poses along the way:
• If Osama bin Laden does, in fact, head a vast international terrorist
organization with trained operatives in more than 40 countries, as claimed
by Bush, why,despite torture of prisoners, has this administration failed
to produce hard evidence of it?
• How can it be that in Britain since 9/11, 664 people have been detained
on suspicion of terrorism but only 17 have been found guilty, most of them
with no connection to Islamist groups and none who were proven members of
Al Qaeda?
• Why have we heard so much frightening talk about "dirty bombs" when
experts say it is panic rather than radioactivity that would kill people?
• Why did Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld claim on "Meet the Press"
in 2001 that Al Qaeda controlled massive high-tech cave complexes in Afghanistan,
when British and U.S. military forces later found no such thing?
Of course, the documentary does not doubt that an embittered, well-connected
and wealthy Saudi man named Osama bin Laden helped finance various affinity
groups of Islamist fanatics that have engaged in terror, including the 9/11
attacks. Nor does it challenge the notion that a terrifying version of
fundamentalist Islam has led to gruesome spates of violence throughout the
world. But the film, both more sober and more deeply provocative than Michael
Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11," directly challenges the conventional wisdom
by making a powerful case that the Bush administration, led by a tight-knit
cabal of Machiavellian neoconservatives, has seized upon the false image
of a unified international terrorist threat to replace the expired Soviet
empire in order to push a political agenda.
Terrorism is deeply threatening, but it appears to be a much more fragmented
and complex phenomenon than the octopus-network image of Al Qaeda, with
Bin Laden as its head, would suggest.
While the BBC documentary acknowledges that the threat of terrorism
is both real and growing, it disagrees that the threat is centralized:
"There are dangerous and fanatical individuals and groups around the
world who have been inspired by extreme Islamist ideas and who will use
the techniques of mass terror — the attacks on America and Madrid make this
only too clear. But the nightmare vision of a uniquely powerful hidden organization
waiting to strike our societies is an illusion. Wherever one looks for
this Al Qaeda organization, from the mountains of Afghanistan to
the 'sleeper cells' in America, the British and Americans are chasing
a phantom enemy."
The fact is, despite the efforts of several government commissions and
a vast army of investigators, we still do not have a credible narrative
of a "war on terror" that is being fought in the shadows.
Consider, for example, that neither the 9/11 commission nor any court
of law has been able to directly take evidence from the key post-9/11 terror
detainees held by the United States. Everything we know comes from two sides
that both have a great stake in exaggerating the threat posed by Al Qaeda:
the terrorists themselves and the military and intelligence agencies that
have a vested interest in maintaining the facade of an overwhelmingly dangerous
enemy.
Such a state of national ignorance about an endless war is, as "The
Power of Nightmares" makes clear, simply unacceptable in a functioning
democracy.
posted by POA |10:31 AM
http://www.pissedoffamerican.blogspot.com/
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107,
this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed
a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and
educational purposes.)
Explosive BBC Doc Exposes
Decades-Old Neocon Deceits
Hyping Terror For Fun, Profit - And Power
By
Thom Hartmann
12-28-4
For those who prefer to read things online, an unofficial but complete
transcript is here: http://www.silt3.com/index.php?id=573
What if there really was no need for much - or even most - of the Cold
War?
What if, in fact, the Cold War had been kept alive for two decades based
on phony WMD threats?
What if, similarly, the War On Terror was largely a scam, and the administration
was hyping it to seem larger-than-life?
What if our "enemy" represented a real but relatively small threat posed
by rogue and criminal groups well outside the mainstream of Islam?
What if that hype was done largely to enhance the power, electability,
and stature of George W. Bush and Tony Blair?
And what if the world was to discover the most shocking dimensions of
these twin deceits - that the same men promulgated them in the 1970s and
today?
It happened.
The myth-shattering event took place in England the first three weeks
of October, when the BBC aired a three-hour documentary written and produced
by Adam Curtis, titled "The Power of Nightmares http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/3755686.stm
If the emails and phone calls many of us in the US received from friends
in the UK - and debate in the pages of publications like The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,12780,1327904,00.html
are any indicator, this was a seismic event, one that may have even provoked
a hasty meeting between Blair and Bush a few weeks later. According to this
carefully researched and well-vetted BBC documentary, Richard Nixon, following
in the steps of his mentor and former boss Dwight D. Eisenhower, believed
it was possible to end the Cold War and eliminate fear from the national
psyche. The nation need no longer be afraid of communism or the Soviet Union.
Nixon worked out a truce with the Soviets, meeting their demands for
safety as well as the US needs for security, and then announced to Americans
that they need no longer be afraid. In 1972, President Richard Nixon returned
from the Soviet Union with a treaty worked out by Secretary of State Henry
Kissinger, the beginning of a process Kissinger called "détente."
On June 1, 1972, Nixon gave a speech in which he said, "Last Friday,
in Moscow, we witnessed the beginning of the end of that era which began
in 1945. With this step, we have enhanced the security of both nations. We
have begun to reduce the level of fear, by reducing the causes of fear-for
our two peoples, and for all peoples in the world." But Nixon left amid scandal
and Ford came in, and Ford's Secretary of Defense (Donald Rumsfeld) and
Chief of Staff (Dick Cheney) believed it was intolerable that Americans
might no longer be bound by fear.
Without fear, how could Americans be manipulated? Rumsfeld and Cheney
began a concerted effort - first secretly and then openly - to undermine
Nixon's treaty for peace and to rebuild the state of fear and, thus, reinstate
the Cold War. And these two men - 1974 Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld
and Ford Chief of Staff Dick Cheney - did this by claiming that the Soviets
had secret weapons of mass destruction that the president didn't know about,
that the CIA didn't know about, that nobody but them knew about. And, they
said, because of those weapons, the US must redirect billions of dollars
away from domestic programs and instead give the money to defense contractors
for whom these two men would one day work.
"The Soviet Union has been busy," Defense Secretary Rumsfeld explained
to America in 1976. "They've been busy in terms of their level of effort;
they've been busy in terms of the actual weapons they 've been producing;
they've been busy in terms of expanding production rates; they've been busy
in terms of expanding their institutional capability to produce additional
weapons at additional rates; they've been busy in terms of expanding their
capability to increasingly improve the sophistication of those weapons.
Year after year after year, they've been demonstrating that they have steadiness
of purpose. They're purposeful about what they're doing."
The CIA strongly disagreed, calling Rumsfeld's position a "complete
fiction" and pointing out that the Soviet Union was disintegrating from
within, could barely afford to feed their own people, and would collapse
within a decade or two if simply left alone. But Rumsfeld and Cheney wanted
Americans to believe there was something nefarious going on, something we
should be very afraid of. To this end, they convinced President Ford to
appoint a commission including their old friend Paul Wolfowitz to prove
that the Soviets were up to no good.
According to Curtis' BBC documentary, Wolfowitz's group, known as "Team
B," came to the conclusion that the Soviets had developed several terrifying
new weapons of mass destruction, featuring a nuclear-armed submarine fleet
that used a sonar system that didn't depend on sound and was, thus, undetectable
with our current technology. The BBC's documentarians asked Dr. Anne Cahn
of the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency during that time, her thoughts
on Rumsfeld's, Cheney's, and Wolfowitz's 1976 story of the secret Soviet
WMDs. Here's a clip from a transcript of that BBC
documentary:
"Dr ANNE CAHN, Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, 1977-80: They couldn't
say that the Soviets had acoustic means of picking up American submarines,
because they couldn't find it. So they said, well maybe they have a non-acoustic
means of making our submarine fleet vulnerable. But there was no evidence
that they had a non-acoustic system. They're saying, 'we can't find evidence
that they're doing it the way that everyone thinks they're doing it, so
they must be doing it a different way. We don't know what that different
way is, but they must be doing it.'
"INTERVIEWER (off-camera): Even though there was no evidence.
"CAHN: Even though there was no evidence.
"INTERVIEWER: So they're saying there, that the fact that the weapon
doesn't exist.
"CAHN: Doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. It just means that we haven't
found it."
The moderator of the BBC documentary then notes:
"What Team B accused the CIA of missing was a hidden and sinister reality
in the Soviet Union. Not only were there many secret weapons the CIA hadn't
found, but they were wrong about many of those they could observe, such
as the Soviet air defenses. The CIA were convinced that these were in a state
of collapse, reflecting the growing economic chaos in the Soviet Union. Team
B said that this was actually a cunning deception by the Soviet régime.
The air-defense system worked perfectly. But the only evidence they produced
to prove this was the official Soviet training manual, which proudly asserted
that their air-defense system was fully integrated and functioned flawlessly.
The CIA accused Team B of moving into a fantasy world."
Nonetheless, as Melvin Goodman, head of the CIA's Office of Soviet Affairs,
1976-87, noted in the BBC documentary,
"Rumsfeld won that very intense, intense political battle that was
waged in Washington in 1975 and 1976. Now, as part of that battle, Rumsfeld
and others, people such as Paul Wolfowitz, wanted to get into the CIA.
And their mission was to create a much more severe view of the Soviet Union,
Soviet intentions, Soviet views about fighting and winning a nuclear war."
Although Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld's assertions of powerful new Soviet
WMDs were unproven - they said the lack of proof proved that undetectable
weapons existed - they nonetheless used their charges to push for dramatic
escalations in military spending to selected defense contractors, a process
that continued through the Reagan administration.
But, trillions of dollars and years later, it was proven that they had
been wrong all along, and the CIA had been right. Rumsfeld, Cheney, and
Wolfowitz lied to America in the 1970s about Soviet WMDs.
Not only do we now know that the Soviets didn't have any new and impressive
WMDs, but we also now know that they were, in fact, decaying from within,
ripe for collapse any time, regardless of what the US did - just as the
CIA (and anybody who visited Soviet states - as I had - during that time
could easily predict). The Soviet economic and political system wasn't working,
and their military was disintegrating. As arms-control expert Cahn noted
in the documentary of those 1970s claims by Wolfowitz, Cheney, and Rumsfeld:
"I would say that all of it was fantasy. I mean, they looked at radars
out in Krasnoyarsk and said, 'This is a laser beam weapon,' when in fact
it was nothing of the sort. ... And if you go through most of Team B's specific
allegations about weapons systems, and you just examine them one by one,
they were all wrong."
"INTERVIEWER: All of them?
"CAHN: All of them.
"INTERVIEWER: Nothing true?
"CAHN: I don't believe anything in [Wolfowitz's 1977] Team B was really
true."
But the neocons said it was true, and organized a group - The Committee
on the Present Danger http://www.fightingterror.org
- to promote their worldview. The Committee produced documentaries, publications,
and provided guests for national talk shows and news reports. They worked
hard to whip up fear and encourage increases in defense spending, particularly
for sophisticated weapons systems offered by the defense contractors for
whom neocons would later become lobbyists.
And they succeeded in recreating an atmosphere of fear in the United
States, and making themselves and their defense contractor friends richer
than most of the kingdoms of the world.
The Cold War was good for business, and good for the political power
of its advocates, from Rumsfeld to Reagan.
Similarly, according to this documentary, the War On Terror is the same
sort of scam, run for many of the same reasons, by the same people. And
by hyping it - and then invading Iraq - we may well be bringing into reality
terrors and forces that previously existed only on the margins and with
very little power to harm us.
Curtis' documentary suggests that the War On Terror is just as much
a fiction as were the super-WMDs this same group of neocons said the Soviets
had in the 70s. He suggests we've done more to create terror than to fight
it. That the risk was really quite minimal (at least until we invaded Iraq),
and the terrorists are - like most terrorist groups - simply people on the
fringes, rather easily dispatched by their own people. He even points out
that Al Qaeda itself was a brand we invented, later adopted by bin Laden
because we'd put so many millions into creating worldwide name recognition
for it.
Watching "The Terror of Nightmares" is like taking the Red Pill in the
movie The Matrix.
It's the story of idealism gone wrong, of ideologies promoted in the
US by Leo Strauss and his followers (principally Wolfowitz, Feith, and Pearle),
and in the Muslim world by bin Laden's mentor, Ayman Zawahiri. Both sought
to create a utopian world through world domination; both believe that the
ends justify the means; both are convinced that "the people" must be frightened
into embracing religion and nationalism for the greater good of morality
and a stable state. Each needs the other in order to hold power.
Whatever your plans are for tonight or tomorrow, clip three hours out
of them and take the Red Pill. Get a pair of headphones (the audio is faint),
plug them into your computer, and visit an unofficial archive of the Curtis'
BBC documentary at the Information Clearing House website http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/video1037.htm
(The first hour of the program, in a more viewable format, is also available
here
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2004/
121104powerofnightmares.htm
For those who prefer to read things online, an unofficial but complete
transcript is on this Belgian site http://www.acutor.be/silt/index.php?id=573
But be forewarned: You'll never see political reality - and certainly
never hear the words of the Bush or Blair administrations - the same again.
===
Thom Hartmann (thom at thomhartmann.com) is a Project Censored Award-winning
best-selling author and host of a nationally syndicated daily progressive
talk show. http://www.thomhartmann.com
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107,
this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed
a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and
educational purposes.)
Criminals the lot
of us
The invasion of Iraq was a crime of gigantic proportions, for which politicians,
the media and the public share responsibility
By Scott Ritter
01/27/05 "The Guardian"
-- The White House's acknowledgement last month that the United States has
formally ended its search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq brought
to a close the most calamitous international deception of modern times.
This decision was taken a month after a contentious presidential election
in which the issue of WMD and the war in Iraq played a central role. In
the lead-up to the invasion, and throughout its aftermath, President Bush
was unwavering in his conviction that Iraq had WMD, and that this posed
a threat to the US and the world. The failure to find WMD
should have been his Achilles heel, but the Democratic contender, John
Kerry, floundered, changing his position on WMD and Iraq many times.
Ironically, it was Kerry who forced the Bush administration to acknowledge
that it was WMD that solely justified any military action against Iraq. Before
the US Senate in 2002, secretary of state Colin Powell responded to a question
posed by Kerry about what would happen if Iraq allowed UN weapons inspectors
to return and they found the country had in fact disarmed.
"If Iraq was disarmed as a result of an inspection regime that gave us
and the security council confidence that it had been disarmed, I think it
unlikely that we would find a casus belli."
When one looks at the situation in Iraq today, the only way that it would
be possible to justify the current state of affairs - a once secular society
now the centre of a global anti-American Islamist jihad, tens of thousands
of civilians killed, an unending war that costs almost £3.2bn a month,
and the basic principles of democracy mocked through an election process
that has generated extensive violence - is if the invasion of Iraq was for
a cause worthy of the price.
The threat to international peace and security represented by Iraqi WMD
seemed to be such a cause. We now know there were no WMD, and thus no justification
for the war. And yet there are no repercussions.
The culpability for the war can be traced to those same Senate hearings
in 2002, when Colin Powell said:"We can have debates about the size of the
stockpile ... but no one can doubt two things. One, they [Iraq] are in violation
of these resolutions ... And second, they have not lost the intent to develop
these weapons of mass destruction."
Politicians, the mainstream media and the public alike accepted this line
of argument, without debate, thus setting the stage for an illegal war.
UN weapons inspections were never given a chance. Ever since the Clinton
administration ordered them out of Iraq in 1998, the US has denigrated the
efficacy of the inspection process. This was a policy begun by Clinton, but
perfected by Bush in the build-up to war. In October 2002, a month after
Saddam Hussein agreed to the unfettered return of weapons inspectors, the
US defence department postulated the existence of secret production facilities,
protected by a "concealment mechanism" designed to defeat inspectors. Thus,
even if they returned, a finding of no WMD was meaningless.
Inspectors did return, and they found nothing. Iraq submitted a complete
declaration of its WMD holdings, which was dismissed as lies by the Bush
administration. Everyone seemed to accept this rejection of fact. "Intelligence
information" was assumed to be infallible. And yet it was all just hype.
There was never any serious effort undertaken by the Bush administration
to find Iraqi WMD. Prior to the invasion, the US military re-designated an
artillery brigade as an "exploitation task force" designed to search for
WMD as the coalition advanced into Iraq.
It did little more than serve as a vehicle for its embedded reporter,
Judith Miller of the New York Times, to recycle fabricated information provided
by Ahmed Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress, creating dramatic headlines
that had no substance. Once Iraq was occupied, Miller was sent home, and
the taskforce disbanded.
A new organisation was created, the CIA-led Iraq survey group (ISG), led
by David Kay. His job was not to find WMD but to spin the data for the political
benefit of the White House. He hinted at dramatic findings, only to suddenly
reverse course once Saddam Hussein was captured. Kay told us that everyone
had got it wrong on WMD, that it was no one's fault. He was replaced by Charles
Duelfer, whose task was to extend the WMD cover-up for as long as possible.
Duelfer was very adept at this, having done similar work while serving as
the deputy executive chairman of the UN weapons inspection effort.
I witnessed him manipulate reports to the security council, rejecting
all that didn't sustain his (and the US government's) foregone conclusion
that Iraq had WMD.
As the head of the ISG, he was called upon to again manipulate the data.
As it was virtually impossible to conjure up WMD stockpiles where none existed,
he did the next best thing - he re-certified Colin Powell's pre-war assertion
that Saddam Hussein had the "intent" to re-acquire WMD. Duelfer provided
no evidence to support this supposition. In fact, the available data seems
to reject the notion of "intent". But once again, politicians, the mainstream
media and the public at large failed to let facts get in the way of assertions.
The ISG had accomplished its mission - not the search for WMD, but the establishment
of a viable alibi. Its job done, the ISG slipped quietly away, its passing
barely noticed by politicians, media and a public all too willing to pretend
that no crime has been committed.
But, through the invasion of Iraq, a crime of gigantic proportions has
been perpetrated. If history has taught us anything, it is that it will condemn
both the individuals and respective societies who not only perpetrated the
crime, but also remained blind and mute while it was being committed.
· Scott Ritter was a senior UN weapons inspector in Iraq between
1991 and 1998 and is the author of Frontier Justice: Weapons of Mass Destruction
and the Bushwhacking of America
Email WSRitter@aol.com
Copyright: The Guardian
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107,
this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed
a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and
educational purposes.)
TIMESONLINE
www.timesonline.co.uk
THE SUNDAY TIMES - Comment
January 23, 2005
Comment: Michael Portillo: An army that bullies its own is
ready to abuse prisoners
On a Caribbean island Piers Morgan is spluttering with rage. The former
Daily Mirror editor was forced into a life of leisure for publishing faked
photographs of British soldiers mistreating Iraqis. He was denounced for
recklessly endangering the lives of our boys.
Now a court martial in Germany has released similar images that the prosecution
says are genuine. While the Mirror’s images were false, the abuse story was
well founded. Morgan feels vindicated, just as Gavyn Davies and Greg Dyke
do. They lost their posts running the BBC because of a radio report that
the government had sexed up its dossier on the reasons for the war in Iraq.
Who would quibble with that now?
I feel not nearly so indignant about the British photographs as I did
about the repellent images of American torture in Abu Ghraib prison. The
“British” picture of a man tied to a forklift truck is appalling, but it
looks like an extempore and disorganised event. The use by GIs of hoods,
electric cables and dogs appeared systemic.
When Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary, was first given the file
he took no action to prevent recurrences. How far up the American chain of
command responsibility passes remains a moot point. I feel sure that abuse
was not authorised by senior ranks in the British Army, let alone by politicians.
The British government bears the blame for one thing: it is wrong that
we do not count the number of Iraqis who have been killed. It suggests that
we place no value on their lives. The policy is dehumanising and racist. Soldiers
pick up those messages. Highfalutin rhetoric about spreading freedom, repeated
in President George W Bush’s inaugural address, rings hollow if we do not
care how many of those that we liberate are dead.
The pictures compound other unwelcome publicity. A week ago newspapers
carried photographs of Sandhurst officer cadets wearing Nazi uniforms.
In November five members of the Household Cavalry were arrested after a bottle
attack on Adnan Said, a 23-year-old Syrian student, who lost his left eye.
The parents of Sally Geeson want to know why the army left a sexual predator,
Lance-Corporal David Atkinson, free to strangle her before killing himself.
Those could be dismissed as one-off events if there were not evidence
of institutionalised problems. Four soldiers have died from firearm wounds
at Deepcut barracks in Surrey (two while I was defence secretary). In some
of those cases coroners have recorded open verdicts. Even if they were all
suicides, as the army says, the implications are worrying.
That the deaths occurred over a seven-year period implies that there is
an underlying malaise and officers have failed to deal with it.
Geoff Hoon, the defence secretary, has refused to set up a public inquiry.
A Surrey police report on Deepcut revealed 61 allegations of assault, 12
of indecent assault and eight of rape or gang rape. Leslie Skinner, a training
instructor, was jailed last year for 4Å years after admitting indecent
assaults on four soldiers aged between 17 and 21.
Responses to the army’s continuous attitudes survey based on 2,000 interviews
revealed that 85% believed there was bullying. The finding was omitted from
the version of the survey supplied to MPs by the government.
In the 1990s several cases of racial abuse shamed the armed forces. When
Mark Parchment enlisted in the Royal Marines he was made to carry a spear
on parade. He was given a special initiation for “niggers”. He was soaked
with urine, attacked and had his genitals shaved. Richard Stokes resigned
from the Household Cavalry when a banana was thrown at him during a rehearsal
for trooping the colour. But in 1998 the Commission for Racial Equality decided
not to take enforcement action against the armed forces in view of improvements
in policies and practice.
A few days ago the Ministry of Defence was forced to admit that Staff
Sergeant David Howard, a soldier with 22 years’ experience, had suffered
racial discrimination and harassment. An employment tribunal was told that
Major Robert Turnbull called Howard “Bubba” to his face, a reference to
the black character with learning difficulties in the movie Forrest Gump.
Turnbull has since been promoted.
All this tells me that the army’s top command is doing too little to end
disgraceful practices. That is unforgivable. The army’s effectiveness is
seriously hampered because many units are under strength. The bad publicity
must deter recruits.
Andrea Levy’s novel Small Island focuses on the discrimination faced by
Jamaicans who enlisted in the RAF during the second world war. To our national
shame many of the 8,000 recruits from the West Indies experienced racism.
But the book also touches on the much worse situation at the time in the
American forces where blacks and whites were segregated http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0%2c%2c2088-1452385%2c00.html
Armed services recruit strongly among the poor. Blacks are over-represented
in those groups in America and Britain, so you would expect them to be over-represented
in the forces, too. After 1945 the US army was swiftly integrated and by
the 1980s it was about one third black. Today, maybe as ethnic minorities
have become richer, the proportion has fallen back to a quarter. The percentage
of black officers has risen to about 13% today. One black officer, Colin
Powell, rose to become chairman of the joint chiefs of staff in the 1990s.
We have performed less well. Documents released under the new Freedom
of Information Act reveal that from 1957 the army imposed ceilings, unit
by unit, on ethnic minority recruitment. The policy was kept secret from
ministers and was publicly denied. But this government’s race equality scheme
is producing positive results. The percentage of ethnic minorities has climbed
and is now about 7% of the army, although still less than 3% of officers.
Ministers’ recent success should encourage them to apply a similar focus
to eliminating bullying and criminal behaviour.
I make those criticisms as a fervent admirer of the army. The privilege
that I enjoyed of being close to the armed forces while I was secretary
of state remains one of the most powerful influences of my life. Against
those who have argued this week that war corrupts soldiers, I would mention
countless examples of young people in whom the army has encouraged the highest
standards of behaviour. The ethos of service brings forth not only courage
but also decency, magnanimity, team spirit and self-sacrifice. You see those
effects even among people who in civilian society were regarded as no-hopers.
In Northern Ireland I saw private soldiers who spent hours in discomfort
with unfaltering concentration logging the movements of suspects. They repaid
the trust placed in them in an important intelligence-gathering task. They
did not miss a face or a car registration number. Others took extraordinary
risks working in territory dominated by the IRA, even though they might share
the fate of Captain Robert Nairac, an SAS officer who, having infiltrated
the terrorists, was caught and tortured to death.
It amazed me that most soldiers wanted to be where there was action and
therefore danger. The only miserable troops I met were on the island paradise
of Cyprus. There was little for them to do. Boredom lured them to the discotheques
of Ayia Napa where they got into fights and trouble.
The British Army has a unique capability in peace enforcement operations.
Officers in Bosnia were assiduous in briefing their troops on the region’s
history and the ethnic divisions. Despite the photographs from the court
martial, the army has applied the same respectful and intelligent approach
to soldiering in Iraq.
I would not claim that the photographs reveal a unique occurrence. The
army is full of tough people who can act roughly and some may make errors.
But neither is this the tip of an immense iceberg of prisoner abuse. This
high-profile case will alert high command to the price that Britain pays
if our standards slip even once.
More worrying to me, because I think it more widespread, is the mistreatment
of our own recruits. The army denies and covers up too much. It is puzzling
that an organisation whose officers are normally excellent can sometimes
fail so badly in its duty of care to those who enlist. We need more aggressive
leadership to clean out the army’s sewers. It can start with Deepcut barracks.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2088-1452385_2,00.html
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107,
this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed
a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and
educational purposes.)
USA TODAY
Washington/Politics
Posted 1/25/2005 10:22 AM Updated 1/25/2005 11:47 AM
Bush wants $80B more for wars; new deficit forecast released
WASHINGTON (AP) — As Congress started to digest a new Bush administration
request of $80 billion to bankroll wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, its top
budget analyst on Tuesday projected $855 billion in deficits for the next
decade even without the costs of war and Bush's Social Security plan.
White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the administration would outline
its request for more money for Iraq and Afghanistan later Tuesday. He would
provide no detail, but congressional aides said the package would total about
$80 billion and be mostly for U.S. military operations in the two countries.
Congress approved $25 billion for the wars last summer. Using figures
compiled by the Congressional Research Service, which prepares reports for
lawmakers, the newest request would push the totals provided for the conflicts
and worldwide efforts against terrorism past $300 billion. That includes
$25 billion already provided for rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan.
McClellan said the administration would request what is needed for U.S.
troops and "to support the Iraqi people as they move forward on building
a democratic and peaceful future."
Amid the White House's preparations, the Congressional Budget Office predicted
the government will accumulate another $855 billion in deficits over the
next decade.
The projection, for the years 2006 through 2015, is almost two-thirds
smaller than what congressional budget analysts predicted last fall. But
the drop is largely due to estimating quirks that required it to exclude
future Iraq and Afghanistan war costs and other expenses. Last September,
their 10-year deficit estimate was $2.3 trillion.
The CBO also projected this year's shortfall will be $368 billion. That
was close to the $348 billion deficit for 2005 that it had forecast last
fall. The two largest deficits ever in dollar terms were last year's $412
billion and the $377 billion gap of 2003.
The budget office estimated if U.S. troop strength in Iraq and Afghanistan
declines gradually after 2006, those wars would add $590 billion to deficits
over the next decade. Including war costs, this year's shortfall should hit
about $400 billion, the budget office said.
Besides lacking war costs, the budget office's deficit estimates also
omitted the price tags of Bush's goal of revamping Social Security, which
could cost $1 trillion to $2 trillion and dominate this year's legislative
agenda.
Also left out were the price of extending Bush's tax cuts and easing the
impact the alternative minimum tax would have on middle-income Americans,
which could exceed $2.3 trillion, the report said.
When those items are included, Bush is a long way from his goal of cutting
deficits in half by 2009, Democrats said.
"Republicans control the House, the Senate and the White House, but they
can't control the budget and they can't escape responsibility for its dismal
condition," said Rep. John Spratt of South Carolina, top Democrat on the
House Budget Committee.
Republicans used the deficit figures to underscore the need to find budget
savings this year, including from popular benefit programs, which include
Medicaid.
"If we do nothing, our kids and grandkids will be overwhelmed by the costs
of our inaction," said Senate Budget Committee Chairman Judd Gregg, R-N.H.
Bush won't send the war financing package to Congress until after he unveils
his full 2006 budget on Feb. 7, congressional aides said.
White House officials declined to comment on the war package, which will
come as the United States confronts continued violence in Iraq leading up
to that country's Jan. 30 elections.
Aides said about three-fourths of the $80 billion was expected to be for
the Army, which is bearing the brunt of the fighting in Iraq. It also was
expected to include money for building a U.S. embassy in Baghdad, estimated
to cost $1.5 billion.
One aide said the request will also include funds to help the new Afghan
government combat drug trafficking. It might also have money to help two
new leaders the U.S. hopes will be allies, Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas
and Ukraine President Viktor Yushchenko.
The aides said the package Bush eventually submits to Congress will also
include money to help Indian Ocean countries hit by the devastating December
tsunami.
The forthcoming request highlights how much war spending has soared past
initial White House estimates. Early on, then-presidential economic adviser
Lawrence Lindsey placed Iraq costs at $100 billion to $200 billion, only
to see his comments derided by administration colleagues.
By pushing war spending beyond $300 billion, the latest proposal would
approach nearly half the $613 billion the United States spent for World War
I or the $623 billion it expended for the Vietnam War, when the costs of
those conflicts are translated into 2005 dollars.
The White House had not been expected to reveal details of the war package
until after the release of the full budget.
But lawmakers, as they did last year, want to include war costs in the
budgets they will write. They argue that withholding the war costs from Bush's
budget would open it to criticism that it was an unrealistic document, one
aide said. Last year, the spending plan omitted war expenditures and received
just that critique.
Copyright 2005 The Associated Press.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-01-25-deficit_x.htm?csp=24&RM_Exclude=Juno
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107,
this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed
a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and
educational purposes.)
Belfast Telegraph
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/story.jsp?story=605352
Is the world safer now?
As war ended, correspondents examined key questions about Iraq's future.
With the elections looming, the updated answers highlight the global impact
of the conflict
Analysis by Rupert Cornwell, Andrew Grice, Patrick Cockburn, Anne Penketh,
Andrew Buncombe, Ben Russell, Stephen Castle and Elizabeth Davies
28 January 2005
WHERE ARE THE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION?
As we know now, they were never in Iraq, cutting away the rationale for
going to war. But next door, Iran, the state most feared by Saddam Hussein,
is now accused of being less than a year from a "point of no return" in building
its own nuclear bomb - a direct result of the Iraq war. It has also emerged
since the war that the Americans turned a blind eye to the export of nuclear
parts by the top nuclear scientist in Pakistan, a major US ally in the "war
on terror". The network of A Q Khan, the architect of Pakistan's nuclear
programme, was in the business of selling nuclear technology to the highest
bidder, including the arch-enemies of America - Libya and North Korea. Even
South Korea has been conducting clandestine nuclear experiments, fearing
its northern neighbour may have built six nuclear bombs. Far from shutting
down the nuclear peril, the Bush administration has actually increased the
global threat.
WHO ARE THE INSURGENTS AND ARE THEY LINKED TO AL-QA'IDA?
The presence of al-Qa'ida in Iraq was cited by President George Bush as
one of the main reasons for going to war, even though there was never any
proof of a link to Saddam Hussein. Iraq, back then, was devoid of terrorism.
How times have changed - again, as a direct consequence of the war.
There is no single resistance movement. It is made up of different groups
- many of which only operate in a single district. The US has sought to
portray the insurgents as consisting of either foreign fighters or bloodthirsty
Islamic fanatics, though US military intelligence admits that 95 per cent
of fighters are Iraqi. The common element among the different groups is
opposition to the US occupation. And they are bent on disrupting the elections
to speed up the Americans' departure.
The military backbone of the resistance which developed with great speed
after the fall of Saddam was made up of former members of the security forces
and Baath party. But they could not have gathered support and sympathy from
the population so swiftly if the US administration, devoid of a post-war
plan, had not so rapidly discredited itself. Most Iraqi men have some military
training. They are traditionally armed and after the war Iraq was awash with
weapons.
The resistance rapidly took on an Islamic colouring, the very aspect the
US feared. Since August 2003, there has been a wave of suicide bombing unprecedented
in history. Here, the foreign volunteers were important and they appear
to have provided the bulk of the bombers. Islamic fundamentalists outside
Iraq provided large sums of money.
The insurgents have become more expert. There are greater signs of co-ordination.
A few days after the US Marines started their assault on Fallujah in November,
the resistance attacked Mosul and captured most of the city.
How sectarian is the resistance? The Salafi or militant fundamentalist
Sunni wing of the insurgency has repeatedly targeted Shia with suicide bombs
in Baghdad, Najaf and Kerbala, causing horrendous casualties. These attacks
ensured that the uprising remains confined to the Sunni Arabs.
Since early 2004 the US has promoted Abu Musab al-Zarqawi as the man behind
the uprising. This probably began as a propaganda ploy but Zarqawi revelled
in the publicity and American denunciations meant local groups began to
call themselves al-Qa'ida.
At any rate, the invasion - and the lack of planning - has created the
very conditions the US cited as reason for going to war. Trouble was, they
never existed then.
WHERE IS THE ANTI-WAR ALLIANCE NOW?
Still sulking on the sidelines although trying to mend fences with the
Bush administration. The "gang of three" who opposed the invasion from within
the Security Council, France, Germany and Russia, have never sent troops
to Iraq as part of the multinational force. Mr Bush's visit to continental
Europe next month will be aimed at improving relations with France and Germany.
He will also hold a summit with the Russian President, Vladimir Putin, on
neutral ground in the Slovakian capital. The problem for all three states
is that they want to do business with Iraq - in particular France and Russia
which were owed billions of dollars by Saddam's regime - but they have refused
to endorse the occupation.
HOW HAS TONY BLAIR EMERGED?
Whenever Tony Blair crosses his fingers and starts to think that Iraq is
fading as a domestic political issue, it returns to haunt him. With hindsight,
the war itself was the easy bit. The aftermath has been much more messy.
Two inquiries, by lords Hutton and Butler, kept the issue in the spotlight,
even if they failed to find the smoking gun Mr Blair's critics hoped for.
Time has not proved the healer that Mr Blair hoped it would be: public
opinion has hardened since the war. After the weapons of mass destruction
failed to materialise, Mr Blair's personal trust ratings fell through the
floor.
His allies hope desperately that Sunday's elections in Iraq will pass the
credibility test. If they do, then Iraq may play less strongly during the
general election expected on 5 May. If they fail the test, the issue will
continue to dog Mr Blair.
Labour strategists admit that, at present, about 3 per cent of the electorate
say they will not support the party because of Iraq - enough to have a significant
impact on the election result. Labour hopes that, as the election approaches,
critics will focus more on the economy and public spending than Iraq.
Between now and the election, Mr Blair will talk up issues they care about
- such as climate change and poverty in Africa - and speak less about Iraq.
He will also mount a subtle campaign to distance himself from President
Bush, who will not visit Britain when he tours Europe next month.
Mr Blair will urge his critics to address the future rather than the past,
and to support democracy in Iraq, offering the carrot of a "timeline" for
the withdrawal of coalition forces.
HOW DOES THE EU COME OUT OF IT?
One year after a conflict that split Europe down the middle, a battered
EU is finally starting to recover some of its unity. The war was a brutal
reminder of the frailty of Europe's foreign policy, dividing member states
and casting a giant cloud over relations with Washington.
France, Germany and Belgium led the opponents, while Britain, Spain (whose
government subsequently changed) and a clutch of "new" European countries
from the former Communist bloc including Poland, sided with the US.
The two sides then continued to fight the war by proxy. Last year Mr Blair
helped block France and Germany's preferred candidate for the job of European
Commission president, Guy Verhofstadt, the Belgian premier. In return the
French President, Jacques Chirac, stalled efforts to establish a Nato role
in Iraq via a military training mission.
But there are signs that the EU is beginning to salvage some internal cohesion.
The EU is now poised to offer the US a small olive branch by offering to
train Iraqi police, administrators and judges (although that work will probably
take place outside Iraq). And, significantly, Britain agrees with Germany
and France - rather than the US - on two key issues: the need for diplomacy
rather than force in dealings with Iran, and the desirability of lifting
an EU arms embargo on China.
DO IRAQIS FEEL LIBERATED?
The key question, and the one answer showing the biggest change since our
investigation in April 2003. Just after the war, polls showed that Iraqis
were evenly divided about whether they felt liberated or occupied. We said
back then that Iraqis have a strong sense of nationhood, and predicted that
any sense of being subjected to American hegemony would be strongly resisted.
By the time the US ended direct rule of Iraq through the Coalition Provisional
Authority in the summer of 2004, only 2 per cent of Arab Iraqis supported
the occupation. The overthrow of Saddam had brought none of the political
and
economic benefits they expected. Today, the only large group in Iraq which
still overwhelmingly feels liberated is the Kurdish community, which makes
up about 17 percent of the population.
Despite the supposed handover of power to an Iraqi interim government last
year, Iraqis see the US as the controller of the government. Many of them
this week referred to the election as "a movie" staged for the benefit of
the outside world. Significantly many of those who say they will vote also
blame the US for their woes. This is the greatest mistake made by US analysts:
the belief that because the Shia are increasingly hostile to the Sunni this
means that they accept the occupation. The prestigious Brussels-based International
Crisis Group sees the growth of hostility to the US as the most important
development in Iraq since 2003. It says in a recent report: "Of all the
many changes that have affected popular attitudes since the fall of the
Baathist regime, perhaps the most notable has been the precipitous drop
in the confidence in the US."
IS IYAD ALLAWI, THE INTERIM PRIME MINISTER, A US PUPPET?
Back in 2003, the question concerned Ahmed Chalabi, then the key US protégé
in Iraq. Now it focuses on Mr Allawi, appointed interim Prime Minister by
the US in June 2004. He depends on the 150,000-strong US Army in Iraq to
stay in power. His political party, the Iraqi National Accord, was funded
by the CIA. Mr Allawi was always in the past a man of the shadows. His defence
of his former intelligence links is to say that he took money from any foreign
agency which offered him funds. It is also true that all the Iraqi exiled
leaders were supported by foreign intelligence agencies. With the exception
of the Kurdish parties, few of them had a network within Iraq and all the
returning exiles are viewed with suspicion as carpetbaggers by Iraqis who
never left the country under Saddam Hussein. Mr Allawi has achieved a surprising
degree of acceptance since he became Prime Minister. This is more for what
he is not than what he is. He is a Shia and secular candidate in a country
where the Shia political parties are predominantly religious. Even Ahmed
Chalabi, former favoured friend of the Pentagon, is part of the United Iraqi
Alliance, the largely Shia list put together under the auspices of Grand
Ayatollah Ali
al-Sistani.
Mr Allawi is also attractive to many Sunni because he is a former Baathist
even if he is close to the Americans.
Mr Allawi and the other returning exiles are all dependent on the US. But
the American position in Iraq has weakened steadily since the invasion.
It therefore needs Mr Allawi and would find it difficult to replace him.
This gives him some leeway in dealing with them. But in the past six months
he has not been able to distance himself enough from the US to win over
nationalist supporters of the resistance looking for a compromise.
IS THE UN RELEVANT ANY LONGER?
The Bush administration has pushed the UN back into a role of talking-shop,
enabling the world's most powerful state to kick the most intractable problems
into the long grass. That is why the US is content to let the UN take the
lead in dealing with the atrocities in Darfur and even the Iranian nuclear
threat. Washington can play for time while seeming to be doing something,
while knowing that no decisions will ever emerge from the strategically
divided major powers on the UN Security Council. Basically, the UN is only
relevant when its member states want it to be.
The Bush administration, being ideologically opposed to the UN, is more
likely to form "coalitions of the willing" outside the UN framework for conflict
resolution. But even the Bush administration admits that the UN does have
some relevance, in coping with humanitarian disasters such as the Asian
tsunami, and in organising elections and their aftermath in failed states.
As we predicted in April 2003, despite their prosecution of the war without
UN authority, Mr Blair and Mr Bush felt obliged to seek UN blessing for
the post-war phase.
WILL THE KURDS TRY FOR STATEHOOD?
Unlikely. The Kurds are the only Iraqis to have got from what they wanted
from the overthrow of Saddam. It has been a narrow squeeze. Just before
the invasion, the US was happy to go along with a Turkish invasion of Iraqi
Kurdistan as the price for the Turks allowing US troops to open a northern
front against Saddam. In the event, the Turks turned the offer down and
the US had to rely on the Kurds as their local allies.
During the war, the Kurds were able to recapture all the territory in Kirkuk
and Mosul provinces from which they had been evicted over the past 40 years.
The Kurds are now the dominant force in northern Iraq. They also hold Kirkuk
and its oilfields. Emotionally, Kurds would like statehood but they already
have the reality of independence without the dangers of declaring an independent
state. For the first time they have the support of a great power: the US.
With America so short of allies inside Iraq, it cannot abandon the only
community which supports it.
HOW LONG WILL THE SOLDIERS STAY?
In April 2003, we wrote that neither Britain nor the US could sustain their
troop levels, which at the time were 225,000 US soldiers and 45,000 UK troops.
The British were saying then that they would keep troops in Iraq for a maximum
of six months. Now, with 150,000 US and 10,000 British troops in Iraq, neither
side is likely to pull out before the end of the current mandate, which
runs until December. The official line from the White House and Downing
Street is that it all depends on the speed with which Iraqi police and troops
are trained. At the moment, there are less than half the number of Iraqi
security forces that officials believe are required to deal with the insurgency.
Condoleezza Rice, the Secretary of State, recently told senators: "I am
really reluctant to try to put a timetable on that, because I think the goal
is to get the mission accomplished, and that means that the Iraqis have to
be capable of some things before we lessen our own responsibility." Members
of Congress have privately been told by senior uniformed officers to expect
at least 100,000 to remain in Iraq not only throughout this year but to
the end of 2006. At the same time, a growing number on the right is calling
for a rapid withdrawal. Some believe the setting of a timetable for leaving
might focus efforts on
training Iraqi forces. The Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, recently told
reporters "it was bleedingly obvious" that Britain and the US would leave
Iraq if the Iraqi national assembly to be elected on Sunday asks them. A major,
single loss of US troops - such as the attack in Beirut in 1983 in which
241 US Marines were killed - rather than the steady drip of casualties would
almost certainly hasten a departure.
IS THERE A HUMANITARIAN CRISIS?
The crisis is of a different nature to that in April 2003, when the war
had compounded the effects of sanctions, and is absorbing the attention of
Iraqis more than the election. Long queues of cars and trucks snake around
Baghdad as drivers wait for fuel. Often they sit in their cars for more than
24 hours. There is also a shortage of kerosene, essential for heating, bottled
gas for cooking and electricity for all purposes. In recent weeks there has
even been a shortage of water for the first time. Because transport is more
expensive food prices go up. The rise in prices hits a population with very
small earnings. Iraqis expected after the fall of Saddam that their standard
of living would improve. Instead they have seen their lives in most cases
get worse. It is disappointment which partly fuels the uprising. Young men
are desperate for jobs. It is as easy for the resistance to recruit men as
it is for the police or army. For a year after the invasion Iraqis were patient
but during this past winter they saw the electricity supply falling again
to three or four hours a day.
While Iraq is caught up in a permanent economic and social crisis it is
difficult to believe that the political crisis will ever end.
HOW MANY DIED IN THE WAR
In April 2003, 119 American soldiers had been killed and 30 British soldiers.
Now the total has jumped to 1,420 American soldiers dead and 76 British
servicemen. The Iraq Body Count website calculates that the total number
of Iraqi civilians killed by military intervention could be as many as 17,721.
There are no reliable figures for Iraqi military casualties but we do know
that at least 6,370 Iraqi soldiers died during the war itself.
The fact that the allies have never bothered to count the dead is seen
as an insult in Iraq.
WAS THE WAR LEGAL?
It still depends who you talk to. Critics of the war maintain that the
failure to uncover weapons of mass destruction in Iraq has undermined the
legal case for war by demonstrating that Saddam was not a threat to international
security. However, ministers insist that it was Saddam's breaches of United
Nations resolutions which made the war legal under international law.
The one-page legal opinion released on the eve of the invasion used successive
UN Security Council resolutions to justify war. Lord Goldsmith, the Attorney
General, said that authority to use force against Iraq derived "from the
combined effect of resolutions 678, 687 and 1441" which were under Chapter
Seven of the UN Charter, which allows the use of force to restore international
peace and security. He said the authority for war stemmed from UN Security
Council resolution 678, the resolution that first authorised force to expel
Iraq from Kuwait in 1990.
Lord Goldsmith insisted that resolution 687, which set the terms of Iraq's
ceasefire at the end of the Gulf War, merely "suspended but did not terminate
the authority to use force". The Attorney General said resolution 1441,
passed before Christmas, made clear Iraq was in material breach of its ceasefire
and in effect "provived" the legal authority for war originally confirmed
in 1990. The government has rebuffed attempts by The Independent, anti-war
campaigners and MPs for publication of the Attorney General's full legal
advice before the invasion amid suspicions it contained caveats not included
in the summary
released to MPs. MPs believe that Lord Goldsmith changed his advice in
the run-up to war and demanded an explicit statement from Mr Blair that
Iraq was in breach of its obligations under UN resolutions before confirming
the legality of the invasion. But, while all this legal debate goes on, it
seems the public has made up its mind: no WMD equals no legitimacy.
DID THE ALLIES STICK TO THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS?
No way. Already in April 2003 the allies had violated the conventions in
their treatment of the civilians they were obliged to protect. But since
then, the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib and in British custody has sickened
the world in the blatant disregard for international humanitarian law. The
taking of photographs of prisoners is only permitted in order to identify
the captives. Contrast this with the soldiers who took the shocking pictures
of a hooded man attached to electric cables standing on a box, the piles
of naked bodies, and the simulated sex scenes.
DID BUSH'S CRONIES GET THE BIGGEST CONTRACTS?
In essence many of them did. In the aftermath of the war, US companies
lined up to receive more than $18bn set aside for reconstruction. Many of
the biggest winners were companies who had donated heavily to the Republicans.
In most cases, their bids for the work were non-competitive. Bechtel Group,
for instance, won a $680m contract for emergency infrastructure repair.
Bechtel had previously given $1.3m to US political candidates from 1999
to 2002 - about 60 per cent to Republicans. Kellogg, Brown and Root, a subsidiary
of Vice-President Dick Cheney's former company, Halliburton, which donated
$708,770 - 95 per cent to Republicans - received an open-ended contract
for fighting oilwell fires. The no-limit contract was subsequently expanded
to include the "operation of facilities and distribution of products." Congressman
Henry Waxman has estimated the contract to provide meals, laundry and other
support services to troops could be worth $7bn over two years.
In 2003 it was announced that countries that opposed the war such as France
and Germany would be banned from bidding for contracts though this was later
loosened. The Bush administration says 103,142 Iraqi workers are currently
employed in more than 2,500 reconstruction projects.
HAS THE RUMSFELD DOCTRINE BEEN VINDICATED?
Iraq has been both dazzling confirmation and humbling repudiation of the
"Rumsfeld Doctrine", of a smaller, nimbler military, where overwhelming
firepower would make up for any decline in troop strength. The formula worked
brilliantly for the invasion itself, a "blitzkrieg" that saw a relatively
small US force complete the conquest of Iraq in less than a month, with
the capture of Saddam's redoubt of Tikrit on 17 April 2003. But the 21-month
occupation has exposed every limitation of the doctrine. Having spurned
his senior commanders' warnings that "several hundred thousand" troops would
be needed to
provide security, Mr Rumsfeld has tried to do the job with just 140,000.
The US Army, and reserve units and the National Guard in particular, have
been stretched close to breaking point. In a tacit admission that the Army
is too small, the Pentagon is seeking to expand the 500,000 active duty
force by 30,000 on a "provisional" basis until 2008. The Defence Secretary,
meanwhile, is accelerating his intended reform of the military, by cutting
back or scrapping sophisticated new weapons systems. This would free tens
of billions of budget dollars to equip the military better for the unconventional
conflicts of the future. The loser, as we wrote in April 2003, is Colin Powell,
who challenged Mr Rumsfeld and who has now left the Bush administration.
WHAT WAS THE WAR REALLY ABOUT?
Astonishingly, two years on there is no clear answer. The Bush White House
claimed the invasion was to get rid of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction,
and destroy a regime that was linked to terrorism. When the WMD failed to
materialise, the war was justified (on legally shaky grounds) as a mission
to remove an odious and repressive regime, the first step in a democratic
transformation of the Middle East.
In truth, Iraq was at the top of the administration's hit list long before
9/11. The neo-conservatives in charge of US security policy had been calling
for Saddam's overthrow for five years or more. This they argued, would give
the US a new strategic base in the Gulf to replace Saudi Arabia. It would
place the region's second oil producer firmly within the US orbit. It would
step up the pressure on Iran, meeting a longstanding desire of Israel. Finally,
there is a family factor: did Bush the son invade to finish the job started
by Bush the father? Somewhere in this mixture of fear, grand strategy and
blinkered ideology lies the explanation for the war.
IS THIS THE FIRST STEP TO REORDERING THE MIDDLE EAST?
That was, and remains, Mr Bush's goal, as his extraordinary second inauguration
address shows. Turn Iraq into a functioning democratic regime, the theory
runs, and the Islamic extremists and insurgents "who hate our freedom" would
be on the retreat across the Muslim world.
Seduced by a benign version of the domino theory, Washington imagined that
other authoritarian regimes would realise there was no alternative to liberalisation
and democratisation. Thus would be achieved an economic and political rebirth
of the Middle East, including the most elusive prize of all, a peace settlement
between Israel and Palestine.
But even if the Iraqi election on Sunday goes (relatively) smoothly, those
ambitions now appear to be hopelessly overblown.
The initial goals of Mr Blair's Palestinian conference in March have been
watered down under Israeli pressure. Mr Bush's once-trumpeted Greater Middle
East Initiative, designed to foster free thinking, free markets and free
media across the region, has been drastically scaled back after complaints
from allies such as Egypt that the US was trying to impose its views.
WHAT ABOUT SADDAM?
Saddam Hussein is in custody awaiting trial in the US military base at
Baghdad airport. But his appearances in court have not benefited the interim
government as much as they had hoped. His capture has, surprisingly, highlighted
difficulties, and his is the spectre overhanging the elections.
His strong, defiant demeanour before his accusers last year quickly replaced
in the public psyche the earlier images of a bedraggled and beaten former
Iraqi leader dragged from his hole in December 2003. His trial will be difficult
to arrange if it is to appear in any way fair. Nor will it be easy to find
evidence of Saddam directly ordering massacres. And controversy has already
engulfed the trial. Salem Chalabi, initially in charge, was accused of murder
and dismissed.
Saddam's prosecution will cause division. The Kurds want to execute the
man who oppressed and slaughtered them. The Shia, too, want him convicted
for the killings after their uprising in 1991 and the murder of their leaders.
But the Sunni are more ambivalent, not because of loyalty to Saddam, but
because they see a trial as a veiled attack on their community. Many Iraqis
also feel that however bad conditions were under Saddam they were better
than today. The destruction of Fallujah by the US Marines and the torture
of Iraqi prisoners by US soldiers in Abu Ghraib have made them less willing
to condemn
Saddam, a feat most would have found incredible two years ago.
IS NORTH KOREA NEXT ON THE AMERICAN HITLIST?
No, for the simple reason that the Americans are more concerned about stopping
countries from obtaining a nuclear weapon rather than going after those
that have one. Experts agree North Korea probably has half a dozen nuclear
bombs, or enough to deter an American attack. So Iran - which is suspected
of developing a nuclear bomb - is now "top of the list of potential troublespots",
according to the American Vice-President, Dick Cheney.
It is also the reason Iraq was a target in the first place, rather than
North Korea, which from a nuclear perspective was a far more dangerous threat.
Iran must have realised it would be safer from attack the sooner it developed
nuclear capability. In that sense, the invasion of Iraq has made the world
much less safe.
The countries that the Americans want quaking in their boots have been
branded "outposts of tyranny" by the new US Secretary of State, Condoleezza
Rice. The list is Cuba, Burma, North Korea, Iran, Belarus, and Zimbabwe.
She did not indicate an order of priority, and left off her list other states
which happen to be US allies.
Taking strong-arm action against a geo-strategically important state like
Iran will be tricky: Iranian officials say Tehran would respond vigorously
to any military attack by the United States or Israel. "Iran is not Iraq,
Iran is not North Korea," said an Iranian diplomat.
DOES GROWING SHIA POWER MEAN AN INCREASE IN IRANIAN INFLUENCE IN IRAQ?
This was always the fear of the US, and was one of the reasons why Washington
allowed Saddam Hussein to crush the Shia uprising after the first Gulf War
in 1991. But the Iranian and Iraqi Shias have always had different attitudes.
The Shia clergy in Iraq would like an Islamic state but not a theocracy.
During the Iran-Iraq war, the Iraqi Shia made up the bulk of the Iraqi army
and fought their co-religionists.
Iran has great influence in southern Iraq. For years, it funded the Supreme
Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq and its Badr brigade militia, now
one of the main Shia parties. It has funded Shia organisations in Iraq.
"The Iranians are very clever: they give money to the pro-Iranian groups
and also to the anti-Iranian groups," said a Shia leader.
Given that the US is continually threatening to attack Iran, it is not
surprising that Tehran wants to make sure it can cause problems for Washington
in Iraq, so there may be a big impact on the election.
Source: Independent
2005 Independent News and Media (NI)
a division of Independent News & media (UK) Ltd
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C.
Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who
have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information
for research and educational purposes.)
Fallujah: the truth at
last
Socialist Worker - online
February 19, 2005
Doctor Salam Ismael took aid to Fallujah last month. This is his story of
how the US murdered a city
IT WAS the smell that first hit me, a smell that is difficult to describe,
and one that will never leave me. It was the smell of death. Hundreds of corpses
were decomposing in the houses, gardens and streets of Fallujah. Bodies were
rotting where they had fallen—bodies of men, women and children, many half-eaten
by wild dogs.
A wave of hate had wiped out two-thirds of the town, destroying houses and
mosques, schools and clinics. This was the terrible and frightening power
of the US military assault.
The accounts I heard over the next few days will live with me forever. You
may think you know what happened in Fallujah. But the truth is worse than
you could possibly have imagined.
In Saqlawiya, one of the makeshift refugee camps that surround Fallujah,
we found a 17 year old woman. “I am Hudda Fawzi Salam Issawi from the Jolan
district of Fallujah,” she told me. “Five of us, including a 55 year old neighbour,
were trapped together in our house in Fallujah when the siege began.
“On 9 November American marines came to our house. My father and the neighbour
went to the door to meet them. We were not fighters. We thought we had nothing
to fear. I ran into the kitchen to put on my veil, since men were going to
enter our house and it would be wrong for them to see me with my hair uncovered.
“This saved my life. As my father and neighbour approached the door, the
Americans opened fire on them. They died instantly.
“Me and my 13 year old brother hid in the kitchen behind the fridge. The
soldiers came into the house and caught my older sister. They beat her. Then
they shot her. But they did not see me. Soon they left, but not before they
had destroyed our furniture and stolen the money from my father’s pocket.”
Hudda told me how she comforted her dying sister by reading verses from
the Koran. After four hours her sister died. For three days Hudda and her
brother stayed with their murdered relatives. But they were thirsty and had
only a few dates to eat. They feared the troops would return and decided
to try to flee the city. But they were spotted by a US sniper.
Hudda was shot in the leg, her brother ran but was shot in the back and
died instantly. “I prepared myself to die,” she told me. “But I was found
by an American woman soldier, and she took me to hospital.” She was eventually
reunited with the surviving members of her family.
I also found survivors of another family from the Jolan district. They told
me that at the end of the second week of the siege the US troops swept through
the Jolan. The Iraqi National Guard used loudspeakers to call on people to
get out of the houses carrying white flags, bringing all their belongings
with them. They were ordered to gather outside near the Jamah al-Furkan mosque
in the centre of town.
On 12 November Eyad Naji Latif and eight members of his family—one of them
a six month old child—gathered their belongings and walked in single file,
as instructed, to the mosque.
When they reached the main road outside the mosque they heard a shout, but
they could not understand what was being shouted. Eyad told me it could have
been “now” in English. Then the firing began.
US soldiers appeared on the roofs of surrounding houses and opened fire.
Eyad’s father was shot in the heart and his mother in the chest.
They died instantly. Two of Eyad’s brothers were also hit, one in the chest
and one in the neck. Two of the women were hit, one in the hand and one in
the leg.
Then the snipers killed the wife of one of Eyad’s brothers. When she fell
her five year old son ran to her and stood over her body. They shot him dead
too.
Survivors made desperate appeals to the troops to stop firing.
But Eyad told me that whenever one of them tried to raise a white flag they
were shot After several hours he tried to raise his arm with the flag. But
they shot him in the arm. Finally he tried to raise his hand. So they shot
him in the hand.
The five survivors, including the six month old child, lay in the street
for seven hours. Then four of them crawled to the nearest home to find shelter.
The next morning the brother who was shot in the neck also managed to crawl
to safety. They all stayed in the house for eight days, surviving on roots
and one cup of water, which they saved for the baby.
On the eighth day they were discovered by some members of the Iraqi National
Guard and taken to hospital in Fallujah. They heard the Americans were arresting
any young men, so the family fled the hospital and finally obtained treatment
in a nearby town.
They do not know in detail what happened to the other families who had gone
to the mosque as instructed. But they told me the street was awash with blood.
I had come to Fallujah in January as part of a humanitarian aid convoy funded
by donations from Britain.
Our small convoy of trucks and vans brought 15 tons of flour, eight tons
of rice, medical aid and 900 pieces of clothing for the orphans. We knew that
thousands of refugees were camped in terrible conditions in four camps on
the outskirts of town.
There we heard the accounts of families killed in their houses, of wounded
people dragged into the streets and run over by tanks, of a container with
the bodies of 481 civilians inside, of premeditated murder, looting and acts
of savagery and cruelty that beggar belief.
Through the ruins
That is why we decided to go into Fallujah and investigate. When we entered
the town I almost did not recognise the place where I had worked as a doctor
in April 2004, during the first siege.
We found people wandering like ghosts through the ruins. Some were looking
for the bodies of relatives. Others were trying to recover some of their possessions
from destroyed homes.
Here and there, small knots of people were queuing for fuel or food. In
one queue some of the survivors were fighting over a blanket.
I remember being approached by an elderly woman, her eyes raw with tears.
She grabbed my arm and told me how her house had been hit by a US bomb during
an air raid. The ceiling collapsed on her 19 year old son, cutting off both
his legs.
She could not get help. She could not go into the streets because the Americans
had posted snipers on the roofs and were killing anyone who ventured out,
even at night.
She tried her best to stop the bleeding, but it was to no avail. She stayed
with him, her only son, until he died. He took four hours to die.
Fallujah’s main hospital was seized by the US troops in the first days of
the siege. The only other clinic, the Hey Nazzal, was hit twice by US missiles.
Its medicines and medical equipment were all destroyed.
There were no ambulances—the two ambulances that came to help the wounded
were shot up and destroyed by US troops.
We visited houses in the Jolan district, a poor working class area in the
north western part of the city that had been the centre of resistance during
the April siege.
This quarter seemed to have been singled out for punishment during the second
siege. We moved from house to house, discovering families dead in their beds,
or cut down in living rooms or in the kitchen. House after house had furniture
smashed and possessions scattered.
In some places we found bodies of fighters, dressed in black and with ammunition
belts. But in most of the houses, the bodies were of civilians. Many were
dressed in housecoats, many of the women were not veiled—meaning there were
no men other than family members in the house. There were no weapons, no spent
cartridges.
It became clear to us that we were witnessing the aftermath of a massacre,
the cold-blooded butchery of helpless and defenceless civilians.
Nobody knows how many died. The occupation forces are now bulldozing the
neighbourhoods to cover up their crime. What happened in Fallujah was an act
of barbarity. The whole world must be told the truth.
Copyright Socialist Worker. You may republish if you include an active link
to the original.
http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php4?article_id=5891
Eyewitness in Fallujah
February 19, 2005
Dr Salam Ismael, now 28 years old, was head of junior doctors in Baghdad
before the invasion of Iraq. He was in Fallujah in April 2004 where he treated
casualties of the assault on the city.
At the end of 2004 he came to Britain to collect funds for an aid convoy
to Fallujah. Now the British government does not want Dr Salam Ismael’s testimony
to be heard.
He was due to come here last week to speak at trade union and anti-war meetings.
But he was refused entry. The reason given was that he received expenses,
covering the basic costs of his trip, when he came to Britain last year and
this constitutes “illegal working”.
Dr Salam Ismael merely wishes to speak the truth. Yet it seems the freedom
that Bush and Blair claim to champion in Iraq does not extend to allowing
its citizens to travel freely.
Legal challenges, supported by the Stop the War Coalition, were launched
this week in an effort to allow Dr Salam Ismael to come to Britain.
Copyright Socialist Worker. You may republish if you include an active link
to the original
http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php4?article_id=5892
MAMMA's Footnote:
On Tuesday, June 15, 2004, Congressman Christopher Shays (R-CT), Chairman
of the Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats, and International
Relations convened an oversight hearing in room 2247 of the Rayburn House
Office Building in Washington, D.C.
Entitled, "Iraq: Winning Hearts and Minds", this hearing was part of an
attempt by the United States and its Coalition partners to "win the hearts
and minds of the people in Iraq while providing military security and support
to economic and political reform programs." (see http://reform.house.gov/GovReform/News/DocumentPrint.aspx?DocumentID=4242
). Heralded as an effort to build on the February 10, 2004, subcommittee hearing
entitled, "Public Diplomacy in the Middle East" (to examine regional efforts
to convey U.S. policies and values to diverse audiences), this hearing was
to focus on the past year's faulty assumptions and some policy decisions that
had proven controversial and had created more doubt than confidence in U.S.
intentions. Three panels of witnesses were expected to review the questionable
assumptions and policy decisions and be prepared to "describe corrective
actions that might be undertaken to regain the confidence and cooperation
(hearts and minds) of the Iraqi people, improve public diplomacy messages,
and help chart the course for future efforts in Iraq."
During the testimony of Panel III, discussion turned to the (then) recent
outrage that centered on the deaths of four U.S. contractors whose bodies
had been mutilated and hung from a bridge. Some members of the panel, while
uncomfortable with the nature of such a public demonstration, were opined
that prior events, most notably the questionable and violent deaths of 13
Iraqi civilians, made this a matter of retaliation. The most notable dissenter
of that opinion was Mr. Richard Galen, Former Director, Strategic Media, Coalition
Provisional Authority, who promptly labeled the incident as a terrorist attack
that warranted (his words), "...turning Fallujah into a parking lot".
READ MORE ABOUT IT:
Sorrow and fury
as the dead are buried in Fallujah
Socialist Worker - online
February 19, 2005
THE RESPECTED cameraman and producer Michael Burke co-operated with Dr
Salam Ismael to produce powerful material that was due to be shown on Channel
4 News this week. It included film taken of mass burials near Saqlawiya, on
the outskirts of Fallujah.
The bodies that were interred there were collected mainly from the Jolan
district in the city. Socialist Worker’s Simon Assaf saw the unedited footage
and describes its graphic content.
The first truck arrives, it has 77 bodies. One by one the black body bags
containing the remains are unloaded. Each bag is numbered. They are lined
up to match the number painted on bricks that are to serve as tombstones.
The bags are carefully opened and each corpse is checked for some form of
identification. Only five have names. Many of the bodies are swollen and blackened,
their faces and limbs eaten by dogs. They have been dead for some time.
There are murmurs of prayers from the men preparing their last resting place.
Each person is carefully laid to rest in a carved hollow inside a long trench.
Occasionally one of the bodies is recognised and a howl of tears and rage
goes up from the crowd.
After the bodies of some of the fighters are laid to rest, one of the gravediggers
makes a speech to them, praising their sacrifice. “They call you terrorist,”
one man cries. “But you are the sons of Fallujah. The martyrs of Iraq and
god’s loved ones. You have sacrificed yourself for our freedom and for our
country.”
The cry and the chants of “God is great” rise from a small crowd that has
started to gather. All join in pushing the earth to cover the tombs. Another
truck arrives and another trench is prepared. Now the crowd is bigger.
Word has gone round the camp that the Americans have finally allowed the
bodies of fighters to be buried. In the Muslim and Arab tradition the dead
must be washed and buried within a day. These men lay where they fell for
days, sometimes weeks, as the US army declared that those they deemed to be
fighters “should be left to the dogs.”
The bodies of the fighters are buried in the clothes they fell in. Now 22
bodies are unloaded. Each is carefully checked, placed in order then laid
gently into a new trench.
The speeches become more angry. One man shouts, “These are our sons, not
terrorists. Today we are burying our martyrs, yesterday with our hands we
buried whole families. “Yesterday I buried a ten year old girl. Is she the
terrorist that the Americans and Iraqi prime minister Iyad Allawi say were
in Fallujah? Are all the old men, the women, the children, terrorists? If
they are terrorists then we all are terrorists!”
The crowd, now in their thousands, push the earth over the graves.
And then another truck comes. This time there are 33 bodies. But with it
comes further disturbing news. The rescue workers have discovered a street
in the Jolan quarter full of dead civilians. Many of the civilian dead were
buried soon after they were killed. The civilians are buried in graves inside
the city, in their gardens or are carted off to be stored in a container outside
the city.
These newly discovered civilian bodies had been overlooked. “In one street
there are ten houses full of families,” one of the gravediggers explains.
“We found 22 bodies. The houses have also been looted.”
“The Iraqi National Guard are traitors,” someone shouts. “They are worse
than the Americans.” The crowd again begins to shout slogans of defiance,
and pledges to continue the resistance.
Among the final batch of bodies to be buried was that of a young man, barely
in his teens. I recognised him from an image we printed in Socialist Worker.
He was killed weeks after the Americans claimed the resistance had been crushed.
Wrapped around the young man’s hand is a white flag. He was dressed in a
new jeans jacket and his hair was neatly combed. The rescue workers said he
was found in one of Jolan’s many streets. No one knows who he is, and he
does not carry a copy of the Koran with his name in it—the resistance fighters
write their names in their Koran so they can be identified if they are killed.
As the sun begins to set a small cluster of civilians laden with belongings
emerge from Fallujah.
They have been told to leave their houses by the US troops and their Iraqi
allies.
They claim that the US troops were clearing out the houses so they can demolish
their neighbourhood. They join the thousands of others now living in tents
around the shattered city.
Copyright Socialist Worker. You may republish if you include an active link
to the original.
http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php4?article_id=5885
MAMMA's Footnote:
Iraq has a huge new "parking lot", but at what cost?
When a country has the power (and uses it) to make a city, like Fallujah,
into a "parking lot", can such an action be termed anything other than Abuse
of Power?
If you haven't read the article, "Questioning Ethics of
Abu Ghraib Doctors: the tip of the iceberg" by Willow Marie Maze, now would be a good time to read (or review)
it because the question is...Can
the world afford the consequences of leaving such Power Abuse unrecognized, unchallenged and unchecked?
OR BETTER YET....CONTINUE
READING:
Iraqi Elections
by Naomi Klein
Stop the War Coalition
Saturday February 12, 2005
The Guardian
'The Iraqi people gave America the biggest thank you in the best way we
could have hoped for." Reading this election analysis from Betsy Hart, a
columnist for the Scripps Howard News Service, I found myself thinking about
my late grandmother.
Half blind and a menace behind the wheel of her Chevrolet, she adamantly
refused to surrender her car keys. She was convinced that everywhere she drove
(flattening the house pets of Philadelphia along the way), people were waving
and smiling at her. "They are so friendly!" We had to break the bad news.
"They aren't waving with their whole hand, grandma - just with their middle
finger."
So it is with Betsy Hart and the other near-sighted election observers.
They think the Iraqi people have finally sent America those long-awaited
flowers and sweets, when Iraq's voters just gave them the (purple) finger.
Judging by the millions of votes already counted, Iraqis have voted overwhelmingly
to throw out the US-installed Ayad Allawi, who refused to ask the United States
to leave. A decisive majority voted for the United Iraqi Alliance (UIA);
the second plank in the UIA platform called for "a timetable for the withdrawal
of the multinational forces from Iraq".
There are more single-digit messages embedded in the winning coalition's
platform. Some highlights: "Adopting a social security system under which
the state guarantees a job for every fit Iraqi ... and offers facilities to
citizens to build homes"; the alliance also pledges "to write off Iraq's debts,
cancel reparations and use the oil wealth for economic development projects".
In short, Iraqis voted to repudiate the radical free-market policies imposed
by the former chief American envoy Paul Bremer and locked in by a recent
agreement with the International Monetary Fund.
So will the people who got all choked up watching Iraqis flock to the polls
support these democratically chosen demands? Please. "You don't set timetables,"
George Bush said four days after the Iraqis voted for exactly that. Likewise,
Tony Blair called the elections "magnificent" but dismissed a firm timetable
out of hand. The UIA's pledges to expand the public sector, keep the oil and
drop the debt will likely suffer similar fates. At least if Adel Abd al-Mahdi
gets his way - he's Iraq's finance minister and the man suddenly being touted
as the leader of Iraq's next government.
Al-Mahdi is the Bush administration's Trojan horse in the UIA. (You didn't
think they were going to put all their money on Allawi, did you?) In October,
he told a gathering of the American Enterprise Institute that he planned to
"restructure and privatise [Iraq's] state-owned enterprises", and in December
he made another trip to Washington to unveil plans for a new oil law, "very
promising to the American investors". It was al-Mahdi himself who oversaw
the signing of a flurry of deals with Shell, BP and ChevronTexaco in the weeks
before the elections, and it is he who negotiated the recent austerity deal
with the IMF.
On troop withdrawal, al-Mahdi sounds nothing like his party's platform,
and instead appears to be echoing Dick Cheney on Fox News: "When the Americans
go will depend on when our own forces are ready and on how the resistance
responds after the elections." But on Sharia law, we are told, he is very
close to the clerics.
Iraq's elections were delayed time and time again while the occupation and
resistance grew ever more deadly. Now it seems that two years of bloodshed,
bribery and backroom arm-twisting were leading up to this: a deal in which
the ayatollahs get control over the family, Texaco gets the oil, and Washington
gets its enduring military bases (call it the "oil-for-women programme").
Everyone wins except the voters, who risked their lives to cast their ballots
for very different policies.
But never mind that. January 30, we are told, was not about what Iraqis
were voting for; it was about the fact of their voting and, more important,
how their plucky courage made Americans feel about their war. Apparently,
the election's true purpose was to prove to Americans that, as George Bush
put it, "the Iraqi people value their own liberty". Stunningly, this appears
to come as news. The Chicago Sun-Times columnist Mark Brown said the vote
was "the first clear sign that freedom really may mean something to the Iraqi
people". On The Daily Show, CNN's Anderson Cooper described it as "the first
time we've sort of had a gauge of whether or not they're willing to sort of
step forward and do stuff".
This is some tough crowd. The Shia uprising against Saddam in 1991 was clearly
not enough to convince them that Iraqis were willing to "do stuff" to be free.
Neither was the demonstration of 100,000 people held one year ago demanding
immediate elections, nor the spontaneous local elections organised by Iraqis
in the early months of the occupation - both summarily shot down by Bremer.
It turns out that on American television, the entire occupation has been one
long episode of the reality TV show Fear Factor, in which Iraqis overcome
ever more challenging obstacles to demonstrate the depths of their desire
to win their country back. Having their cities levelled, being tortured in
Abu Ghraib, getting shot at checkpoints, having their journalists censored
and their water and electricity cut off - all of it was just a prelude to
the ultimate endurance test: dodging bombs and bullets to get to the polling
station. At last, Americans were persuaded that Iraqis really, really wanted
to be free.
So what's the prize? An end to occupation, as the voters demanded? Don't
be silly, the US government won't submit to any "artificial timetable". Jobs
for everyone, as the UIA promised? You can't vote for socialist nonsense like
that. No, they get Geraldo Rivera's tears ("I felt like such a sap"); Laura
Bush's motherly pride ("It was so moving for the president and me to watch
people come out with purple fingers"); and Betsy Hart's sincere apology for
ever doubting them ("Wow - do I stand corrected").
And that should be enough. Because if it weren't for the invasion, Iraqis
would not even have the freedom to vote for their liberation, and then to
have that vote completely ignored. And that's the real prize: the freedom
to be occupied. Wow - do I stand corrected.
http://www.stopwar.org.uk/new/news/NaomiKlein.htm
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this
material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior
interest in receiving the included information for research and educational
purposes.)
****************************************************************************************
Subject: US Census 2000 data causes heightened fright:
451,000 GulfWar1 soldiers disabled
Peter Glaser
Elmegade 11
Aarhus N 8200
Denmark
tel/fax: (0045) 86108502
http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/01statab/defense.pdf
Forboding Future for Persian Gulf war veterans.
A quick look at US Census 2000 statistics for Disabled
Veterans would put the estimated number of US military men and women
disabled
from the first Persian Gulf war at circa 451,000 (40,000
new cases per year + 20% average increase over three year period)
by end of fiscal year 2003.
GWVIS figures for August 2003 (which have always excluded,
and continue to omit the 150,000 activated National Guard women
and men who served in the Gulf) reveal that death rates hold steady
at about 4 per day, or 114 per month.
Compensation and Pension Statistics
August 2003
Category Conflict
Theater Deployed
Service Members 696,841
432,462 1,129,303
Estimated Living Veterans 585,359
299,213 884,572
Claims Filed 218,328
88,533 306,861
Claims Processed 197,957
79,539 277,496
Claims Granted 172,066
72,950 245,016
Claims Denied 25,891
6,589 32,480
Claims Pending 20,371
8,994 29,365
Gulf War Service Member Statistics
August 2003
Category Conflict
Theater Deployed
Service Members 696,841
432,462 1,129,303
Service Member
Separations 594,549
301,958 896,507
Active Duty
Separations 479,745
296,594 776,339
Activated Reservist
Separations 114,804
5,364 120,168
Veteran Deaths 2 9,190
2,745 11,935
Estimated Living
Veterans 585,359
299,213 884,572