America does not pour!

Israel took out a Syrian position in September, claiming nuclear capacity — the facts are wobbly and the North Koreans are implicated, all of this causing Uncle Dick to salivate like a pound puppy at the dinner bell. The Syrians and Koreans are ‘evil’ of course, so we’re good on that; nobody gets to have nukes but us.

A ship contracted by the DoD fired warning shots on Iranian boats, causing oil prices to rise yet again; will our society, suburbanized and isolated from their workplace, be able to afford the commute if this keeps up? But we’re good on that – keep those petrodollars flowing, Amurika.

The Dub gave St. David the Petraeus a promotion, swapping him into the chair that Fallon previously occupied on Centcom — and Dubby’s good on that; like salting his Supreme’s, now his flawed military policies can outlive him [and that Dave is a Dubby-charmer.]

The topic of torture keeps bubbling up, with new information coming out of the Congressional investigation; the FBI warned against it — Helen Thomas screamed about it in an 11 minute White House press conference, abruptly cut short — John Ashcroft had a tizzy over it [very entertaining, by the way … you’ll find all that below.] The administration’s good on that – water boarding isn’t torture, doncha know [ummmm — don’t mention this to the Japanese.]

As weekend reads, I’ve included a honkin’ big collection on our warriors: over 300,000 of them mentally compromised, physically wounded — and some of the articles will choke you up, for sure. It’s taking this generation to [yet again] pound the mythical “romance of war” concept into the mud and prove it the Hell it is; Dubby, ever the romantic, wishes he could be out there in his ten-gallon, spurs jinglin’ and shootin’ irons drawn, but the American public met this delusional gaffe with disgust. Over 63% of us are NOT good on that, giving Himself the highest disapproval rate of any American war — Vietnam only hit 61%

The first bits, from Froomkin, Hullabaloo and Kos give us the conversations about Dave, Helen and Big John “When the Eagle Flies” Ashcroft [and explains the “pour” reference] — after that, bonus reads.

And here’s your Moment Of Hope for the day — Chinese envoys will meet with an aide to the Dalai Lama, easing up on their defiance of international public opinion over Tibet. Doesn’t sound like much in American terms, but it represents a Teutonic Shift in China’s attitude.

Have a good weekend.

Jude

Petraeus Watch
Snipped from Froomkin, WaPo
4/23/08

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates today announced that Gen. David Petraeus, who rose to prominence as the top commander in Iraq during the past year, is his choice to become the next commander of U.S. Central Command.

A team of Washington Post reporters telegraphed this back in September, reporting:

“For two hours, President Bush listened to contrasting visions of the U.S. future in Iraq. Gen. David H. Petraeus dominated the conversation by video link from Baghdad, making the case to keep as many troops as long as possible to cement any security progress. Adm. William J. Fallon, his superior, argued instead for accepting more risks in Iraq, officials said, in order to have enough forces available to confront other potential threats in the region.

“The polite discussion in the White House Situation Room a week ago masked a sharper clash over the U.S. venture in Iraq, one that has been building since Fallon, chief of the U.S. Central Command, which oversees Middle East operations, sent a rear admiral to Baghdad this summer to gather information. Soon afterward, officials said, Fallon began developing plans to redefine the U.S. mission and radically draw down troops.

“One of those plans, according to a Centcom officer, involved slashing U.S. combat forces in Iraq by three-quarters by 2010. In an interview, Fallon disputed that description but declined to offer details. Nonetheless, his efforts offended Petraeus’s team, which saw them as unwelcome intrusion on their own long-term planning. The profoundly different views of the U.S. role in Iraq only exacerbated the schism between the two men.

“‘Bad relations?’ said a senior civilian official with a laugh. ‘That’s the understatement of the century. . . . If you think Armageddon was a riot, that’s one way of looking at it.’”

And it’s been clear for some time now whose side Bush was taking.

As Michael Abramowitz wrote in The Washington Post in April:

“In the waning months of his administration, Bush has hitched his fortunes to those of his bookish four-star general, bypassing several levels of the military chain of command to give Petraeus a privileged voice in White House deliberations over Iraq, according to current and former administration officials and retired officers. In so doing, Bush’s working relationship with his field commander has taken on an intensity that is rare in the history of the nation’s wartime presidents.”

Fallon was forced out in March. And now Petraeus gets his job… ++

The FBI’s Concerns
Snipped from Froomkin, WaPo
4/24/08

Lara Jakes Jordan writes for the Associated Press:

“FBI Director Robert Mueller on Wednesday recalled warning the Justice Department and the Pentagon that some U.S. interrogation methods used against terrorists might be inappropriate, if not illegal.

“Mueller’s comments came under pointed questioning by House Democrats demanding to know if the FBI tried to stop interrogations in 2002 that critics define as torture.

“Mueller said the FBI does not use coercive techniques when questioning suspects or witnesses, and he reportedly pulled his agents out of CIA or military interrogations several years ago to protect them from legal consequences.

“FBI protocol ‘wouldn’t engage in torture,’ said Rep. Stephen Cohen, D-Tenn. ‘But if you find out that other agencies may engage in torture, that you believe is illegal — does your protocol include informing those agencies that you believe their actions are illegal?’

“‘Yes,’ Mueller answered.

“‘Who did you inform?’ Cohen asked.

“‘At points in time, we have reached out to DoD, DoJ, in terms of activity that we were concerned might not be appropriate, let me put it that way,’ Mueller said. DoD refers to the Department of Defense and DoJ to the Department of Justice.

“Mueller said some of the FBI’s concerns dated back to 2002, when top al-Qaida detainees were waterboarded by CIA interrogators. Waterboarding involves strapping a person down and pouring water over his or her cloth-covered face to create the sensation of drowning. Critics call it a form of torture.

“Asked how the Justice Department and Pentagon responded to the FBI’s advice, Mueller declined to discuss it publicly, citing concerns about releasing classified information.”

‘Where is everybody? For God’s sakes.’

The White House press corps had been remarkably quiet about the new disclosures of White House involvement in the nitty-gritty of interrogation policy. Until the redoubtable Hearst columnist Helen Thomas let loose at yesterday’s press briefing.

Thomas: “The President has said publicly several times, in two consecutive news conferences a few months ago, and you have said over and over again, we do not torture. Now he has admitted that he did sign off on torture, he did know about it. So how do you reconcile this credibility gap?”

Of course, the White House doesn’t use the word torture to define what Bush approved. So spokeswoman Dana Perino replied:

“Helen, you’re taking liberties with the what the President said. The United States has not, is not torturing any detainees in the global war on terror.”

They went back and forth for a while:

Thomas: “Are you saying that we did not [torture]?”

Perino: “I am saying we did not, yes.”

Thomas: “How can you when you have photographs and everything else? I mean, how can you say that when he admits that he knew about it?”

Perino: “Helen, I think that you’re — again, I think you’re conflating some issues and you’re misconstruing what the President said.”

Thomas: “I’m asking for the credibility of this country, not just this administration.”

Perino: “And what I’m telling you is we have — torture has not occurred.”

When Perino then moved on — calling on a reporter who raised a different issue entirely — Thomas responded with an audible expression of disgust at her fellow journalists:

“Where is everybody?” she said. “For God’s sakes.” ++

The First Salvo In The Next Nuremberg
dday, Hullabaloo

A Daily Kos diarist and several other citizens were able to question John Ashcroft last night on the subject of torture. His denials were outright revealing and show the nervousness these people feel.

TOM: This story was made public by ABC a few weeks ago. It claims that you, Rice, Tenet and others met in the White House to discuss different methods of “enhanced interrogation,” is that correct?

ASHCROFT: (angrily) Correct? Is what correct? Is it correct that this story ran on ABC? I don’t know that. I don’t know anything about it! Is it a real story? When was this story, huh? Huh?

TOM: Um, early April, April 9th, I think…

ASHCROFT: (interrupting) You think? You think? You don’t even know! Next question!

TOM: The article says that you discussed “whether they would be slapped, pushed, deprived of sleep or subjected to simulated drowning”…

ASHCROFT: I said, next question!

So when confronted with the fact, Ashcroft deliberately misinterprets the question, asks an irrelevant technicality, (which the kid answered correctly, it was April 9), and uses the technicality to wiggle out of the question. Here the lack of follow-up on the ABC story is crucial, as Ashcroft is able to sow confusion about the story itself because it just hasn’t been widely reported.

Next:

Another student asked if Ashcroft’s position on torture violated the Geneva Conventions or other international laws:

ASHCROFT: No. No it doesn’t violate the Geneva Conventions. As for other laws, well, the U.S. is a party to the United Nations Convention against Torture. And that convention, well, when we join a treaty like that we send it to the Senate to be ratified, and when the Senate ratifies they often add qualifiers, reservations, to the treaty which affect what exactly we follow. Now, I don’t have a copy of the convention in front of me…

ME: (holding up my copy) I do! (boisterous applause and whistling from the audience) Would you like to borrow it?

ASHCROFT: (after a pause) Uh, you keep a hold of it. Now, as I was saying, I don’t have it with me but I’m pretty sure it defines torture as something that leaves lasting scars or physical damage…

A STUDENT FROM THE AUDIENCE: Liar! You liar! (the student is shushed by the audience)

ASHCROFT: So no, waterboarding does not violate international law.

Well, that’s just not true. The UN human rights chief has said waterboarding should be prosecuted as torture. The definition of the UN Convention Against Torture is right here.

“severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession….”

And members of the UN Committee Against Torture have agreed that waterboarding falls under it.

Now, watch the sleight-of-hand here, remembering that Ashcroft brought up the UN Convention Against Torture in the first place.

ME: First off, Mr. Ashcroft, I’d like to apologize for the rudeness of some of my fellow students. It was uncalled for–we can disagree civilly, we don’t need that. (round of applause from the audience, and Ashcroft smiles) I have here in my hand two documents. One of them, you know, is the text of the United Nations Convention against Torture, which, point of interest, says nothing about “lasting physical damage”…

ASHCROFT: (interrupting) Do you have the Senate reservations to it?

ME: No, I don’t. Do you happen to know what they are?

ASHCROFT: (angrily) I don’t have them memorized, no. I don’t have time to go around memorizing random legal facts. I just don’t want these people in the audience to go away saying, “He was wrong, she had the proof right in her hand!” Because that’s not true. It’s a lie. If you don’t have the reservations, you don’t have anything. Now, if you want to bring them another time, we can talk, but…

Well, actually, he WAS wrong, because he tried to claim that the UN Convention was strictly defined as physical harm. That being wrong, he retreated to the idea of reservations and qualifiers. I have those reservations right here (scroll down for “United States”), and here’s the key line:

(1) (a) That with reference to article 1, the United States understands that, in order to constitute torture, an act must be specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering and that mental pain or suffering refers to prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from (1) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering; (2) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality; (3) the threat of imminent death; or (4) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality.

Waterboarding simulates drowning (actually, to be more precise, per the comments, it’s CONTROLLED drowning). That would fall under the intentional inflicting of suffering and the threat of imminent death.

So, you know, Ashcroft was wrong again.

Now watch Ashcroft try to muddy a clear precedent.

ME: Actually, Mr. Ashcroft, my question was about this other document. (laughter and applause) This other document is a section from the judgment of the Tokyo War Tribunal. After WWII, the Tokyo Tribunal was basically the Nuremberg Trials for Japan. Many Japanese leaders were put on trial for war crimes and crimes against humanity, including torture. And among the tortures listed was the “water treatment,” which we nowadays call waterboarding…

ASHCROFT: (interrupting) This is a speech, not a question. I don’t mind, but it’s not a question.

ME: It will be, sir, just give me a moment. The judgment describes this water treatment, and I quote, “the victim was bound or otherwise secured in a prone position; and water was forced through his mouth and nostrils into his lungs and stomach.” One man, Yukio Asano, was sentenced to fifteen years hard labor by the allies for waterboarding American troops to obtain information. Since Yukio Asano was trying to get information to help defend his country–exactly what you, Mr. Ashcroft, say is acceptible for Americans to do–do you believe that his sentence was unjust? (boisterous applause and shouts of “Good question!”)

ASHCROFT: (angrily) Now, listen here. You’re comparing apples and oranges, apples and oranges. We don’t do anything like what you described.

ME: I’m sorry, I was under the impression that we still use the method of putting a cloth over someone’s face and pouring water down their throat…

ASHCROFT: (interrupting, red-faced, shouting) Pouring! Pouring! Did you hear what she said? “Putting a cloth over someone’s face and pouring water on them.” That’s not what you said before! Read that again, what you said before!

ME: Sir, other reports of the time say…

ASHCROFT: (shouting) Read what you said before! (cries of “Answer her fucking question!” from the audience) Read it!

ME: (firmly) Mr. Ashcroft, please answer the question.

ASHCROFT: (shouting) Read it back!

ME: “The victim was bound or otherwise secured in a prone position; and water was forced through his mouth and nostrils into his lungs and stomach.”

ASHCROFT: (shouting) You hear that? You hear it? “Forced!” If you can’t tell the difference between forcing and pouring…does this college have an anatomy class? If you can’t tell the difference between forcing and pouring…

ME: (firmly and loudly) Mr. Ashcroft, do you believe that Yukio Asano’s sentence was unjust? Answer the question. (pause)

ASHCROFT: (more restrained) It’s not a fair question; there’s no comparison. Next question! (loud chorus of boos from the audience)

Well, if Ashcroft thinks he can bully an international criminal court the way he tried to bully a few college students last night, he’s going to come off looking just as foolish. Because Ashcroft had the foresight to say “History will not judge us kindly” during the Principals meetings on torture, some have made the effort to rehabilitate him to a degree. I think we can end that now. He’s guilty and he knows it, that’s why his arguments were so very shallow. A court of law would convict in a matter of minutes. ++

John Ashcroft Yelled at Me Tonight. No Joke.
(K.O.’S “WORSE PERSON IN THE WORLD”!)
Elsinora, Daily Kos
Tue Apr 22, 2008

[open link for article and photos]

UPDATE: Wow, guys, you really got the story out–it’s all over the web! And special thanks to Keith Olbermann for citing this story on “Worst Person in the World” tonight. I think we can all agree that Ashcroft’s “Honor” was well deserved. You can see the “Worst Person in the World” segment here… ++

Bonus Reads

Mental health injuries scar 300,000 U.S. troops
Only half of vets have sought help for depression, post-traumatic stress
Thurs., April. 17, 2008

WASHINGTON - Some 300,000 U.S. troops are suffering from major depression or post-traumatic stress from serving in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and 320,000 received brain injuries, a new study estimates.

Only about half have sought treatment, said the study released Thursday by the RAND Corporation.

“There is a major health crisis facing those men and women who have served our nation in Iraq and Afghanistan,” said Terri Tanielian, the project’s co-leader and a researcher at the nonprofit RAND.

“Unless they receive appropriate and effective care for these mental health conditions, there will be long-term consequences for them and for the nation,” she said in an interview with The Associated Press.

The 500-page study is the first large-scale, private assessment of its kind — including a survey of 1,965 service members across the country, from all branches of the armed forces and including those still in the military as well veterans who have left the services.

Its results appear consistent with a number of mental health reports from within the government, though the Defense Department has not released the number of people it has diagnosed or who are being treated for mental problems. The Department of Veterans Affairs said this month that its records show about 120,000 who served in the two wars and are no longer in the military have been diagnosed with mental health problems. Of the 120,000, approximately 60,000 are suffering from PTSD, the VA said.

Veterans Affairs is responsible for care of service members after they have left the service, while the Defense Department covers active-duty and reservist needs. The lack of information from the Pentagon was one motivation for the RAND study, Tanielian said.

Problems affect more than 18 percent of troops

The most prominent and detailed military study on mental health that is released is the Army’s survey of soldiers at the warfront. Officials said last month that its most recent one, done last fall, found 18.2 percent of soldiers suffered a mental health problem such as depression, anxiety or acute stress in 2007 compared with 20.5 percent the previous year.

The Rand study, completed in January, put the percentage of PTSD and depression at 18.5 percent, calculating that approximately 300,000 current and former service members were suffering from those problems at the time of its survey, which was completed in January.

The figure is based on Pentagon data showing over 1.6 million military personnel have deployed to the conflicts since the war in Afghanistan began in late 2001.

RAND researchers also found:

About 19 percent — or some 320,000 services members — reported that they experienced a possible traumatic brain injury while deployed. In wars where blasts from roadside bombs are prevalent, the injuries can range from mild concussions to severe head wounds.

About 7 percent reported both a probable brain injury and current PTSD or major depression.

Only 43 percent reported ever being evaluated by a physician for their head injuries.

Only 53 percent of service members with PTSD or depression sought help over the past year.

They gave various reasons for not getting help, including that they worried about the side effects of medication; believe family and friends could help them with the problem; or that they feared seeking care might damage their careers.

Rates of PTSD and major depression were highest among women and reservists.

The report is titled “Invisible Wounds of War: Psychological and Cognitive Injuries, Their Consequences, and Services to Assist Recovery.” It was sponsored by a grant from the California Community Foundation and done by 25 researchers from RAND Health and the RAND National Security Research Division, which does work under contracts with the Pentagon and other defense agencies as well as allied foreign governments and foundations.

Soldiers’ symptoms

Symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), a condition that some people have after experiencing a disturbing event, can include:

— Reliving the event over and over. Flashbacks can be triggered by loud noises, seeing a traffic accident, even watching a news report.
— Avoiding situations that remind you of the event.
— Feeling numb and loss of interest in relationships and activities.
— Feeling on edge, getting angry easily, having a hard time sleeping and overreacting when startled.

Traumatic brain injury can cause problems long after a blow or shock to the head actually happens. Symptoms can include:

— Constant headaches
— Confusion
— Light headedness or dizziness
— Changes in mood or behavior
— Trouble remembering or concentrating
— Repeated nausea or vomiting
— Problems with seeing or hearing.

Source: RAND ++

VA Confirms 18 Vets Commit Suicide Everyday
Jason Leopold, OpEdNews
April 21, 2008

In a stunning admission, top officials at the Veterans Health Administration confirmed that the agency’s own statistics show that an average of 126 veterans per week —6,552 veterans per year—commit suicide, according to an internal email distributed to several VA officials.

Brig. Gen. Michael J. Kussman, the undersecretary for health at the VA, sent the email, dated Dec. 15, 2007. Kussman had inquired about the accuracy of a news report published that month claiming the suicide rate among veterans was 18 per day.

“McClatchy [Newspapers] alleges that 18 veterans kill themselves everyday and this is confirmed by the VA’s own statistics,” Kussman wrote. “Is that true? Sounds awful but if one is considering 24 million veterans.”

In an email response to Kussman, Ira Katz, the head of mental health at the VA, confirmed the statistics and added “VA’s own data demonstrate 4-5 suicides per day among those who receive care from us.”

This week, in a federal courthouse in San Francisco, that email will be cited as evidence that the VA has failed to properly treat veterans who suffer from PTSD and veterans who are suicidal. Those allegations were made in a class-action lawsuit filed against the VA by two veterans advocacy groups, Veterans for Common Sense and Veterans United for Truth, alleging a systematic breakdown at the VA has led to an epidemic of suicides.

The organizations claim the VA, which has a backlog of 600,000 benefits claims to sort through, is unprepared to deal with cases of posttraumatic stress disorder among veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, and has turned away veterans who have sought help for depression at VA hospitals. Some of those veterans later committed suicide, according to the lawsuit.

The groups want a federal judge to issue a preliminary injunction to force the VA to immediately treat veterans who show signs of PTSD and are at risk of suicide.

PTSD is a psychiatric disorder that can develop in a person who witnesses, or is confronted with, a traumatic event. PTSD is said to be the most prevalent mental disorder arising from combat.

According to a copy of the lawsuit filed in July 2007, “more than any previous war, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are likely to produce a high percentage of troops suffering from PTSD,” due to the widespread use of improvised explosive devises, multiple rotations, the ambiguity of fighting combatants dressed as civilians, and the use of National Guard members and Reservists.

Those claims are now supported by a comprehensive study released by the RAND Corporation last week stating that about 300,000 U.S. troops sent to combat in Iraq and Afghanistan are suffering from major depression or PTSD, and 320,000 received traumatic brain injuries.

Early Warnings Ignored

Prior to the U.S. Invasion of Iraq in March 2003, the VA issued a report to Pentagon and White House officials saying that it expected that the number of U.S. troops who would suffer from PTSD would reach a maximum of about 8,000.

But Paul Sullivan, the executive director of Veterans for Common Sense, told lawmakers those estimates were extremely low. He continued to sound early warning alarms about the extent of PTSD cases and the likelihood of veteran suicides during numerous appearances before Congress over the years.

“The scope of PTSD in the long term is enormous and must be taken seriously. When all of our 1.6 million service members eventually return home from Iraq and Afghanistan, based on the current rate of 20 percent, VA may face up 320,000 total new veterans diagnosed with PTSD,” Sullivan told a Congressional committee in July 2007. If America fails to act now and overhaul the broken DoD and VA disability systems, there may a social catastrophe among many of our returning Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans. That is why VCS reluctantly filed suit against VA in Federal Court…Time is running out.”

Sullivan has urged Congress to enact legislation to overhaul the VA.

“Congress should legislate a presumption of service connection for veterans diagnosed [with] PTSD who deployed to a war zone after 9/11,” Sullivan told lawmakers last year. “A presumption makes it easier for dedicated and hard-working VA employees to process veterans’ claims. This results in faster medical treatment and benefits for our veterans.”

Yet despite Sullivan’s dire predictions and calls for legislative action the issue has not been given priority treatment by lawmakers. Instead, Congress continued to fund the war in Iraq to the tune of about $200 billion and will likely pour another $108 billion into Iraq later next month. Meanwhile, a backlog of veterans’ benefits claims continue to pile up at the VA.

The VA said it has hired more than 3,000 mental healthcare professionals over the past two years to deal with the increasing number of PTSD cases, but the problems persist.

VA Says Vets Not ‘Entitled’ to Healthcare

The lawsuit alleges that numerous VA practices stemming from a 1998 law violate the constitutional and statutory rights of veterans suffering from PTSD by denying veterans mandated medical care.

“Seeking help from the Department of Veterans’ Affairs… involves a two-track system,” says a copy of the plaintiff’s trial brief filed in federal court last week.

“A veteran will go to the Veterans’ Health Administration for diagnosis and medical care; and a veteran goes to the Veterans’ Benefits Administration to apply for service-connection and disability compensation..

“VA is failing these veterans as they move along both of these parallel tracks. They are not receiving the healthcare to which they are entitled (and where they do receive it, it is unreasonably delayed) and they are not able to get timely compensation for their disabilities, which means that they have no safety net. These two problems combine to create a perfect storm for PTSD veterans: they receive no treatment, so their symptoms get worse; and they receive no compensation, so they cannot go elsewhere for treatment. The failings of these two separate but interrelated systems are what this action seeks to address.”

Justice Department attorneys had argued in court papers filed last month that Iraq and Afghanistan veterans were not “entitled” to the five-years of free healthcare upon their return from combat as mandated by Congress in the “Dignity for Wounded Warriors Act.” Rather, the VA argued, medical treatment for the war veterans was discretionary based on the level of funding available in the VA’s budget.

But during a court hearing hearing last month before U.S. District Court Judge Samuel Conti, Dr. Gerald Cross, the Principal Deputy Under Secretary for Health, Veterans Health Administration, said that veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan were not only entitled to free healthcare, but he said “there is no co-pay.”

Additionally, Cross testified that of the 300,000 veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars treated at VA hospitals, more than half were diagnosed with a serious mental condition, 68,000 of which were cases of PTSD.

His testimony marked the first time a Bush administration official has provided detailed information about the psychological impact of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars on combat veterans. Cross testified that five years after the invasion of Iraq, the VA has still not completed a study on the link between suicides and PTSD among combat veterans. However, he said such a study is currently in the works and may be published soon.

Gordon Erspamer, an attorney representing the veterans groups, said in an interview that the VA has said publicly it is doing everything it can for veterans, but the Bush administration’s true position is “veterans are not entitled to healthcare if that is what we decide.”

“The agency is very hostile to most of these guys on mental health issues,” Erspamer said. “A lot of them who work at the VA are veterans themselves and it’s the suck it up mentality. It’s a total failure of leadership and management. They were totally unprepared for this many casualties and totally unprepared for PTSD.”

Soldier’s Suicide Warnings Ignored

Chris Scheuerman, a retired Special Forces masters sergeant, testified before a Congressional committee last month that there is an urgent need for mental health reform in the military.

Scheuerman said his son, Pfc. Jason Scheuerman, went to see an Army psychologist because he had been suicidal.

The Army psychologist wrote up a report saying Jason Scheuerman “was capable of (faking) mental illness in order to manipulate his command,” according to documents the soldiers father turned over to Congress.

“Jason desperately needed a second opinion after his encounter with the Army psychologist,” Chris Scheuerman testified in mid-March before the Armed Services Committee’s Military Personnel Subcommittee.

“The Army did offer him that option, but at his own expense. How is a PFC (private first class) in the middle of Iraq supposed to get to a civilian mental health care provider at his own expense?” he said. “I believe a soldier should be afforded the opportunity to a second opinion via teleconference with a civilian mental health care provider of their own choice.”

Jason Scheuerman shot himself with a rifle on July 30, 2005. The 20-year-old’s suicide note was nailed to the close in his barracks. It said, “Maybe now I can get some peace.”

Dr. Arthur Blank, a renowned expert on PTSD who has worked closely with the VA, testified during the federal court hearing in San Francisco last month that multiple deployments are largely responsible for an increase in veterans suicides.

“I think it’s because of multiple deployments, which means one is exposed to trauma over and over again,” Blank testified. ++

The Things That Carried Him
Four thousand American soldiers have died in Iraq. This is the true story of how one of them came home.
Chris Jones, Esquire
Thursday 17 April 2008

Soldiers of the ‘War on Terror’ Speak Out
If all of America were to hear these voices, the occupation of Iraq would already be over.
Cynthia Orange and Michael Orange, AlterNet
April 18, 2008

Sending a Son off to War: a Mother’s Anguish
“How will I survive the wait and the not-knowing, and will I survive at all if my worst fears are realized?”
Penny Coleman, AlterNet
April 21, 2008

“So keep fightin’ for freedom and justice, beloveds, but don’t you forget to have fun doin’ it. Lord, let your laughter ring forth. Be outrageous, ridicule the fraidy-cats, rejoice in all the oddities that freedom can produce. And when you get through kickin’ ass and celebratin’ the sheer joy of a good fight, be sure to tell those who come after how much fun it was.”
~ Molly Ivins, 1944 - 2007

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.

Add comment April 25th, 2008