|
Wednesday,
March 21, 2012. Chaos and violence continue, Nouri believes if
everything comes to a standstill in Baghdad then the Arab Summit can be
a 'success,' Senator Patty Murray demands answers on Madigan Army
Medical Center reversing 40% of PTSD diagnoses, the Congress hears from
veterans groups, and more.
"Another
concern I wanted to mention today and one I'm sure everyone in this
room is concerned about is mental health," declared Senator Patty
Murray this morning. "For service members who served in Iraq and
Afghanistan, the VA has now projected an increased demand of over 200%
for mental health care by Fiscal Year 2020. We have got to take a hard
look at whether the department's proposed 5% budget increase is enough
to meet the projected demand for mental health care. Not every veteran
will be effected by the invisible wounds of war but when a veteran has
the courage to stand up and ask for help the VA has to meet that need
every single time. They have to be there not only with timely access
to care but the right type of care. Challenges like PTSD or depression
are natural responses to some of the most stressful events a person can
experience and we must do everything we can to ensure those effected by
these illnesses can get help, get better and get back to their lives."
Chair
Patty Murray: Let me just say as I continue to sit down with veterans
across my home state, I hear many of the same things that those of you
who will testify hear from your members: veterans who are concerned
that they can't get access to health care including mental health care
when they need it, continue to wait for months on a decision claims and
are unaware of the services that are available to them. Veterans tell
me about the obstacles to employment that they continue to face and
many tell me that they are afraid to write the word "veteran" on their
resume. Last year's passage of our VOW To Hire Heroes Act
was a great first step in tackling the high rate of unemployment among
our veterans but there is a lot of work left to be done.
That's
from Senate Committee Chair Murray's opening statements. House
Committee Chair Jeff Miller had his statement entered into the record
and briefly noted the following.
Chair
Jeff Miller: The one thing I do want to draw attention to is that
sequestration does in fact still loom over the VA. I, too, have asked
not only the Secretary [of VA Eric Shinseki] but also the President as
well. I have yet to receive a response and so because of that I
have filed a piece of legislation that's very simple. It's a
page-and-a-half and it codifies one of the areas that is concurrent
law, one of the conflicting statues that says veterans programs --
especially health programs -- are, in fact, not going to be subject to
sequestration. So I look forward to one of two things, either that
bill passing and becoming law or secondly getting an answer from the
administration as to whether or not we are going to be impacted by that.
Chair
Murray had noted that in her statement, that she's repeatedly asked for
an answer on this issue. Sequestration will most likely kick in due to
budget issues. If it does, it will be automatic. (Automatic cuts to
federal programs to lower the budget for the Fiscal Year 2013.) Is VA
effected or not? This is a question that's been asked and asked again,
over and over. Murray even asked Secretary Shinseki in a February 29th
hearing (see the March 1st snapshot):
Chair
Patty Murray: [. . .] let me begin the questions by getting this one
off the table. It's on the issue of sequestration and cuts to
spending. Like I said in my opening remarks I believe that all VA
programs including medical care are exempt from cuts but there is some
ambiguity between the budget act and the existing law. And when I asked
the acting OMB director to adress this issue in a budget hearing two
weeks ago, he said OMB had yet to make a final determination. So I am
concerned that by not settling this issue now, we are failing to
provide our veterans with the clarity they really deserve to have. And
so while you're here, I wanted to ask you: Do you believe that all VA
programs -- including medical care -- are exempt from any future cuts?
Secretary
Eric Shinseki: I think, Madame Chairman, the answer that the OMB
director provided you was the same one that I understand. They are
still addressing the issue. For my purposes, I would tell you I'm not
planning on sequestration. I'mI addressing my requirements and
presenting my budget as you would expect me to do. I think
sequestration in part or in whole is not necessarily good policy. And
I think the President would argue the best approach here is a balanced
deficit reduction and that the budget he has presented does that and I
would ask that the Congress look at that budget and favorably consider
it.
Chair
Patty Murray: I think we all hope that is the outcome but we want to
provide clarity to our veterans. They are very concerned about this
issue.
That was 21 days
ago. Murray, Miller, Filner and Burr (among others) had been asking
repeatedly for an answer prior to the above exchange. However, when
the Secretary is asked in an open session, with press present, and he
doesn't know the answer, you think he would get on the ball to find
out. It's very basic, or should be, for Eric Shinseki: Would
sequestration effect my department or not?
It's
very basic and you would assume it would be one he would want
immediately answered since the budget is being hammered out.
There's
no excuse for this non-response and, as Miller points out, he's asked
for an answer from President Barack Obama as well and received
nothing. So the point is, it's gone above Shinseki's head and if the
administration had wanted the Congress (and the American people) to
have an answer, the White House would have already provided one.
There's no excuse for this. It is a concern to many veterans -- of
more than just the current wars -- as to whether or not their benefits
or the health care or an education program might be cut. While
supposedly wanting to "honor" veterans of the Iraq War on Monday,
Barack refused to do so by answering this very basic question: If
sequestration kicks in, will the VA budget be targeted with automatic
cuts?
In her opening remarks, one of the topics Dawn Halfaker noted was the Caregiver-Assistance program, the Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act of 2010.
This allows caregivers access to support services, mental health
services, eduaction sessions and counseling among other things.
Although passed and signed into law, the VA, for some reason, decided,
"We know what the law says, but let's instead do what we want to."
Dropping back to the July 12, 2011 snapshot:
As Ranking Member Michael Michaud explained, the hearing was a follow up to the March 11th hearing by the Subcommittee. On the Senate side, the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee March 2nd hearing (covered in that day's snapshot and Kat covered it in "Burr promises VA 'one hell of a fight'" and Ava covered it at Trina's site with "The VA still can't get it together").
What both Senate and House Committees learned in the two March hearings
was that they had passed legislation that was very different from what
the VA was implementing. Senator Patty Murray, Chair of the Senate
Veterans Affairs Committee, noted, "VA's plan on the caregivers issue
was overdue and once submitted it hardly resembled the bill that
unanimously cleared this Congress. Three weeks ago, my Committee staff
requested information on how that plan was developed and to date no
information has been provided. Rather than following the law, the
administration set forth some overly stringent rules, bureaucratic
hurdles, that would essentially deny help to caregivers."
Schulz
explained she was now rated by the VA for providing 40 hours a week of
caregiving. She probably does a great deal more than that but it's not
recognized. She did want it understood that when a wounded veteran
returns, there's nothing so simple as 40 hours a week of care. She
reviewed how, in her case, a great deal of time was taken with
reorienting and dealing with confusing on the part of her son as to
where he was and what was going on. There were sleep and other issues
that had to be addressed including bathroom issues and the first weeks
contained a great deal of work on reorientation. It's an important
point but it's sad that she had to underscore it. A veteran with no
apparent disabilities or challenges will need time to reorient
themselves and they may require help on that. That a wounded veteran
would need it should have been obvious to the VA with no caregiver
having to point it out.
"I couldn't
understand that," Debbie Schulz told the Subcommittee of disparities
for caregivers and gave an example of "another caregiver" in Texas who
cares for her son suffering from TBI with a spinal cord injury and
unable to transfer himself out of his wheel chair is judged of doing
only 25 hours of care a week. "How can that be right?" Schulz wondered.
Schulz
is Debbie Schulz, the mother of Iraq War veteran Steven K. Schulz who
was severly injured in a Falluja attack on April 19, 2005. Halfaker
called for the Committees to again review VA's performance to ensure
that they are indeed following the law that the Congress passed (the
law that they refused to follow until the House and Senate Veterans
Affairs Committee hauled them in for hearings in 2011). We'll note this
exchange from today's hearing.
Chair
Jeff Miller: Captain, you talked in your testimony or made reference
to VA's resistance to the caregiver law if I runderstood what I read.
Can you kind of expand upon it a little bit for us and let us know what
your thoughts are?
Dawn
Halfaker: Sure. Thank you. Yeah, I think the biggest thing that we're
focused on is one of the parts of the program projected, how many cases
VA is going to have to address within this caregiver population and
originally it was projected to be 3500 cases and we've already reached
that caseload. So I mean in terms of the ability for VA to be prepared
for the amount of cases that they're going to have to deal with, we
feel that they need to start looking at that and, of course, how
effective is the program being? We're very interested to do another
survey within our population to start looking at how well the program's
being set up and really how effective it's being. So those are two
of the areas that we're highly focused on. And also looking for VA to
kind of comprehensively address all facets of the program.
Chair
Jeff Miller: Mr. Cooper, you alluded to something that actually I
think everybody talks about, even those of us on the Committee have
talked about in the past in regards to how you translate what you did
in your time in the service to your civilian life as you transition
across. And we tried in the VOW To Hire Heroes Act to begin to
stimulate if you will the states to be able to waive some of their
requirements that a truck driver or a combat medic or whatever it may
be. What can the VA, what do you think the VA can do to help the
veteran better market themselves or market their skills?
Arthur
Cooper: I think if we were to say to the VA that you need to set up
programs by which the service member returning is able to sit down with
a counselor or counselors and do a resume that is specific to the job
that he/she is trying to apply for. You have the qualifications from
having done the job but you don't have the ability to put the job on
paper as a resume. If we can do something to that effect, have that
training process in place, that will do a lot toward helping us as far
as getting employment -- meanful employment, I'll say it that way.
Chair Jeff Miller: Anybody else want to comment? Sgt Major?
Sgt
Major H. Gene Oversight: Mr. Chairman, I would comment on that. Like
I said, we put on forty job fairs around the countryside throughout the
year and we counsel veterans, service members, young men and women
getting out of the service how to write their resume. As a matter of
fact, we have a guy who we used to bring in all the time and he wrote
this book Does Your Resume Wear Combat Boots? And basically, we tell
people how to make those transitional words from what they do in the
military to civilian terminology. So when they build their resume and
they put it together, the people that's doing the hiring do understand
that and, matter of fact, the people that we bring understand that
they're hiring a military person, they know what they get, they know
they're going to get somebody that can read and write and that sounds
very simple now days but it's not so simple because they can read and
write and they can similate what they read -- in other words, they
understand it and they can set it to music. They also realize that
they get some leadership with that because they come early, they stay
late, they're clean cut. They're good at all of those sorts of things
when they hire a veteran. And that's the reason that when those
companies that hire veterans continue to come back to us because they
understand what they did in the military and what they're getting when
they bring them on, sir.
Chair Jeff Miller: John?
John
Rowan: The other issue and the problem is that this is spread across
the different states and they all have different laws and
applications. But it would be interesting I think if the DoD people
looked at training manuals and things to see that often times they're
just missing a little something extra that would give them the
certification they need for that particular job. It's not really
analogous but I was a linguist in the military and when I went back to
college they gave me some credit for my college but told me I didn't
take any reading courses so I couldn't get credit for the whole
language. I mean, it was just something as simple as that. Now that's
a bizarre thing but I'm sure that in some of the medics and things,
there's probably just something not quite right that would equate to
the equivalent of an education in the private sector and they need to
figure that out and add it in.
Chair
Jeff Miller: It's interesting that you would bring up the item of not
taking reading courses. I visited a college that shall remain unnamed
and was talking with them about the VOW To Hire Heroes Act and saying,
"How in the world can a person who has been in a field hospital, doing
all of the things that they do, day in and day out, not transfer those
skills into a nursing program or something along those lines?" And the
first response? "Well they haven't had the humanities, they haven't
had the English" -- and I'm like, "We have got to change the culture
out there to help put these folks to work." And, as the Sgt Major
said, we have people who know what it's like to get up early, work
late, do it when they don't want to do it, do it with a smile on their
face and you don't find that a lot of times out in the civilian
workforce and we've got to find a way to expand that if we can.
What
they need to do is for DoD to offer classes -- along with medic
training, I'm sorry but I don't find, for example US history to be a
joke or something to laugh at. LVNs getting a BSN from a university
(as opposed to a diploma mill) are required to have certain courses and
US history and US government are part of those requirements. DoD
should be training in those areas and they should be offering
humanities courses (one is generally needed in most LVN-BSN programs).
The point of education is to make you a well rounded citizen. Is that
not a goal the military has for veterans? They can easily put together
courses -- courses which could utilize the training and the mission
within the course work. This should be done for every service member.
The military owes it to them. In most cases, there is a degree of
training that already qualifies it's just not structured so that a
college will recognize it. This is a DoD issue that needs to be
addressed immediately.
Due to
floor votes starting on the Senate floor, the Senate members had to
leave the hearing after the witnesses delivered their opening remarks.
We'll note the following exchange.
Ranking
Member Michael Michaud: You'd mentioned the stateveterans nursing home
and the great job that they do. I really appreciate Mr. Miller's
efforts on addressing the issue on reimbursment rates which is
extremely important for a lot of veterans around the country -- each
one a little differently. My question is -- because we addressed it
back in October, the Senate hasn't dealt with the legislation as of
yet -- what effect is it having for veterans who are 70% or higher
in their disabilies throughout some of the nursing homes around the
country?
David
Fletcher: In cases where we have a large number of -- 70% or higher of
veterans in a home, uhm, the cost -- the reimbursement does not give
the homes what they -- it doesn't pay for the full cost of care. So the
homes actually have to come up with the difference or the veteran. And
then the veteran obviously suffers from that. I believe in the case
especially of a few of the states and in one state in particular,
it happened to be Maine, there's a large number of veterans there and
the more veterans that you have that are 70% and above that are --
[handed a piece of paper] And of course, the comment I just got is that
homes are turning veterans away because they can't match their cost of
care.
Ranking
Member Michael Michaud: Thank you and that was the concern that I
have. I know from Maine, you mentioned Maine, Maine veterans nursing
homes are going to lose anywhere from $8 to 16 million a year and they
can't take that sustainable loss. I was kind of curious on other
states and thank you for that answer. My next question is for Mr.
Tarantino, you talked about education for soldiers coming back from
Iraq and Afghanistan. And have you found problems there in different
states as far as higher ed being willing to take into consideration the
experience that a soldier might have had whether it's a medic or
working on heavy equipment, whereas the higher ed might at ground zero
and work up? Have you found that to be a problem or is it, have most
higher eds been taking that into consideration?
Tom
Tarantino: Thank you, Congressman, this is -- this is actually a
problem over all. And this was largely what the VOW To Hire Heroes
Act, one of the provisions, was meant to address. It's less that
schools aren't using a veteran's military experience and crediting them
for that, it's that professional licenses and certifications that are
required to do a lot of vocational jobs -- medics, mechanics, truck
drivers -- don't recognize military training experience. There have
been a lot of sort of efforts where -- I know ACE has a great way to --
the American Counseling Education, forgive me -- has a great way to
translate your military experience into college credit. But we've
never done the math on what a military vocation and a civilian vocation
is -- largely because we've never had a generation of business leaders
that hadn't served in the military before. This is the first generation
where you just don't have very many people who are running the business
sector having military experience. And so now this is one of the
things that Congress said last year we're going to need to ramp up
quickly is to do the math on the gaps and overlaps between military
jobs and vocations and their civilian equivalents so that we can
actually have something that the professional sector can say, 'This is
what we have, this is what we need.' And the higher ed sector can
follow up with adapting their training to what they need.
Ranking
Member Michael Michaud: My last question, probably quick yes or no
answer since I'm running out of time, is the House, little over a month
ago, passed legislation that sets up a Brack type process dealing with
federal buildings and if you look at the VA facility, they already have
a process within the VA facility and a utilization rate of VA
facilities actually have increased dramatically. Unfortunately, VA is
covered under this legislation that's over here on this Senate side
that once it's in that Brach type process they get rid of the VA
facility that money doesn't go back to the VA facility and we have a
problem as it is with construction within the VA area. Has your
organization looked at that legislation and do you support it or oppose
it? Quick yes-or-no answer starting with Mr. Tarantino?
Tom
Tarantino: We have looked at it. It hasn't been a priority but we do
definitely support that concept. And are looking forward to seeing a
lot of stuff passed by the Senate that's come out of the House.
Now we'll note another Congressional hearing. I was not at this hearing. Wally
was and was ready to do a brief synopsis for this snapshot but we've
got a press release from Senator Patty Murray's office that we can use
instead (and spare Wally the trouble -- thank you, Wally):
Murray Presses Army Secretary on Handling of the Mental Wounds of War
At
Hearing of Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, Veterans Chairman
Murray pressed Army Secretary John McHugh on troubled PTSD unit at
Joint Base Lewis-McChord and whether similar problems exist at other
bases
(Washington,
D.C.) -- Today, U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), Chairman of the
Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee and a senior member of the Defense
Appropriations Subcommittee, questioned Army Secretary John McHugh on
recent shortcomings in the Army's efforts to properly diagnose and
treat the invisible wounds of war. Specifically, Murray discussed the
forensic psychiatry unit at Madigan Army Medical Center on Joint Base
Lewis-McChord that is under investigation for changing mental health
diagnoses based on the cost of providing care and benefits to
servicemembers. The Army is currently reevaluating nearly 300 service
members and veterans who have had their PTSD diagnoses changed by that
unit since 2007.
Key excerpt of Sen. Murray's remarks:
"Secretary
McHugh, as you and I have discussed, Joint Base Lewis McChord in my
home state is facing some very real questions on the way they have
diagnosed PTSD and the invisible wounds of war. And today,
unfortunately, we are seeing more information on the extent of those
problems.
"Mr.
Secretary, this is a copy of today's Seattle Times. In it is an
article based on the most recent review of the Forensice Psychiatry
Department at JBLM which -- as you know -- is under investigation for
taking the cost of mental health care into account in their decisions.
"And
what it shows is that since that unit was stood up in 2007 over 40% of
those service members who walked int he door with a PTSD diagnosis had
their diagnosis changed to something else or overturned entirely.
"What
is says is that over 4 in 10 of our service members -- many who were
already being treated for PTSD -- and were due the benefits and care
that comes with that diagnoses -- had it taken away by this unit. And
that they were then sent back into the force or the local community.
"Now,
in light of all the tragedies we have seen that stem from the
untreated, invisible wounds of war -- I'm sure that you would agree
that this is very concerning.
"Not
only is it damaging for these soldiers, but it also furthers the stigma
for others that are deciding whether to seek help for behavioral
problems."
###
Meghan Roh
Deputy Press Secretary | Social Media Director
Office of U.S. Senator Patty Murray
202-224-2834
Yesterday
Iraq was slammed with violence that claimed over fifty lives and left
over two hundred injured, "just days before Baghdad hosts a landmark
Arab summit," Eleanor Hall observed this morning on The World Today (Australia's ABC, link is text and audio) leading into a report by Meredith Griffiths on the violence. MEREDITH
GRIFFITHS: This is despite the fact for the past couple of days
intensive searches at checkpoints have ground Baghdad to a halt.
Security had been ramped up in preparation for a meeting of the Arab
world's top leaders. It's the first time the Arab League have met in
Baghdad in 20 years, and the government considers it the most important
diplomatic event yet for post-Saddam Iraq. Officials had been hoping to
use the summit to showcase the country's improved security since the
sectarian fighting a few years ago that almost pulled the country into
civil war.Trend News Agency notes,
"Holding the next summit of the League of Arab States in Iraq
demonstrates the restoration of stability and resumption of its role in
the Arab and regional areas, Iraqi ambassador to Kazakhstan, Sabir
Abbud Al-Musaui told Trend today." It does no such thing. The Arab
League Summit is two days. Al Rafidayn reports
that the capital will be closed down for seven days. When you have to
shut down the capital for seven days to hold a two day event, that's
not a sign of success. Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspaers) reports,
"Only Monday, Iraqi authorities began practicing security procedures
for the summit, flooding existing checkpoints with large numbers of
special forces troops and setting up new checkpoints, where they
searched cars with dogs, looking for explosives." Al Mada notes
that, this morning, it might take as much as three hours for someone
living in Baghdad to get to their job in Baghdad and that might require
them leaving their car at some point and continuing on foot. Does Nouri
al-Maliki really think that if these measures are successful it says
anything about Baghdad other than that they can put the city on
crackdown for seven days? Does this enstill trust in foreign investors? As for the summit, Middle East North Africa Financial Network doesn't expect much from the summit: One
thing is certain and that is that the Baghdad summit will be anything
but remarkable. Egypt will be busy preparing for its presidential
election, the first since the toppling of Hosni Mubarak, Libya, Tunis
and Yemen have enough domestic problems of their own. The Gulf
countries will find it difficult to demonize Iran when the host has
special relations with Tehran, while attempts to discuss the uprising
in Bahrain will be foiled by the GCC group.Meanwhile Al Rafidayn reports
Nouri has called for all Iraqis to unite. Spreading love apparently
means then launching into an attack on Ayad Allawi who, apparently,
isn't included included in the call for uniting. Al Mada reports
Nouri has declared Allawi is bad for the government of Iraq. Nouri's
upset because Allawi's announced if the top four demands for the
national conference aren't implemented in 72 hours Iraqiya will
consider walking out. This would be highly embarrassing to Nouri with
the Arab leaders visiting. Especially since most of the Arab leaders
can't stand Nouri. (As most Iraqi press has noted, Saudi Arabia is only
participating because the US has badgered and cajoled them non-stop.)
Iraqiya
won the 2010 elections. Ayad Allawi is the leader of Iraqiya. State
of Law came in second, Nouri is the leader of State of Law. Because
Nouri refused to follow or honor the results of the election and
because Nouri had the White House backing him, he was able to lead Iraq
into an eight month-plus period of political stalemate. This ended in
November 2010 when the US-brokered Erbil Agreement was signed off on by
all parties. Chief among the concessions that allowed Nouri to stay on
as prime minister was that Allawi would head an independent security
commission. That never happened, the promised referendum and census on
Kirkuk (to please the Kurds) never happened. He became prime minister
and tossed aside the agreement.
Since
then Iraqiya has been given only a handful of ministries (fewer than
promised), but with the largest plurality in parliament could
theoretically push through a vote of no confidence, forcing new
elections.
That is true legally speaking,
but Maliki's increased centralization of power under his control,
including naming himself as Interior and Defense Minister to keep
control of all national troops and police, has many believing that he
doesn't intend to allow step down even if he loses his legal mandate.
Malaki
still holds some senior cabinet positions for himself, and still has an
arrest warrant out for his own VP, who is in hiding in Kurdistan where
Baghdad's law does not apply. On Monday, a million loyalists
of cleric Moqtada al-Sadr rallied in south Iraq Monday decrying poor
services and rampant graft. Demonstrators shouted: "Yes to rights! Yes
to humanity! No to injustice! No to poverty! No to corruption!"
Some
protesters held aloft electrical cables, water canisters and shovels to
symbolise the poor services that plague Iraq. Others carried empty
coffins with words plastered on them such as "democracy,"
"electricity," "education" and "services." Iraq suffers from
electricity shortages, with power cuts multiplying during the boiling
summer, poor clean water provision, widespread corruption and high
unemployment. This is despite the U.S. spending $44 billion on
reconstruction in Iraq, the failure of which was the subject of my
book, We Meant Well.
On Van
Buren's first point, Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi is in the KRG
where he is a guest of Iraqi President Jalal Talabani and KRG President
Massoud Barzani. He has stated he cannot receive a fair trial in
Baghdad (Nouri's charged him with terrorism) because Nouri controls the
Baghdad courts. He's asked that the trial be moved to Kirkuk. His
assertion that he would not receive a fair trial was proven correct
when, last month, nine Baghdad judges held a press conference to
announce he was guilty of terrorism. That was February 16th and, in that day's snapshot, we offered how the news being reported by AP and Reuters should have been reported:
IRAQI VICE PRESIDENT PROVEN CORRECT
After many claims that he could not receive a fair trial, Tareq al-Hashemi's
assertions were backed up today by the Iraqi judiciary.
BAGHDAD
-- Today a nine-member Iraqi judiciary panel released results of an
investigation they conducted which found the Sunni Vice President of
Iraq was guilty of terrorism. Monday, December 19th, Iraqi Prime
Minister Nouri al-Maliki swore out an arrest warrant for Vice President
Tareq al-Hashemi who had arrived in the KRG the previous day. Mr.
al-Hashemi refused to return to Baghdad insisting he would not receive
a fair trial. Instead, he was the guest of Iraqi President Jalal
Talabani and KRG President Massoud Barzani.
During
the weeks since the arrest warrant was issued, Mr. al-Hashemi has
repeatedly attempted to get the trial moved to another venue stating
that Prime Minister al-Maliki controlled the Baghdad judiciary. Mr.
al-Maliki insisted that the vice president return and that he would get
a fair trial.
Today's events demonstrate
that Mr. al-Hashemi was correct and there is no chance of a fair trial
in Iraq. This was made clear by the judiciary's announcement today.
A
judiciary hears charges in a trial and determines guilt; however, what
the Baghdad judiciary did today was to declare Tareq al-Hashemi guilt
of the charges and to do so before a trial was held.
Not
only do the events offer a frightening glimpse at the realities of the
Iraqi legal system, they also back up the claims Mr. al-Hashemi has
long made.
Had he been
tried? No. Is the Iraqi Constitution unclear or confusing as to how
guilt is determined? Article 19th's fifth clause is very clear: "The
accused is innocent until proven guilty in a fair legal trial. The
accused may not be tried on the same crime fora second time after
acquittal unless new evidence is produced."
They
may have had an 'investigation' but an 'investigation' does not prove
guilt, only a trial does and for judges to hold a press conference and
announce that someone is guilty of charges they have not yet been tried
for is a huge miscarriage of justice. The nine should be impeached for
misconduct. And the process was already being criticized prior to that
for all the 'confessions' that kept getting aired on television.
Reuters reports
today that al-Hashemi has accused the Baghdad government "of torturing
to death one of his bodyguards, an accusation that could make it more
difficult to resolve a case that has split the country's politics on
dangerous sectarian lines."
So Moqtada al-Sadr's followers are protesting (Van Buren's second point), Iraqiya is threatening a walk out and, see yesterday's snapshot,
KRG President Massoud Barzani made blistering remarks about a new
dictatorship in Iraq (referring to Nouri). What happens next? Hiwa Osman (Rudaw) argues nothing happens next:
The
reason is simple: although all of Maliki's rivals are "in one box" with
Erbil as one Iraqiya MP said, they are only in that box until the
moment comes that Maliki is removed and everyone backs off for a
different reason.
For
Maliki, although the conflict between the political groups is reaching
a critical point again, just like all the previous times, nothing will
happen. Meetings will take place, each bloc cuts a different deal with
him and he will continue to stay.
He will get a period of calm and then a new crisis starts.
And
that may be. Nouri has demonstrated time and time again that he's
happy playing the petulant child and digging his heels in. Over time,
others are encouraged to be the 'grown up' and give in. Until someone
stands up to the spoiled brat Nouri al-Maliki, there's no real reason
for him to change or believe anyone could outwait him.
I
applied for a conscientious objection discharge from the US Air Force
in 2007. With the help of Courage to Resist, I was able to navigate
that process successfully and I received an honorable discharge eight
months later. However, today as a counselor to US military objectors, I
know that things do not always go as well for others, regardless of the
merits of their application. We have a lot of work to do to better
support the troops who refuse to fight. It's because of the financial
support of thousands of folks like yourself that I'm able to do this
work as a Courage to Resist staff member.
Today,
I'm interested in making sure our mission of supporting GI
resisters—accused WikiLeaks truth-teller Army PFC Bradley Manning, for
example—adapts to and becomes part of the broader forces gathering
against US militarism and empire.
We have
an atrocious and seemingly endless war and uncertain future in
Afghanistan. We have not actually "withdrawn" from Iraq. We have covert
wars and an expanding military presence all over the world. We have the
most significant military whistle-blower of our generation, Bradley
Manning, facing life in prison. And every day we're hearing threats of
an attack on the nation of Iran—not unlike the propaganda fed us in the
lead up to the US invasion of Iraq in 2004.
With
the backing of thousands of friends like you, Courage to Resist has had
a great history of supporting individual military resisters refusing
illegal war, occupation and policies of empire—from "all the way back"
when Marine L/Cpl Stephen Funk publicly refused to deploy to Iraq in
April 2003, to when Army Lt. Ehren Watada became the first officer to
refuse to deploy to Iraq in May 2006, to the hundreds of lower profile
objectors we've assisted since. We've been able to do this work by
collaborating with concerned community members, veterans, military
families—and folks like you. Like our mission statement says, I really
do believe that by supporting GI resistance, counter recruiting and
draft resistance, we can harness "people power" to weaken the pillars
that maintain these seemingly endless wars.
| 
