|
Monday,
June 25, 2012. Chaos and violence continues, Senator Patty Murray
proposes new veterans legislation, Nouri al-Maliki gets ready to shut
down dozens of press outlets in Iraq, Tony Blair just can't seem to
rehabilitate his bad image, and more.
Starting
with legal and with proposed legislation in the US. Senator Patty
Murray is the Chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee. This
evening, she took the Senate floor to introduce and advocate for a new
mental health bill.
Senator
Patty Murray: Mardam President, last February in my office in Seattle I
sat down with an Iraq and Afghanistan war veteran named Stephen Davis
and his wife Kim.
Stephen and Kim were
there to talk to me about their experience since he returned home and
about the invisible wounds of war that they were struggling with
together -- every single day.
At the
meeting, Kim did most of the talking. She told me about the
nightmares. She told me about the lack of sleep. She talked about
confusion and the anxiety that was now a constant in their lives.
But it was the way that she summed up her experience since Stephen returned home that struck me hardest.
She said that her husband still hadn't returned home.
She
said that the husband she had been married to for nearly two decades --
although sitting directly next to her -- was still not back from war.
And you know what, despite the fact that we often refer to these wounds as invisible -- you could see it.
When
it came time for Stephen to describe his experiences he shook as he
explained how difficult the transition home has been for him, for his
wife, and for their family.
Now Madam President, the Davis family's story is no different than what thousands of other families have faced.
But their story does have a tragic and frustrating twist.
You
see, Sergeant Davis knew when he returned home that he had a problem
with post traumatic stress -- and he was courageous enough to reach out
for help.
He sought care and was diagnosed with PTSD.
But
just a few months later -- after a visit to Madigan Army Medical Base
in my home state of Washington -- he was told something that shocked and
appalled him and his wife.
After a 10
minute meeting and a written questionnaire -- Sergeant Davis was told
that he was exaggerating his symptoms and that he didn't have PTSD.
He
was told -- in effect -- that despite serving in two war zones, despite
being involved in three separate IED incidents, and despite his
repeated deployments, he was making it all up.
He
was then sent home with a diagnosis for adjustment disorder and told
that his disability rating would be lowered and that the benefits that
he and his family would receive would ultimately be diminished.
Now, Madam President, if this sounds like an isolated, shocking incident -- here is something that you'll find more shocking.
And
that's that Sergeant Davis was one of literally hundreds of patients at
this Army hospital that was told the exact same thing.
Soldiers who had been diagnosed with PTSD -- not just once -- but several times -- had their diagnoses taken away.
In many instances these soldiers were told that they were embellishing or even outright lying about their symptoms.
In
fact, so many soldiers were being accused of making up their symptoms
by doctors at this hospital that I began to get letters and phone calls
into my office.
Soon after documents came
to light showing that the doctors diagnosing these soldiers were being
encouraged to consider not just the best diagnosis for these patients
but also the cost of care.
These revelations have led to a series of internal investigations that are still under way today.
But
even more importantly, they have led to these soldiers being
reevaluated and to date hundreds of soldiers -- including Sergeant Davis
-- have had their proper PTSD diagnoses restored.
Now, Madam President, this too, could be viewed as an isolated incident.
And
in fact, when I first raised concerns that the problems we saw at
Madigan could be happening at other bases across the country -- that's
exactly what I was told.
But I knew better.
I remembered back to this Slaon.com article that ran a few years back.
In that article a doctor from Fort Carson in Colorado talked about how he was "under a lot of pressure to not diagnose PTSD."
It
also went on to quote a former Army psychologist named David Rudd who
said, "Each diagnosis is an acknowledgment that psychiatric casualties
are a huge price tag of war. It is easiest to dismiss these casualties
because you can't see the wounds. If they change the diagnosis they can
dismiss you at a substantially decreased rate."
I
also had my own staff launch an investigation into how the military and
the VA were diagnosing mental health conditions at other bases around
the country.
And I was troubled by what they found.
It
became clear there were other cases where doctors accused soldiers of
exaggerating symptoms without any documentation of appropriate interview
techniques.
They encountered inadequate VA medical examinations -- especially in relation to Traumatic Brain Injury.
And
they found that many VA rating decisions contained errors, which in
some cases impacted the level of benefits the veteran should have
received.
Now, Madam President, to their credit the Army didn't run and hide as the questions about other bases continued to mount.
In fact they took two important steps.
First,
in April they issued a new policy for diagnosing PTSD that criticized
the methods being used at Madigan and pointed out to health officials
throughout their system that it was unlikely that soldiers were faking
symptoms.
Then, in May the Army went
further and announced that they would review all mental health diagnoses
across the country dating back to 2001.
This
in turn led to Secretary Panetta to announce just last week that all
branches of the military would undergo a similar review.
Now,
Madam President, without question, these are historic steps in our
efforts to right a decade of inconsistencies in how the invisible wounds
of war have been evaluated.
Servicemembers, veterans, and their families should never have had to wade through an unending bureaucratic process.
And
because of the outcry from veterans and servicemembers alike the
Pentagon now has an extraordinary opportunity to go back and correct the
mistakes of the past.
But Madam President . . . we still need to make sure these mistakes are not repeated.
We still need to fundamentally change a system that Secretary Panetta admitted to me has "huge gaps" in it.
And that is why I am here today.
Madam President, today I have introduced the Mental Health ACCESS Act of 2012.
It
is a bill that seeks to make improvements to ensure that those who have
served have access to consistent, quality behavioral health care.
It is a bill that strengthens oversight of military mental health care.
And improves the Integrated Disability Evaluation System we rely on.
Now Madam President, as anyone who understands these issues knows well this isn't any easy task.
The
mental health care, suicide prevention, and counseling programs we
provide our service members are spread out through the Department of
Defense and VA.
Too often they are tangled in a web of bureaucracy.
And frankly too often this makes them difficult to address in legislation.
So
what I did in crafting this bill is I identified critical changes that
need to be made at both DoD and VA and set up a checklist of legislative
changes needed to do just that.
Some
provisions in this bill will likely be addressed in my Veterans
Committee others will need to be addressed through Defense bills and
work with the Chairs of other committees.
But all of these provisions are critical and today I wanted to share some of the most important ones.
Madam
President, high atop the list of changes this bill makes it addressing
military suicides -- which was we all know is an epidemic that now
outpaces combat deaths.
My bill would require the Pentagon to create comprehensive, standardized suicide prevention programs.
It would also require the Department to better oversee mental health care for servicemembers.
Second, my bill would expand eligibility for a variety of VA mental health services to family members.
This
will help families -- and spouses like Kim -- who I spoke about earlier
-- cope with the stresses of deployments and help strengthen the
support network that is critical to servicemembers returing from
deployment.
Third, my bill will improve training and education for our health care providers.
Often
times our servicemembers seek out help from chaplains, medics, and
others who may be unprepared to offer counseling. This bill would help
prepare them through continuing education programs.
Fourth, my bill would create more peer to peer counseling opportunities.
It
would do this by requiring VA to offer peer support services at all
medical centers and by supporting opportunities to train vets to provide
peer services.
And finally, this bill will require VA to establish accurate and reliable measures for mental health services.
This will help ensure the VA understands the problem they face so that veterans can get into the care we know they can provide.
Madam President, all of these are critical steps at a pivotal time.
Because
the truth is -- right now -- the Department of Defense and the VA are
losing the battle against the mental and behavioral wounds of these
wars.
To see that you don't need to look
any further than the tragic fact that already this year over 150 active
duty servicemembers have taken their own lives.
Or the fact that one veteran commits suicide every 80 minutes.
And
while there are a number of factors that contribute to these suicides
including repeated deployments, a lack of employment security, isolation
in their communities, and difficulty transitioning back to their
families.
Not having access to quality and timely mental health care is vital.
When our veterans can't get the care they need they often self medicate.
When they wait endlessly for a proper diagnoses they often lose hope.
Last
year at this time, I held a hearing on the mental health disability
system that this bill seeks to strengthen and heard two stories that
illustrate this despair.
Andrea Sawyer, the
wife of Army Sergeant Lloyd Sawyer testified about how her husband --
an Iraq veteran -- spent years searching for care.
Together
they hit barriers and red tape so often that at one point he held a
knife to his throat in front of both her and an Army psychiatrist before
being talked out of it.
Later in the same
hearing, Daniel Williams an Iraq combat veteran testified about how his
struggle to find care led him to stick a gun in his mouth while his wife
begged him to stop -- only to see his gun misfire.
Madam President these are the stories that define this problem.
These are the men and women who we must be there for.
They are those who have served and sacrificed and done everything we have asked of them.
They have left their families and homes, several multiple times, and protected our nation's interests at home and abroad.
Madam President, this bill will help make a difference.
But we need to make changes now.
Today, I am asking members of the Senate from both sides of the aisle to join me in this effort.
We
owe our veterans a medical evaluation system that treats them fairly,
that gives them the proper diagnosis, and that provides access to the
mental health care they have earned and deserved.
Thank you.
Her office noted the speech in a press release which also noted:
(Washington,
D.C.) – As it becomes increasingly clear that the Pentagon and VA are
losing the battle on mental and behavioral health conditions that are
confronting so many of our servicemembers and veterans, Senator Murray
gave a speech on the Senate floor to introduce her new servicemembers and veterans mental health legislation, the Mental Health ACCESS Act of 2012. Her speech also comes as the Pentagon begins a comprehensive military-wide review,
which Senator Murray urged Secretary Panetta to conduct on diagnoses
for the invisible wounds of war dating back to 2001. The misdiagnosis
of behavioral health conditions has been a constant problem for soldiers
at Madigan Army Medical Center in Tacoma, Washington, where to date
over 100 soldiers and counting have had their correct PTSD diagnosis
restored following reevaluation.
The
Mental Health ACCESS Act of 2012 would require the Department of
Defense to create a comprehensive, standardized suicide prevention
program; expand eligibility for a variety of Department of Veterans
Affairs mental health services to family members; strengthen oversight
of DoD Mental Health Care and the Integrated Disability Evaluation
System; improve training and education for our health care providers;
create more peer-to-peer counseling opportunities; and require VA to
establish accurate and reliable measures for mental health services.
More about Senator Murray's bill HERE.
Still on the legal, in England today, a major case. ITV News reports,
"Three Court of Appeal Judges -- The Master of the Rolls, Lord
Neuberger, Lord Justice Moses and Lord Justice Rimer -- are scheduled to
hear arguments" as to whether the family members of British soldiers
can sue the UK government for damages. Richard Norton-Taylor (Guardian) explains, "Lawyers representing families of soldiers killed by 'friendly fire' in Iraq,
and others killed while travelling in Snatch Land Rovers, argue they
have the right to sue the Ministry of Defence for negligence. The MoD
argues it cannot be held legally liable and should be released from a
duty of care arising from cases involving combat and how to deploy
resources -- decisions, it says, that are essentially political or a
matter for executive discretion." BBC News adds:
Robert
Weir QC, who is acting for some relatives, said: "The state is under a
positive obligation to take all reasonable measures to protect the lives
of its soldiers."
He said that - even in
the context of dangerous activities - this positive obligation required
the state to "adopt and implement regulations and systems to mitigate
the relevant risk to life - including adequate equipment and training".
RAY SUAREZ: The war in Iraq has followed the defense secretary to India.
As
Donald Rumsfeld met his Indian counterpart in New Delhi today, he was
dogged by the fallout from the town hall meeting he held yesterday with
U.S. soldiers in Kuwait.
Rumsfeld sought to downplay his blunt exchange with a national guardsman over the lack of properly armored vehicles.
DONALD
RUMSFELD: The military makes judgments about what types of vehicles
with what types of armor should be used. They have priority list in
terms of the pace at which they are adding armor.
For
the person who asked the question, someone has to sit with him -- find
out what... I have heard three different things about that comment on
his part.
I don't know what the facts are,
but somebody is certainly going to sit down with him and find out what
he knows that they may not know and make sure he knows what they know
that he may not know, and that's a good thing.
So I think it's a very constructive exchange.
RAY SUAREZ: The soldier who sparked the controversy yesterday was Specialist Thomas Wilson of the Tennessee National Guard.
SPC.
THOMAS WILSON: We're digging pieces of rusted scrap metal and
compromised ballistic glass that has already been shot up, dropped,
busted-- picking the best out of this scrap to put on our vehicles go
into combat.
We do not have proper armament vehicles to carry with us North.
DONALD RUMSFELD: As you know, you go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time.
In
June 2003, the U.S. Army realized that it didn't have enough armored
Humvees in Iraq to protect soldiers from a growing number of attacks by
insurgents. By Friday, officials expect to correct that problem by
having almost 22,000 armored Humvees in Iraq -- up from 235 when the war
began.
Why did it take the government almost two years to remedy a deficiency that the Army acknowledges was costing soldiers' lives?
A
verdict for the families in the UK case might lead some US families to
file comparative law suits in the US. War Hawk Tony Blair just can't
escape his bloody past. Ian Dunt (Politics.co.uk) reports:
Tony Blair failed to hide his frustration today after his comeback to
the British political scene was again met by questions over the Iraq
war.The former prime minster cut an irritated figure on the
Andrew Marr programme when he was stopped from discussing the eurocrisis
and asked whether he had preventing Cabinet from hearing the attorney
general's legal evidence against the Iraq war.Though it's being largely ignored in the US press, the story has dominated the British press since Saturday night. James Cusick (Independent) notes:
In
the latest volume of his diaries, Alastair Campbell claims Lord
Goldsmith, then Attorney General, was prevented in 2002 from telling the
Cabinet about his "doubts" on the legal basis for war.But in
an interview with the BBC's Andrew Marr, Mr Blair denied he had
intervened to stop Lord Goldsmith giving the Cabinet the "reality" of
the legal position Britain faced if it went to war against Saddam
Hussein's regime without the backing of the United Nations.As we've noted before, don't trust Campbell. He's a known liar. Daniel Martin (Daily Mail) reports
that Campbell's already rushed to deny that what he wrote means what it
says: "Mr Campbell said on his blog yesterday that the entry had been
misinterpreted, and that Lord Goldsmith had addressed Cabinet after the
meeting referred to in the diary. He had argued in Cabinet that there
was a legal case for war and was cross-questioned by ministers." You
have to wonder how much Hutchinson regrets publishing an author who
repeatedly insists that what he wrote isn't what he meant? And at what
point do the few people who've bought copies of Campbell's bad book
start demanding a refund as a result of Campbell's repeated denials that
what's on the page of his 'diary' isn't actually true? Rory MacKinnon (Morning Star) notes
the estimated death toll of 1.5 million Iraqis killed in the illegal
war and that antiwar activists are saying Blair and Campbell must be
recalled for new questioning before the Iraq Inquiry. Stop the War
coalition's Lindsey German is quoted stating, "I think there is yet
another piece of evidence that Blair set out to mislead not just the
British public but his own Cabinet." Journalist Chris Ames (Iraq Inquiry Digest) notes differences in accounts and concludes, "If the Inquiry does not address this, it will have no credibility at all."
An
official document has been obtained by the JFO, revealing that security
forces in Iraq have received orders from the authorities to shut down
the offices of 44 media agencies. Included are prominent local TV
channels and radio stations such as Sharqiya and Baghdadia satellite
television stations and foreign-owned media such
as BBC, Radio Sawa and Voice of America.
This matter comes at the time of escalated public debate between the administration
of
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and political opponents about the
threats and the pressures that journalists have been exposed to during
the current ongoing
political crisis. On June 20, followers of cleric Muqtada al Sadr held a
demonstration in Baghdad's Firdos Square, in which they protested restrictions
on Iraqi media, as well as calling for a vote of no confidence in Mr. Maliki to be
held at the Iraqi parliament.
The
document obtained by the JFO was issued by the CMC (Communications and
Media Commission), signed by acting director Safa al-Din Rabiah, and was
addressed to the Ministry of Interior. It recommends banning 44 Iraqi and foreign
media
agencies from working in various areas in Iraq, including Kurdistan.
The document states it has already been approved by the Deputy Interior
Minister
Adnan al-Assadi, described in the letter as having instructed the ministry's
Department of Relations and Media "to stop media cooperation with these
agencies and to notify the police to ban these channels along with the necessity
of informing the channels to contact the CMC."
In past decisions, the CMC has caused controversy for its heavy-handed
regulations
and tactics, seen by critics as conducting a program to undermine
freedom of expression in Iraq by ordering arrests, fines and the closing
of media organizations, which many media workers argue demonstrates a
bias in favor of
the current political administration.
The document was circulated among police forces in Baghdad on May 8, 2012,
five days after the International Press Freedom Day. In it, the CMC informs the
interior
ministry that it has suspended the operating licenses, or has banned
cameramen and other media workers from working, from television stations
such
as
Sharqiya, Baghdadia, al-Diyar, Babliya and BBC, and radio stations such
as al-Marbad, Nawa, Radio Sawa, Nawa, and Voice of America. In the
document, the
CMC
also states that additional TV channels and media agencies are
currently not licensed and requested by the interior ministry to have
legal action taken against
them.
Dar Addustour reports on it here. RT adds, "The followers of prominent Islamist cleric
Muqtada al Sadr flocked to Baghdad's central square on Wednesday to protest against
what they see as a government crackdown on press freedom. They also called for a vote
of no confidence against PM Nouri al-Maliki to be held in the country's parliament.
Al-Maliki is currently acting head of the CMC." From Thursday's snapshot:
A large number of Iraqis took to Baghdad's Firdous Square this week to protest
that people speak freely and that no one muzzle the voice of democracy.
Kitabat notes
that Nouri's effort to shut down satellite chanel Baghdadi resulted in
the large turnout and that the crowd chanted Moqtada's name. Dar Addustour reports
that Nouri attempted to limit -- if not halt -- the protests by butting
off raods to the square, stationing security guards throughout and
more. Nouri dismissed the protest and their objections to him while
insisting that his critics can say anything about him but he's
gagged/prevented from speaking about them.
Sunday, Qassim Abdul-Zahra (AP) reports
that the head of the Communications and Media Commission, Safaa Rabie,
has confirmed the memo is genuine and that the plan is to go forward.
Rabie insists that it's "not a crackdown" and offers a 'reason' for the
planned closures: They don't have operating licenses. But Abdul-Zahra
checks with two and quickly establishes that they do have them. Margaret Griffis (Antiwar.com) notes the history:
For
years, the Iraqi government has harassed journalists and organizations
it has seen as a threat. One of the stations on the list, Baghdadiya TV,
has been shut down before and even seen the occupation
of its station in the past for its coverage of a massacre at a
Christian church. Other stations are less politically inclined, but
their religious affiliations may be the focus of the government's
attention.
Today in DC, Victoria Nuland handled the
US State Dept press briefing. US journalists and foreign journalists
gathered to act like little fools and to laugh at bad puns from those
paid to spin for the government. Never once did Iraq come up, never
once did anyone express concern for the outlets or for freedom of the
press in Iraq. They thought they were clever talking about t-shirts,
they weren't clever. Forget clever, it's a stretch for just aware in
that room. But they and the US State Dept made clear that what happens
to the press in Iraq might as well stay in Iraq because they only give
damn about their own tiny little worlds. Ammar Karim (AFP) reminds,
"Iraq regularly ranks near the bottom of global press freedom rankings.
It placed 152nd out of 179 countries in media rights watchdog
Reporters Without Borders' 2011-2012 World Press Freedom Index, down 22
from the year before." But, hey, as far as the press covering the
State Dept is concerned, that's someone else's problem.
Violence continued in Iraq today. Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) reports
that a Baquba raodside bombing claimed 4 lives and left eight people
injured while a Hilla bombing claimed 6 lives and left 25 injured.
| 
tom squitieri
pbs
the newshour
ray suarez
