Monday, October 30, 2006

Where are the magnets produced that "support our troops" ?

    I was wondering if anyone knew where the flags and yellow ribbon magnets are manufactured and how much of the profit goes to any programs that really support our troops. Programs such as; rehab from injuries suffered while in service to our country and possibly some educational benefits for soldiers or their dependents.
 
 I think money spent on producing these emblems of "support" would be better spent on programs like those instead of putting it in the pockets of foreign manufacturers of  "patriotic" magnets and stickers.
 
 From the research I and others have done it seems that these magnets are all made in China. We could not find any that were made in the U.S.A
 
 This doesn't strike me as much of a way to support the troops.  What does it really do for them anyway?  I can't figure how this helps some 18 year old that has had his leg blown off from the knee down. I can't figure out how this helps a 15 or 20 year veteran who has been killed during the course of this or any other war.
 
 Why don't we work to ensure that the V.A. doesn't cut the budget that goes to provide medical care for our veterans and active duty service members? Is lip service all are we capable of, and not actually doing anything to really help the troops? I, for one, am tired of seeing these magnets and stickers on people's cars who never thought about the troops before this war started.
 
 I don't recall seeing in the year 2000 the vast numbers of people who are now so concerned with the troops welfare.  After the war started in 2003 people were coming out of the wood work wanting to one up their neighbor by having one more magnet. It seems to me that there are many people who never thought about the troops until this war started. Where was all of this concern before this war? Why do they wait to show so much concern for the troops?
 
 I do not appreciate all of this hoopla about the support of the troops during war while during peacetime there is not one iota of concern about the troops from an apathetic public.  I know of soldiers who have attempted suicide as a result of their service in war and how many who buy magnets even know about this?
 
 On Ft. Stewart in front of the main Post Exchange store they have a display of small pin wheels that represent 138 cases of spousal abuse by soldiers that have come back from combat only to see their young wife couldn't manage the bills while they were away in Iraq.  The young wives squandered the money that should have gone to pay the bills, the young men could not deal with this after coming back from combat and reacted in a violent manner. 
 
 In 2004 there was a display of pinwheels depicting 191 cases of child abuse on Ft. Stewart and Hunter Army air field in Savannah, Ga.  This was a result of extended combat tours in Iraq and the people who buy the magnets think by doing so they are helping the troops.
 
 Well, you should ask those 191 children and 138 spouses if spending $2.00 on those stupid magnets are giving them any support.
 
 
Posted by BDT at 01:14:55 | Permanent Link | Comments (0) |

Monday, October 09, 2006

Why do we allow this to happen to our troops?

 

This is what we need to be aware of if we are truly intent on supporting the troops.

If this concerns you then please contact your congressional representative and demand this Feres Doctrine be overturned.

 

 
 
Military Families Battle Feres Doctrine
By Dale Frost Stillman
Imagine your son is taken to a hospital where he is first treated for the wrong injury, then misdiagnosed and ultimately declared brain dead before you can even reach his side. Now imagine being told that you cannot hold accountable those responsible for your son's death because a 55-year-old law, called the Feres Doctrine, protects them. That is the situation facing the family of Marine recruit Justin Haase who died in December 2001 at the age of 18 after contracting a severe case of bacterial meningitis at a Marine boot camp on Parris Island, South Carolina. Military doctors treated Haase with penicillin despite an allergy to the medication.

 

Compounded errorsBecause of his allergy to penicillin, Haase was supposed to receive a substitute drug for the dose of antibiotics that is routinely given to new recruits to prevent infections. He did not. According to newspaper accounts, as his time at boot camp continued, Haase suffered from severe headaches and vomiting. A military medic did not take his temperature and did not contact a doctor. Instead, the medic instructed Haase to sit in a van where he cried in pain. He was then ordered to stay in bed, but when he awoke Haase was incoherent. His drill instructor sent him back to bed and called a senior drill instructor, who then called 911 but incorrectly reported that Justin had "taken a spill on the obstacle course." Haase was finally taken to a naval hospital where he was initially treated for a head injury. The doctor suspected a bacterial infection because of Justin's temperature, but did not take appropriate tests or begin antibiotic treatment right away. It would be two hours before Haase would receive the correct test that determined he was suffering from bacterial meningitis, which is when he was given penicillin. He suffered severe brain trauma and was pronounced brain dead before his family arrived.Because Haase was in Marine boot camp, his family is unable to sue for the negligence that caused his death.

 

The Feres Doctrine prevents military service members and their families from suing the military, even for non-combat related deaths. LeRoy Wulfmeier, the attorney for the Haase family, told People magazine "If he was civilian and he went into a non-military hospital, he would have one hell of a lawsuit."Origin of the Feres DoctrineThe Feres Doctrine is named after Lt. Rudolph Feres, who died in a barracks fire in 1947. Feres' widow attempted to sue the Army, claiming negligence because it allowed her husband to be quartered in an unsafe barracks. The barracks had a defective heating plant and authorities failed to maintain an adequate fire watch, she claimed. The doctrine also encompasses two other cases from that time period. One involved an Army serviceman who sued for damages after an 18-x-30 inch towel had to be removed from his abdomen. The towel, which was stamped "Medical Department of the U.S. Army," was left behind after an abdominal surgery that was performed at an Army hospital eight months previously. The other case also involved medical malpractice where the patient, an active duty officer in the Army, died at the hands of what the lawsuit alleged was "an unskilled Army surgeon." With the Feres Doctrine, the U.S. Supreme Court declared in 1950 that active duty servicemen and their estates could not recover money against the U.S. government. As a result, all three of the pending cases were dismissed.

 

The Feres Doctrine is an exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act of 1946, which states that the United States is liable for personal injuries and medical malpractice "in the same manner as a private individual under like circumstances." According to the Feres Doctrine, the Federal Tort Claims Act "did not apply to servicemen," because the government is not liable for injuries to servicemen where the injuries "arise out of or are in the course of activity incident to their service in the Armed Forces." Challenge to FeresWith the protection of total immunity, the Feres Doctrine has been surrounded by controversy since its inception. The primary objection is that as a result of Feres a member of the armed services loses many rights that non-military citizens enjoy, such as the right to seek redress of grievances or compensation, which is guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution. Because of the Feres Doctrine, service members who have been injured while on the job are not eligible to sue their superiors for negligence or malpractice.

 

Under current law, the families of honorable servicemen like Justin Haase have no recourse against what some consider the incompetence of superiors. Freehold attorney Michael Detzky, a former chair of the New Jersey State Bar Association's Military Law and Veteran's Affairs Committee, believes physicians practicing in military hospitals should be held to the same standards as private citizens, but he noted that the courts are reluctant to get involved in military decisions, that would include overturning the Feres Doctrine. "Soldiers should not feel as if they are second-class citizens," Detzky maintains. "Many restrictions are placed on soldiers that the private citizen does not have to endure. If they use foul language in the military, they are subject to court-martial and they can't just quit if they feel like it. Yet they don't have the same recourse as private citizens if they are wronged," said Detzky, who has served in the U.S. Naval Reserves for 22 years and is a captain.

 

The Feres Doctrine was last challenged and reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1987 in United States v. Johnson. That case involved Lt. Commander Horton Johnson, a helicopter pilot for the U.S. Coast Guard, who was killed during a rescue mission. Because of poor weather conditions, Lt. Johnson requested radar assistance from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The FAA assumed radar control over the helicopter, and shortly after, it crashed into a mountain. His widow sued the U.S. government on the grounds that the FAA, a civilian agency of the federal government, was negligent and caused the death of Lt. Johnson and his flight crew.

 

The U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed the Feres Doctrine with a 5-4 vote in the Johnson case."Because Johnson was acting pursuant to standard operating procedures of the Coast Guard, the potential that this suit could implicate military discipline is substantial," U.S. Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell wrote in his majority opinion. "The circumstances of this case thus fall within the heart of the Feres Doctrine as it consistently has been articulated." In his dissenting opinion, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia wrote, "Had Lt. Commander Johnson been piloting a commercial helicopter when he crashed into the side of a mountain, his widow and children could have sued and recovered for their loss. But because Johnson devoted his life to serving in his country's Armed Forces, the Court today limits his family to a fraction of the recovery they might otherwise have received." Justice Scalia went on to say, "Feres was wrongly decided and heartily deserves the widespread, almost universal criticism it has received.

 

" Other challenges/other familiesThere continue to be challenges to the Feres Doctrine today. In August 2002, Pfc. Jeremy Purcell was killed when a Marine sergeant shot him with live ammunition during a routine training exercise at Camp Pendleton, California. The sergeant received a one-year sentence in jail for negligent homicide and also received a bad-conduct discharge from the Marines. An investigation of the incident revealed problems with the way ammunition was handled during training exercises. Purcell's parents are intent on holding the military accountable for their son's death. Jon Purcell, Jeremy's father and a 20-year Navy veteran who will represent himself, charges gross negligence and seeks a reversal of the Feres Doctrine. Purcell, according to an article in Marine Corps Times, believes "the finding of negligence removes the Marine Corps' protection under Feres."Most recently, in February 2005, another Marine recruit at Parris Island, Jason Tharp, drowned during the combat water survival training phase of boot camp. The day before he died, footage of Tharp's drill instructor physically abusing him was shot by a local NBC affiliate. The footage was shown on the Today Show 10 days after his death. The drill instructor was suspended as a result of the incident along with four other Marines who had knowledge of the incident but did not report it. Pending further investigation by the Navy, John Tharp, Jason's father, is considering filing a wrongful death suit against the Marines.

 

Fighting for reformCongressman Barney Frank of Massachusetts introduced legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives in 2001 that would amend the Feres Doctrine to allow military families to seek redress for medical malpractice, making military doctors accountable for their actions when not in wartime. Frank has introduced this legislation many times and the bill has always died in the U.S. Senate.In October 2002, Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania chaired hearings on the Feres Doctrine before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee. While many people who spoke at the hearings made impassioned pleas for abolishing or modifying the Feres Doctrine, Rear Admiral Chris Weaver defended it. In his testimony, Admiral Weaver said that the Feres Doctrine is important for maintaining good order and discipline in the military."Allowing service members to bring suits in federal court against their chain of command will interfere with mission accomplishment and adversely affect our operational readiness," Admiral Weaver said. "The military has long been recognized as a 'specialized community' requiring demands and responsibilities far different from its civilian counterpart. The impact of litigation on this specialized community would undermine trust not only among individual service members, but also their superiors and officers throughout the chain of command," he added. James Smith, a Metuchen attorney and member of the NJSBA Military Law and Veterans' Affairs Committee, also believes that the Feres Doctrine should remain as is, noting that service people are provided with a generous disability pension similar to workers' compensation if they are injured. Will the pending cases have an impact on overturning the Feres Doctrine? Detzky said it is hard to predict what the U.S. Supreme Court will do, but so far they have declined to revisit the Feres Doctrine.  
Posted by BDT at 01:20:45 | Permanent Link | Comments (6) |

Wednesday, October 04, 2006

SHORT ATTENTION SPAN AMERICA?

 As we listen to all this hoopla about the Mark Foley and the teenaged male page incident, I am wondering where the reporting about the war and the troops have gone. It seems like every time there is something that really affects us as a nation which we should be concerned with, there is a huge sex scandal that draws our attention away from the things that affect us all.

It happened during the Clinton administration with Monica Lewinsky. The situation they drew our attention away from then was the implication that the Clinton administration had been involved in selling nuclear weapons information to China. The investigation into that fizzled when Monica came along.

It seems to be happening now with this incident and it seems to be with a purposeful intent this is happening. I know that many Americans would rather watch Jerry Springer than pay attention to the things that are the most important to all of us, things that have the most detrimental effect to our nation, things that are getting our soldiers killed by the hundreds. Yet, the most watched thing in America at the moment is the Mark Foley episode of American Springer.

Don't get me wrong, I do not in any way condone what he has apparently done; which is to entice a 16 year male into internet sex talk. This is no different than internet kiddie porn and he should be dealt with as the law prescribes. But it seems rather convenient to have this take all the media spot light at this particular time.  

We have soldiers in harms way, we have soldiers being wounded, we have soldiers dying and all we can talk about now is some pervert who gets his jollies by having internet sex with kids!!!!!!!  Arrest this guy, do an investigation, if he is guilty put him in jail and move on to more important issues. If anyone in a leadership position in congress knew about it and did not do anything, investigate them for obstruction of justice, and if they are guilty prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law.

But for the soldiers and the rest of the troops sake, let's not forget about them while this sordid, twisted, sick, Jerry Springer story is in the spot light.

Posted by BDT at 01:07:22 | Permanent Link | Comments (0) |