Los Angeles Times -
The
chicken sandwich became a political statement for a day as supporters
of the Chick-fil-A president's stance against gay marriage caused
traffic jams at the fast-food chain's restaurants nationwide.
That is just some of the coverage.
The chain got itself in trouble when the president of the company came out against same-sex marriage. I am sure there are other chains with a president who does not approve of marriage equality; however, they are probably smart enough not to say anything, you know?
What does marriage equality have to do with a chicken sandwich and waffle fries?
Did anyone need to know the stance?
He should have kept his mouth shut.
He did know, right, that he was supposed to move food at the stores, not inspire protests?
Maybe he did not know that.
I bet he does now.
I support marriage equality 100% so I will not eat at Chick-fil-A. But if the president of the company had kept his mouth shut, I might have. It was not a place I sought out but if Treva or another friend called up and said, "Ruth, let's meet up at Chick-fil-A," I would have.
Now?
I would say that is impossible and suggest that we go somewhere else.
And that is why he should have kept his mouth shut.
I also happen to believe that my opinion is in the majority and that he will see a big loss as a result of his statements. I could be wrong but I do not think the 'supporters' of bigotry are large enough to keep Chick-fil-A in the green.
It would really be something if they ended up shutting down as a result of this. Really something.
This is C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot" for today:
Wednesday,
August 1, 2012. Chaos and violence continue, July is the deadliest
month for Iraq in two years, the State Dept issues a statement on Camp
Ashraf, Out-FM addresses Bradley Manning, the VA blows off two members
of Congress (and veterans), and more.
Chair
Ann Marie Buerkle: As our veterans so eloquently described in May,
prosthetic care is unlike any other care that VA provides and, when we
make the mistake of treating it as such, no less than the daily and
ongoing functioning and quality of limb of our veterans is at stake. I
was very troubled to hear our veterans voice such strong opposition to
the proposed procurement reforms, arguing forcefully that they would
lead to substantial delays in care for veterans with amputations and
clinical judgments regarding veterans needs being overridden by
individuals with little to no experience in prosthetic care. In
mid-June -- following our hearing -- I sent a letter, along with Ranking
Member Michaud, to the Secretary [of VA] requesting that the Department
respond to a number of questions and provide certain materials
regarding the strategy, plans and criteria used to consider, develop,
design, implement and evaluate the proposed reforms and the pilot
programs that preceded them. Our goal was to understand the analysis VA
employed to develop the reforms and what was behind the decision that
this was the best idea for our veterans, especially those who have
experienced loss of life as a result of service to our country. Sadly,
the Department's response -- which came a week after the deadline
requested in our letter -- did not provide the information or the level
of detail we ased for and did nothing to assure me that the plan would
be effective or that our veterans concers were unfounded.
When
the House Veterans Affairs Subcommittee on Health's Chair Buerkle and
Ranking Member Mike Michaud are blown off -- and the Veteran Affairs
Dept did blow them off -- it's not just insulting to Congress. It's
also an insult to veterans. Buerkle and Michaud aren't looking for pen
pals. They're busy and have a great deal to do. Their staff is very
busy. So when they're asking about something, when they're trying to
provide the oversight and ensure that the veterans are being served,
they shouldn't be blown off. The May hearing [May 16th, covered in the May 16th and May 17th
snapshots] was rather intense. That questions would arise from that
hearing is not surprising. It is surprising that the VA would (a)
respond late and (b) offer a non-response as a response.
It's
insulting. And it's very sad that at the conclusion of the hearing,
Chair Buerkle had to ask for a copy of the plan that the hearing was
about, a plan discussed throughout the hearing, to be submitted to the
Subcommittee and the House Veterans Affairs Committee. That should have
been supplied some time ago. As she noted, they needed to see that
plan to make sure that "the veterans best interests are" being served.
Yesterday
afternoon, the Subcommittee on Health held a hearing on prosthetics.
They heard from one panel which was the VA's Dr. Robert Petzel with
Philip Martovsky, Dr. Lucille Beck and C. Ford Heard (all of the VA).
Two terms to know before we go further. "VSO" refers to Veterans
Service Organizations -- like the VFW, the American Legion, etc. "VISN"
is the Veterans Integrated Service Network -- medical care facilities.
We're
going to emphasize two exchanges early on. I don't care for Dr. Petzel
because I find him to be rude and he tries to run out the clock on his
answers. And he may be wonderful and just come off uncaring. But as
you'll see in the first excerpt, even when he's given the heads up that
he's coming off poorly, he doesn't alter his language, he doesn't try to
speak in a professional manner that shows care for the veterans. This
is not a new thing with him, this happens every time.
Committee
Chair Ann Marie Buerkle: When I hear words like "equipment" and
"pharmaceuticals" and then development possibly of a catalog, what you
are talking about in those instances are so very different from the
testimony we heard in the last hearing regarding the personal nature of a
prosthetic. Amoxicilliin is Amoxicilliin. A thermometer is a
thermometer. But a prosthetic is unique to that person and to his needs
or her needs. That's my concern with this. That you -- That this
process will become just as any other procurement. This is a very
different process and I think it's what concerns the VSOs and what
concerns the veterans. This is uniquely personal service that we have
to give to that veteran and what I'm hearing here when you talk about
cataloging purchases concerns me greatly.
Dr.
Robert Petzel: Uhm, Madam Chairwoman, we absolutely agree with you.
This -- this is the most personal of work VA does -- crafting and
fitting a prosthetic limb to an individual that's lost an arm or a leg
is a very personal process. The reforms that we're talking about in
terms of uh procurement will not interfere with that process. The
physician orders the prosthetic and that order can be very specific.
The prosthesist works with the patient to determine where the best
place is to purchase that. As you know, we have 600 contracts in the
private sector and most of our procurement not all but most of our
procurement occurs in the private sector. In the process of
transitioning during the pilot, we audited the orders that the physician
had written, we audited the purchasing contract -- the way the contract
-- what was actually purchased. We looked at the timeliness between
when that order was actually placed and when that order was
purchased. And we looked at the satisfaction -- particularly at the
processes in the physicians as to whether or not the needs of that
veteran's as they described them were met. And, In the pilots, we found
that that was true -- that that worked very well. The only misjudgment
that we made in the pilots was that we expected a higher level of
productivity from the contracting officers than we actually found and we
had to revise the number of contracting officers that we felt we needed
because we felt that the contracts per day that they originally
were going to perform was more than was doable -- that 2.5 is a better
example. But otherwise the pilots indicated that things went very well.
Chair
Ann Marie Buerkle: Can you talk to us about the pilots? How many
pilots were done? How long? Over what period of time were the pilots
conducted? What areas, which VISINs were included and how you -- What
were the various pilots? How many were there?
Dr.
Robert Petzel: Yes, Madam Chairman, we can. And I'd like to turn
to Mr. Matovsky to give you some of the details about the pilots. Thank
you.
Philip
Matovsky: Thank you, sir. We conducted three pilots. One of them in
VISIN 6 -- I'm sorry, VISIN 6 which is North Carolina, parts of
Virginia, parts of West Virginia. VISN 11 which is Indiana -- I'm going
to test my geography here -- parts of Michigan as well. VISN 20 which
is the upper north west on into Alaska. We selected them because they
were a uh-uh broad representation -- some of them highly rural, some of
them very large and growing. We also ran them from the period of January
through the end of March -- for three months. I believe one of them
scooted into April. We tested two different processes. One process
utilized fully the ECMS our Electronic Contract Management System to
place the order and another one in VISN 6. a slightly different
process. That's the basis for it. We tested the onboarding of our
staff, the training of our staff, the communication, the collaboration
with the prosthesis, the prosthetic purchasing agent and then the
contracting management agent staff. As Dr. Petzel just indicated, we
did conduct some audits. For example, we looked at the technical
appropriateness of the contracting action but more importantly we looked
at what percentage of the time did the contracting officer adhere to
the physician's prescription? 100% of the time, the contracting officer
adhered to the prescription.
Petzel's
saying he agrees with the Chair but he makes no attempt to use language
that demonstrates he really does agree. He comes off in hearing after
hearing as someone who does not care. He doesn't want to be informed.
If he's given a chance to correct and impression, he doesn't want to be
bothered.
If I have breakfast with you on a
regular basis and your name is Charlie but I keep calling you Carl, that
says something. Especially if it's not a joke between us but it's that
I've never cared enough to learn your name. I bring that up for a
reason as we jump into the next excerpt.
Ranking
Member Mike Michaud: [. . .] We are alarmed by the possible negative
impact on patient care including substantial delays in clinical
judgments regarding veterans needs being overridden by individuals with
little or no working knowledge of prosthetic care. And we sent a
bipartisan letter to the secretary outlining our concerns and soliciting
answers to several of our questions. And this is the third hearing in
an handful of months on this particular issue. And I remain committed
to working with the very dedicated staff at the Dept of Veterans Affairs
and the advocacy community to ensure that our veterans are getting the
best care that we can deliver in the timely way in this joint-effort and
joint-challenges that this Subcommittee stands ready to help. And I
read through your testimony and I have a few questions, if I might. In
your testiomny, you said, We believe that many of our reform efforts are
acceptable to all concerned parties." When you say "we believe,"
have you worked with the VSOs and the veterans to find out whether or
not they do take in their -- their concerns?
Dr.
Robert Petzel: Excuse me, Congressman Michaud, we have. Since the May
hearing, there have been multiple hearings with the -- the service
office -- service officers representatives. I have a breakfast monthly,
uhm, with the six of the largest service organizations. We made a
presentation and a discussion at that breakfast earlier in July and then
just a day ago on Monday at a conference call with the service
organizations. I'll just quickly [picks up a list in front of him and
reads from it] with American Legion, VFW, PPA, the DAV, AmVet
and the Blind Veterans of America to discuss [puts list down] what we
want to do. And I can say, that there was no, uh, objection.
Really?
Not even from the Blind Veterans of America. Anybody else questioning
that? I've attended a ton of hearings, I write checks to many
organizations helping the wounded. But I'm pulling a blank on Blind
Veterans of America. Maybe he meant Blinded Amercian Veterans? Maybe he didn't. Maybe he meant the Blinded Veterans Association?
Maybe he didn't. But what he said, reading from his list, was "the
Blind Veterans of America." Most of the time, those who get the name
wrong mean Blinded Veterans Association. Usually Dr. Thomas Zampieri is
their spokesperson at Congressional hearings and he just nods when
their name is stated wrongly and then, in his testimony, he'll note that
they are the Blinded Veterans Association. My guess is that Petzel
meant the Blinded Veterans Association. It's a shame people can't get
the organization's name right in a hearing when they're speaking off
the top of their heads. But Petzel wasn't doing that. He pulled out a
list and read from the list. And that means he most likely has
breakfast with Zampieri and others and wrongly calls them the "Blind
Veterans of America."
Again, he comes off as
someone who just doesn't give a damn. He meets with this group monthly
but he doesn't know their name? Even when reading off a prepared list,
he can't get the name right? You have to wonder how VA lets stuff that
happen. It's not as if they're image is so sparkling that they can
afford to take a few hits from Petzel.
US
House Rep Phil Roe is also Dr. Phil Roe, a medical doctor. He
established a few levels in his questioning. Before a program goes
widespread, the VA always swears it's going to work perfect and this
person and that person will benefit and there are never any problems
with these program that aren't running yet. Then they start up and,
wow, there are problems. I think Dr. Roe did a very good job
establishing what the goals of this transformation are. If the new
standardization is successful, a year from now we should be able to go
through the markers Dr. Roe established.
US
House Rep Phil Roe: Just a couple of very quick questions. The idea,
the reason for doing this was back to what the IG -- is that right, Dr.
Petzel, trying to standardize the procedures not only in this but in
other areas of contracting that the VA does? Am I right on that?
.
Dr.
Robert Petzel: We have to standardize procurement. Not procedures per
se. But to professionalize and standardize the way we, uh, procure
material. We have been, as I said, criticized in the past by important
groups of people including some Congressional Committees on our
procurement stratigies. And this system-wide effort was to try and
professionalize that, yes.
US
House Rep Phil Roe: Okay, so I guess in what the Chairwoman said is
correct and there's obviously a prosthesist sitting right to your left.
That's a very individualized therapy and I know as a physician not
everything -- I mean, this has to be tailored per person. I'm sure
there's some standardization to it but it has to be. And this is not
in any way going to slow the process down. Or make that process not as
effective or available to our veterans. Am I correct on that?
Dr. Robert Petzel: Yes, sir, you are correct.
US
House Rep Phil Roe: And so they'll be able to come -- a patient will
be able to come into the clinic and that patient won't know the
difference. The time won't make any difference. There's not going to
be a difference in timeliness. The fact that it costs more than $3000,
that's not going to affect the time that that veteran that comes in that
needs a limb or needs a prosthetic device is going to get that device?
Dr. Robert Petzel: Yes, sir, that's correct.
US
House Rep Phil Roe: Okay, so I think that's extremely important. And,
secondly, once you've catalogued this, is there a way to go outside?
In other words, here's what's in our catalogue. If the doctor and the
prosthetist look at this patient and say, "This is what they need. It's
not right in this little book right here." Can they get that? Because
this technology is changing faster than cardiac stents are changing. I
mean, it's amazing now the technology in prosthesis. So as that new
technology occurs, it's like these things right here [holds up a cell
phone]. As soon as you buy it, it's out of date. And so I see the same
thing in prosthesis. People are doing things -- amazing things -- with
this. So is it once it goes in the Sears & Roebuck catalogue that
Sears has, that VA has, can that person get something from the new
catalogue? Or something brand new that happened?
Dr.
Robert Petzel: Dr. Roe, absolutely. One of the nice things about the
VA and the procurement regulations is 8123 which basically says that,
uh, with the proper justification, we do not have to do competative
buying. That we can buy specifically what the doctor has ordered. So
while we may have a catalogue of things that are appropriate in certain
kinds of circumstances, the important part in all of this is a doctor
writes an order and we will procure for that patient what the doctor has
ordered.
US House Rep Phil Roe: So this is not going to negate new technology as it occurs?
Dr. Robert Petzel: Absolutely not.
US
House Rep Phil Roe: So our veterans can get the cutting edge? They're
not going to get stuck with it's not in the book, you can't have it?
Dr.
Robert Petzel: Absolutely not, Congressman. Just to give an example,
there are two relatively new knees that were jointly developed by the VA
and the Dept of Defense. The 2X or X2 and the Genium. Is that how
you pronounce that? Those are absolutely cutting edge techonology for
artifical knee. They're available to any veteran that needs and wants
that kind of a prosthesis.
US
House Rep Phil Roe: So it's not going to be -- I mean, it's one thing
to have all the colonoscopes looking exactly alike. That was one of the
issues when I first got here. We had that issue that came up.
Dr. Robert Petzel: Yes.
US
House Rep Phil Roe: This is a little different than that. And I guess
the other question that I had -- and then I'll have no more -- is that
you said that you don't believe that the veterans will be negatively
impacted. Well will they be postively impacted by this? Will this
improve? I know the VA feels like it will be postively impacted but
will the veteran be positively impacted by this?
Dr. Robert Petzel: Well first of all I think --
US House Rep Phil Roe: Or will they even know the difference?
Dr.
Robert Petzel: I think first they -- First of all, Congressman, they
should not know a difference. This should be absolutely transparent to
them. But there are things -- a couple of things that I think will
happen that will -- even if they don't notice it -- improve prospects. I
expect that once we get this up and running and under our belt that
we're going to cut down on the procurement time on average. That's
one. Number two is that any money that might be saved by getting a fair
price -- and that's not our intention but if that should happen -- is
money that can be put back into the system to provide more care to more
veterans.
US
House Rep Phil Roe: One quick question, when will we know that? When
will you evaluate the system and it's up and running? A year from now
or two years from now?
Dr.
Robert Petzel: Congressman, I think there's going to be two different
kinds of evaluation. One is that, in an ongoing fashion, we have to
monitor the things that we described before: timeliness; was a
physician's order actually followed 100% of the time; was there a level
of satisfaction that was appropriate on the part of the patient, the
provider, the doctor and the contracting officer; and certain other
technical things about the contract? That's going to be an ongoing
process. When we have been into this for say a year or six months, we
will have to look -- and we will look -- at the overall process and see
what it has accomplished? And see if indeed we're doing overall a
better job of purchasing than we were doing before? So there will be
two levels of evaluation.
Let's stay with the Genium X2 prosthetic knee for a moment. KSTP has a video report here
of Iraq War veteran Luke Schmitz after he got the prosthetic knee. He
stated, "As I'm walking, I don't have to think about it and it's doing
everything for me." It has a microprocessor in it. Orange Coast
Prosthetics has photos and videos of the Genium/X2 here
and explains, "The Genium hydraulic knee joint system functions through
the use of simulated physiologic rule sets run by a miscroprocessor,
with auto-adaptive swing and stand phase control predicted by
multi-modal proprioceptive input. The system also provides flexed-knee
loading to traverse obstacles and ascend stairs, and dynamic stability
control for intuititve standing and transitional gait. After
purchasing the Genium Microprocessor Knee, the practitioner manufactures
a custom-fabricated prosthesis incorporating the component." If you
click here,
you can view a video report by WHIO on Air Force member Chris Trobaugh
who got the Genium and explains, "I can run on it. And I can hike on
it. Play basketball, golf. Those are all my goals. All the things I
want to do."
Chair Ann Marie
Buerkle noted that she was concerned about the length of the pilot
program. "three months is a very short period of time." She was
concerned that Dr. Lucille Beck had a number of duties already and could
not provide sole supervision of this new program. She made Dr. Petzel
go on the record with the fact that a doctor's order would be followed,
that a contracting officer (whom she summed up as someone with
a Bachelors of Science and a few hours in business courses) would not be
allowed to override a doctor's order. Petzel insisted that was not the
case and that the doctor's order would always be followed. That's
something to remember when the first complaints on the program start
coming in. Buerkle was also concerned that the VSOs and veterans were
not being properly and/or fully included in the process. We'll note
some of her concluding remarks.
Chair
Ann Marie Buerkle: I think it's very important that we get as many
Veterans Services Organizations involved in this discussion, as many
perspectives. You know, what you've mentioned, with all due respect, is
great but I think we've got additional Veterans Service Organizations
that need to be included in this discussion. And to make sure -- there's
nothing more important than the veterans -- and to make sure that when
they come home without a limb because they've served this nation, that
they have what they need, that they're not dealing with some contracting
officer who's got some discretion to give him less of a device than he
deserves. So that's all of our concern here that we get our veterans
exactly what they need. We heard the last time from veterans. We're
talking about the ability of someone to walk his daughter down the
aisle. We're talking about intensely personal prosthetics and intensely
personal segment of the care that our veterans need. So there's
nothing more important. And while we are all concerned with regards to
cost, that we make sure that our veterans who have served this nation
get exactly what they need so that they can return to their maximum
potential after they've sacrificed so much for this nation.
Today was the first of the month, meaning deaths in Iraq got a little media attention. Iraq Body Count tabulates 436 people were killed from violence in Iraq for the month of July. W.G. Dunlop (AFP) notes that the 'official' count from Nouri's ministries is 325 people dead and 697 injured. Alsumaria adds the government's 325 toll would make July the deadliest month since August 2010. Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) reports,
"The killing continued August 1, when five Iraqi police officers were
killed and three others were wounded in separate attacks against two
Iraqi police checkpoints, police officials said."
In other news Ayad al-Tamimi (Al Mada) reports
the provincial law election (the UN wants elections held March 2013) is
stalled due to a lack of agreement between State of Law and Iraqiya.
Disagreements last week had been over the issues of quotas and
representation. This seems to be different and the draft law isn't even
being read aloud due to the disagreement. Citing non-specified
differences between the political blocs, Alsumaria reports that a vote on a judicial bill has been postponed to tomorrow. Mohammad Akef Jamal (Gulf News) explores the political crisis noting:
After
the central stage struggle and differences between Prime Minister Nouri
Al Maliki and Ayad Alawi, Chairman of the Al Iraqiya List since the
elections of 2010, the importance of this struggle dropped to second
place in a more profound clash that is threatening the future and unity
of the country.
Today,
the axis of conflict between Al Maliki and Masoud Barzani, the
President of the Iraqi Kurdistan Region, has become more important.
However, the clashes and differences are not between the Kurdish
Alliance and the Iraqi National Alliance, as all the counterparts of
both these alliances are fragmented and in a certain degree of
disagreement amongst themselves over this issue or that.
The
conflict interfaces are numerous, such as Al Maliki's dictatorship
inclinations, the oil and gas law, the Constitution's item 140, the
disputed lands, arming the Iraqi forces, arming the Kurdish Peshmerga
forces, the region's budget, and the region's right to export oil to
Turkey, to mention only a few as the list extends further.
The
hawks of this conflict are many especially in the media; however the
two prominent and central figures are Al Maliki and Barzani themselves.
Moreover, both men are no longer keen on hiding their sentiments towards
one another in a diplomatic manner.
Yesterday Total entered into a deal with the KRG -- as had Chevron and ExxonMobil previously. The Baghdad-based government was furious. Trade Arabia notes, "Total, which is following US rivals into the area, was warned by Baghdad on Tuesday it faced "severe" consequences for buying the stakes in the Harir and Safen blocks from US peer Marathon Oil without the government's consent." Al Rafidayn notes the Ministry of Oil's Director of Contracts and Licenses Abdul-Mehdi al-Amidi is stating that they are looking into repealing the deal.
But Peter Mulvany (Middle East Confidential) states that "Total maintains that they kept the Baghdad authorities aware of their intentions. It also claims that contractual conditions are more favorable in the autonomous region than anywhere in the country as the company struggles to meets its annual objectives. The Harir field was drilled on Monday and drilling will begin next year on the Safen one." Proactive Investors UK attempts to navigate the legal issues:
Under
the Iraq constitution of 2005, the federal government has exclusive
responsibility in a number of areas, including foreign policy and
defence. In other areas responsibility falls to the regions.
Also, the constitution suggests that the federal government does not have exclusive power over matters to do with oil and gas.
It
recognises that oil and gas resources belong to all the people of Iraq
but that management of the resource is shared with the regions.
It
also requires federal government and the regions to agree strategic
policies to develop oil and gas to the highest benefit of the Iraqi
people. If there is a conflict between regional and federal laws under
the constitution then the regional law prevails.
The
2005 constitution identifies the concept of "present fields", meaning
those already in production at the time the constitution was agreed.
Oil
and gas already extracted from these fields should be jointly managed
by the federal government and regional governments, with fair
distribution of revenues to be regulated by law.
However,
for non-producing and future fields, the federal government has no
right to play a part in management and there is no requirement for a
federally regulated distribution of revenues.
And you know Nouri's really pissed because Al Mada reports State of Law's whispering that they're going to call Hoshyar Zebari before Parliament for questioning. Foreign Minister Zebari is one of the highest ranking Kurds in the government. He has been Foreign Minister since 2006 and has an international reputation. That reputation might be why he's being targeted. The Kurds have become very vocal in asking/suggesting that the US government attempt to broker a resolution to the ongoing political crisis.
The US State Dept issued a statement on Camp Ashraf residents today:
Press Statement
Patrick Ventrell
Acting Deputy Spokesperson, Office of Press Relations
Acting Deputy Spokesperson, Office of Press Relations
Washington, DC
August 1, 2012
The
United States is concerned by the Government of Iraq's reference on
July 31 to the possible closure of Camp Ashraf by involuntary relocation
of its residents. We urge the Government of Iraq to remain patient and
flexible in seeking a voluntary arrangement for continued relocations,
as only a peaceful resolution to the situation at Camp Ashraf is
acceptable. This requires that continued dialogue be pursued in place of
forcible measures and that all sides act in accordance with the
December 25, 2011 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Iraqi
Government and the United Nations.
We also
call on the Ashraf leadership to immediately resume cooperation with the
relocation of residents to Camp Hurriya, especially following the Iraqi
Government's delivery of a cargo convoy of goods as demanded by the
residents on July 15. Allegations of dire humanitarian conditions at
Hurriya are inconsistent with observations made by U.S. Government
officials who have visited Hurriya, as well as reporting from UN
monitors. Based on these reports, and other information, it is clear
that the quality of life at Hurriya exceeds accepted humanitarian
standards. The continued intransigence of the residents' leadership in
placing preconditions and making demands prior to any agreement to
relocate further Ashraf residents is unacceptable and puts in danger
protections established in the MOU.
The
process established by the MOU has resulted in the safe relocation of
nearly 2,000 residents from Camp Ashraf, almost two-thirds of its
estimated population. The United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq's
(UNAMI) "Roadmap" provides a peaceful way forward for Ashraf's closure,
and the United States urges adherence to this process to finally and
peacefully close Camp Ashraf. Ashraf's closure will allow UNAMI, the
United States, and our partners to focus attention and efforts on a
durable solution for the residents' relocation outside of Iraq.
It's
interesting that now they're concerned. Before they weren't. And
their indifference and outright hostility sent a message to Nouri
al-Maliki and he acted accordingly. That's what happened and that's
what the State Dept's trying to walk back now.
Moving over to the US where Bradley Manning's court-martial is scheduled to begin September 21st. Monday April 5, 2010, WikiLeaks released US military video of a July 12, 2007 assault in Iraq. 12 people were killed in the assault including two Reuters journalists Namie Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh. Monday June 7, 2010, the US military announced that they had arrested Bradley Manning and he stood accused of being the leaker of the video. Leila Fadel (Washington Post) reported
in August 2010 that Manning had been charged -- "two charges under the
Uniform Code of Military Justice. The first encompasses four counts of
violating Army regulations by transferring classified information to his
personal computer between November and May and adding unauthorized
software to a classified computer system. The second comprises eight
counts of violating federal laws governing the handling of classified
information." In March, 2011, David S. Cloud (Los Angeles Times) reported
that the military has added 22 additional counts to the charges
including one that could be seen as "aiding the enemy" which could
result in the death penalty if convicted. The Article 32 hearing took
place in December. At the start of this year, there was an Article 32
hearing and, February 3rd, it was announced that the government would be
moving forward with a court-martial. Bradley has yet to enter a plea
and has neither affirmed that he is the leaker nor denied it.
On this week's Out-FM (Tuesday nights, seven p.m. EST, WBAI), John Riley and Bob Lederer covered Bradley by speaking with two reporters covering the case. Excerpt.
Bob
Lederer: We're here at Fort Meade, Maryland and today we've just
finished the sixth hearing in the court-marital of accused whistle
blower Bradley Manning, the openly gay Army intelligence analyst who is
facing 22 charges from his alleged disclosure of nearly 3/4 of a million
documents and videos to WikiLeaks. Some of these materials show
evidence of War Crimes and other inappropriate conduct by the US
government and its allies. The pre-trial hearings have been presided
over by military Judge Denise Lind. The actual court-martial trial --
over which she will also preside -- is not expected to begin until
sometime next year. Joining us to explain the significance of
developments at this four day hearing are two guests. Kevin Gosztola [.
. .] blogs for Firedoglake.com. Adm Klasfeld is a reporter for the Courthouse News Service.
And he's based in New York City. Both of them have covered many of the
hearings to date in the Bradley Manning case. And thank you for joining
us on Out-FM and, Kevin, since you literally wrote the book on
the case, let me start with you. Why don't you summarize the 22
charges that Private Manning is facing and what's the maximum sentence
he could be looking at?
Kevin
Gostola: So the most significant charge is the aiding the enemy charge
that says he gave intelligence to the enemy through WikiLeaks. So he
aided them indirectly. And that could mean he would be put in prison
for life without parole. That's the max, I would think, he could get.
And then the other charges have to do with violating -- or prejudicing
the good order and discipline and dignity of the military. And those
charges are -- there's many charges. There's more then ten charges that
are like that. And then -- And each of those have about ten years I
think that carry with those. And then there are charges to have to do
with whether he exceeded authorized access on his computer. And I think
that those are all ten years as well.
Bob Lederer: And Adam Klasfeld, how do you see kind of the overall importance of the charges against Bradley Manning?
Adam
Klasfeld: Well I think both parties have said -- since the court-
martial -- started this is a unique case. This will help determine the
way the military deals with when someone discloses information on the
internet. How will the country handle it? The repercussions will be
felt all over the world? How freely will people be able to access
information? What restrictions will there be? It has enormous
consequences. Well, to me, one thing that really stuck out to me, every
time we see this, a hearing on this case, someone says -- whether it's
the judge or whether it's Bradley Manning's lawyers -- they constantly
get back to the fact that it's a completely unique case. No one has
ever dealt with this case before. Bradley Manning is charged under the
Espionage Act yet the government doesn't accuse him of spying. There
wasn't anything on any particular nation. And if you read Bradley
Manning's chat logs which, you know, the authenticity has been disputed
by the defense but if you read his words, he says that he did this for
public knowledge, not for a country, not for any particular nation. So
it's its own unique thing. Obviously WikiLeaks has had an enormous
influence on global policy and this case will help determine the future
of the press, the future of how we access information, what will
happen? It has huge ramifications to the way we think about the nature
of information, the way we think about national security, the way we
think about all of these issues and what will happen to those who do
step forward and-and share information that someone determines to be
classified or sensitive or anything like that.
Bob
Lederer: This week's hearing gave the prosecution and the defense a
chance to argue and the judge to rule on several rules about the conduct
of Manning's court-martial as well as what documents the prosecution
should be required to turn over to the defense so they can prepare their
case. Kevin Gosztola, what do you think was the most important ruling
made by Judge Lind this week and why?
Kevin
Gosztola: Well the most important ruling was the ruling that found in
favor of the government that the defense could be prevented from raising
evidence that showed actual damage or harm was caused by WikiLeaks or
that it was caused by Manning releasing this information allegedly to
WikiLeaks. And this is very significant for the fact that it appears
David Coombs, Manning's defense lawyer, built a lot of his case around
being able to discuss this evidence. But now the judge has -- she's
been won over by this idea presented by the prosecutors that it is not
part of the charges and that the defense should not be able to raise
this evidence when they discuss it in court. And, going forward, what
this means is that any discussion about damage from both the government
and the defense is going to be entirely hypothetical. So this ruling is
good for the government. It's good for the government agencies that
don't want any attention on what actually happened as a result of the
leaks because members of the public who have seen headlines probably
know numerous government officials said that there were -- there was
damage, national security was placed at risk. And the whole story,
people might be wondering, what exactly did happen? Well in this trial
we're not likely to get too much information about what did happen
anymore. Up to this point, we've gotten some details actually. In
fact, State Dept witnesses testified in June about actual damage to an
extent, it came up in testimony. And now it's all hypothetical. So
when the government talks, they'll be saying, 'Could cause damage.' And
they'll just be talking about the evidence as if it could cause
damage. And the same with the defense, I guess.
l
lkkkkkkkk
that he could be put
