Cedric's Big Mix

Friday, May 18, 2012

Which country is he president of?

BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE

AS AMERICA IS GRIPPED BY THE ECONOMIC CRISIS WITH MILLIONS OUT OF WORK AND, AS ECONOMIC BLOGGER TRINA POINTED OUT THIS WEEK, 200,000 PEOPLE LOSE UNEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE CHECKS THIS WEEKEND AND THAT THE ECONOMIC CRISIS HAS DEPLETED THE SAVINGS OF MOST AMERICANS LUCKY ENOUGH TO HAVE SAVINGS BEFORE 2008.

BUT, GOOD NEWS!, CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O HAS SOME PLANS FINALLY!

BARRY O IS SET TO ANNOUNCE $3 BILLION TO ENSURE FOOD SECURITY. IN ADDITION, HE HAS GOTTEN 50 MULTI-NATIONALS TO AGREE TO HELP SMALL FARMERS.

OF COURSE, THE SMALL FARMERS ARE IN AFRICA AND, OF COURSE, THE FOOD SECURITY PLAN IS ALSO FOR AFRICA.

AMERICANS, YOU'RE ON YOUR OWN!

VOTE BARACK OBAMA IN NOVEMBER 2012, THIS MESSAGE WAS APPROVED BY THE BARACK OBAMA CAMPAIGN.

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Yesterday, the House Veterans Affairs Subcommittee on Health held a hearing.

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Today, the Subcommittee on Health held a hearing to examine VA's current capabilities to provide state-of-the-art care to veterans with amputations. The Committee heard testimony concerning VA's proposal to change procurement processes for prostheses, potentially hindering a veteran's ability to acquire the latest prosthetic and corresponding care and support.
"VA has been struggling to keep pace with the rising demands of younger and more active veterans with amputations," stated Rep. Ann Marie Buerkle, Chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Health. "VA must continue to provide multi-disciplinary care to maintain long-term and life-time quality of life. Placing prosthesis procurement into the hands of contracting officers is alarming. VA needs to match the determination and spirit demonstrated by our wounded warriors and recommit themselves to becoming a leader once again in prosthetic care."
Currently, VA provides care to approximately 42,000 veterans with limb loss. As of August of 2011, 1,506 servicemembers had experienced amputations on active duty from Operations Enduring and Iraqi Freedom. An additional 2,248 veterans underwent major amputations at VA in 2011. VA prosthetic costs have more than doubled in the past five years, yet, VA's care has fallen behind that of the Department of Defense (DoD).
"Prosthetics are a truly individualized extension of one person's body and mobility, not your typical bulk supply purchase," stated Jim Mayer, a Vietnam veteran, double amputee, and wounded warrior advocate and mentor. "When today's warriors are referred to VA and seek the newer, cutting-edge, technologically superior prosthetics they have been accustomed to [through DoD], will VA be able to meet that demand? DoD centers of excellence provide state-of-the-art and often newly evaluative prosthetics that have allowed warriors to thrive, not just in walking, but also run competitively, compete in the Paralympics, rock climb, play myriad sports and other endeavors."
"Prosthetic technology and VA have come a long way from the Civil War era. Following World War II, veterans dissatisfied with the quality of VA prosthetics stormed the Capitol in protest. Congress responded by providing VA with increased flexibility for prosthetic options and federally funded research and development," said Buerkle. "As a result, VA has been a leader in helping veterans with amputations regain mobility and achieve maximum independence. This is why I am troubled by VA's proposed changes in procurement policies and procedures which shifts the emphasis from the doctors to contracting officers."

So what kind of change is being discussed?

Jonathan Pruden: Under the change, only a contracting officer could procure a prosthetic item costing more than $3,000. This policy would effect essential items including most limbs like mine and wheel chairs. It would require the use of a system designed for bulk procurement purchases that involves manually processing over three hundred -- that's 300 -- individual steps to develop a purchase order. This system may be great for buying cinder blocks and light bulbs but it is certainly not appropriate for providing timely and appropriate medical care. Equally troubling, this change offers no promise of improving service to the warrior. Instead, it would mean greater delays. The change could realize modest savings but at what cost? A warrior needing a new leg or wheel chair should not have to wait longer than is absolutely necessary. I know warriors who have stayed home from our events, stay home from school, from work, can't play ball with their kids or live in chronic pain while they wait for a new prosthesis. I know first hand what it's like to not be able to put my son into the crib while I'm waiting for a new prosthetic, to live in chronic pain and to have my daughter ask my wife once again, "Why can't Daddy come and walk with us?" With VA moving ahead on changing procurement practices, wounded warriors need this Committee's help. A prosthetic limb is not a mass produced widget. Prosthetics are specialized, medical equipment that should be prescribed by a clinician and promptly delivered to the veteran. We urge this Committee to direct VA to stop implementation of this change in prosthetic procurement.

At the start of yesterday's hearing, Subcommittee Chair Ann Marie Buerkle noted the hearing was entitled "Optimizing Care for Veterans With Prosthetics." The Subcommittee heard from four panels. The first one was featured Gulf War Veteran John Register and Vietnam Veteran Jim Mayer. Disabled American Veterans' Joy Ilem, American Orthotic & Prosthetic Association's Michael Oros, Paralyzed Veterans of America's Alethea Predeoux and Southeast Wounded Warrior Project's Jonathan Pruden made up the second panel (we covered the second panel in yesterday's hearing). The third panel was the VA's Office of Inspector General's Linda Halliday accompanied by Nicholas Dahl, Kent Wrathall and Dr. John D. Daigh Jr. and Dr. Robert Yang. The fourth panel was the VHA's Dr. Lucille Beck accompanied by Dr. Joe Webster, Dr. Joe Miller and Norbert Doyle.

We're going to stay on the issue of the proposed change. And we're going to go to the fourth panel. The VA is just eating up time in the excerpt below. They have no idea what they're saying -- I don't think Dr. Beck even knows what "impetus" means judging by her answer -- and you would think, "At last they're done" but then they'd launch back in. I really think that Congress needs to address the issue of witnesses whose words wander all over but never arrive anywhere. Yes, some people speak that way. But with government employees, it always seem to be an attempt to run out the clock.

Chair Ann Marie Buerkle: I have a lot of questions. A lot of it is based on what we heard from the three previous panels -- especially the veterans and the veterans service organizations. I think they provide for us a reliable source of information and they identify needs for us. My first question is: What was the impetus behind the change? You heard the concern from the previous panels. What was the impetus behind the change in the procurement policy? And did you consult with the veterans service organizations and/or veterans? Who did you talk to to make this change?

Dr. Lucille Beck: The impetus for the change, uhm, is an impetus from the department to assure compliance with federal aquistion regulations. I have with me Mr. Norbert Doyle who is VHA's chief procurement logistics officer today. We were anticipating some of these questions. And he's available to provide more information about the change and what's happening.

Chair Ann Marie Buerkle: And just if you would, before you start, so does that mean heretofore the VA was not compliant? I mean if that's the basis for your change -- that compliance is an issue -- maybe you could make that clear to us.

Norbert Doyle: Yes, ma'am. Thank you, Dr. Beck. I -- Ma'am, yes, the impetus was to bring VA contraction -- to include VHA and all the other VA contracting organizations and veteran alignment with the federal aquistion regulations. We also, uh, it's my understanding the department recognized several years ago that they were weakened in certain areas, in contract administration and the awarding of contracts and this was also to bring it inhouse to ensure proper stewardship of the government dollars. In reference to your question "did we talk to veteran service organizations?" Uh, actually last, uh -- before -- I don't believe we did before we started the process;however, last week -- And I'm happy to meet with any organization to discuss what we're doing. I heard the complaints from the veterans service organizations that they feel out of the loop. I met last week with Dr. Beck, with the Secretary's Advisory Committee on Prosthetics and Special Disabilities. We spent a great deal of time with them. And I think that group has representatives from many veterans service organizations to east -- address their concerns that they may -- that they may have. Again, I make that offer that I would be happy to meet with any group to discuss these.

Chair Ann Marie Buerkle: Thank you. I think it would be in the best interest as we go forward to do what's best for our veterans and to hear from the veteran service organizations and from the veterans themselves and from those who have gone through this process who understand it intimately as did the first two panelists. That -- It would seem like very basic to meet with them and have them identify needs and concerns. You heard Wounded Warriors say, "We're asking you, Congress, to please freeze this change." And the other point I wanted to bring up was the pilot. You heard Paralzyed veterans, their organization asked or mentioned a pilot. Have you done a pilot? If so, what were the findings? Is that the justification for this change?

Norbert Doyle: Yes, ma'am, I actually have a number of issues to address along these lines. First, uh, to put it in context -- and, granted, we're talking about the more expensive items that we're talking about today -- the transfer of authority from prosthetics to contracting only impacts those procurements above $3,000 which is the mandated federal aquistion -- or federal, uh, micropurchase threshold. So only 3% of orders that we estimate fall in that realm. So 97% of prosthetic orders will stay with prosthetics. Uh, as I said we-we are doing this to bring us more in line with federal acquistion regulations and also to address many of the issues that the IG has mentioned although those were identified, I think, previously. Now I want to assure everybody that if a clinician specifies a specific product for a veteran, contracting will get that product for that individual. I-I do not, as a-a-a chief -- as a chief contracting person in-in the Veterans Health Administration I do not want my contracting officers making a decision as to what goes in a veterans body or gets appended to it. That is clearly a clinician decision. And how we, uh, going to get that, uh, product the clinician specifies for the veteran and we're going to do it under the auspices of the federal aquisition regulations. We're going to cite the authorities of 8123 which one individual mentioned that, the broad latitude given by Congress to the veteran -- to the Veterans Administration. We're going to do that by properly preparing justifications for approvals for sole source citing in paragraph 4 the authorities granted under 8123. There are seven exceptions in part six of the FAR [Federal Acquistion Regulation] to full and open competition. Exception 5 is the one that as authorized by statute and that's the one that we will -- we will use. We have gone through great pains to ensure success in this transfer. And a little bit of history, even starting last summer when we started this process under the direction of the department, Dr. Beck's and my folks, uh, we formed a team. And that team included field personnel -- both prosthetics and contracting which we thought was critical. They developed a plan on the transfer. It was a very detailed plan. The plan, actually, as we got into it, got more detailed as we identified other issues. We then worked with our union partners to make sure that they did not have issues and we could proceed successfully. There were pilots as part of the plan which is probably the best part other than bringing field people into the planning process, the pilot was a great aspect. We did pilot in three VISNs -- in VISN 6, 11 and 20 -- and that's the Virginia, North Carolina area, the Michigan area and the Pacific northwest. We piloted beginning in January for about 60 days. Those pilots concluded in March. We did learn from those pilots and we're implementing changes to ensure that care is not impacted. Some of the things that we learned is that our staffing models are incorrect in the number of procurements that we could do in a day. In the contracting office, we are hiring. We have received approval to hire additional people to ensure we can keep up. We are streamlining the process by, I mentioned, justification approvals, by templating that process so it becomes more fill-in-the-blank with the clinicians prescription. Those are the type process. We're slowly now implementing in the rest of the Veterans Health Administration. I think four more VISNs are starting that process now and the rest of the VISNs will be coming on in June and July. The goal is to have all of this done by the end of July. There is a contingency plan that we have discussed. Uh, we still have the legacy procurement system if something does not go right or something unexpected happens that we can fall back on. But we don't expect-expect that to happen.

Dr. Lucille Beck: I would like to add that this has been -- has been a very strong collaboration and partnership prosthetic and sensory aid services very concerned that we can continue to provide the services to the veterans that, uhm, they deserve and that we have always been able to do and so our prosthetics organization at our local medical centers and at the VISN level remain the eyes and ears so all orders still come through prosthetics. Prosthetics is managing them and we're working with contracting officers to achieve the, uh, placement of the order in, uh, uhm, uh, as it's required to be, uh, meeting all of our acquisition requirements and, uhm, we-we are as Mr., uh, Doyle has said, very aware of the ability to use 8123 and have spent a significant amount of time developing justifications and approvals that allow us to use that and really reflect the needs of our -- the individualized rehab needs of our veterans. We're very much aware that we customize these products and services, that they are selected based on an individual, uhm, veterans needs and that has been our goal as we have managed this transition. We're coming into a critical time as we move the transition forward and extend it to other VISNs. And, uhm, we, uh, have very, uh-uh-uh, very well developed and exact procedures in place to monitor this as we go. And we are prepared, I think, Mr. Doyle and I, as a team, to -- and our offices as teams to uhm, uh review this very carefully and make recommendations on the way forward based on how this process affects veterans.

Norbert Doyle: And, uh, I'm sorry, ma'am

Chair Ann Marie Buerkle: Go ahead, Mr. Doyle.

Norbert Doyle: I add that when I met with the Advisory Committee on Prosthetics and Special Disability uh, uh, last week, they had many of these same concerns. I think after spending a degree of time with them, uh, they at least understood what we were doing. They're still very interested in ensuring that we do achieve success but I'll let Dr. Beck comment. I don't think we left there with a burning issue -- at least, I did not -- that we needed to address. Also as-as-as a veteran myself who made several trips to Iraq and Afghanistan both in a military and civilian capacity, you know, I am very sympathetic to the needs of the veterans population. And I will do no -- I can assure you I will do nothing that hurts the veterans because, you know, there but for the grace of God go I actually and that's the way I look at it.

Chair Ann Marie Buerkle: Thank you. My time is way run over. However, if my colleagues will indulge me, I just have a couple of quick follow up questions and then I'll allow you to have as much time as you need. My first concern is that you said that with the procurements it just only pertains to those over 3,000 and you said only 3% of the orders are over 3,000. How many requests do you have?

Norbert Doyle: Uh, that is still not an insignificant number. Uh, based on our planning estimate, our planning figures for Fiscal Year '10 in which we planned the transfer over it was, uh, 3% of the orders equals roughly 90,000 orders.

Chair Ann Marie Buerkle: So I would suggest that because we're talking about 1500 warriors with amputations that proably are in need of prosthetics that that is probably going to be a small percentage of what you are doing; however, all of those are going to exceed that $3000 threshold. We heard earlier about a $12,000 limb. And if it's $25,000 that doesn't matter because the veterans need prosthetics and need state of the art prosthetics. So that concerns me, that piece right there. But the other thing that concerns me, you mentioned you talked with your union partners. It would seem to me more appropriate to talk to your veteran partners and to the veterans who have gone through this and be more concerned with their thoughts about this being a program that works versus talking to the union partners. And, lastly, the pilot information, the results of those pilots? If I could respectfully request that you provide us with -- I think you said that you did three: 6, 11 and 20 VISNs. If you could provide us with the findings for those pilot programs, I would greatly appreciate it.

Tomorrow's snapshot will include US House Rep Mike Michaud's questions. Right now, whether you're pro-union or not (I am pro-union), the VA really doesn't get it or thought everyone would overlook that. They failed -- failed -- to speak to veterans about this change but spoke to unions? That just doesn't look or sound right. You're talking about, as Chair Buerkle noted at the very end of the hearing, something more than isn't a sock or a pair of pants. Why would you leave veterans out of this discussion? It makes no sense at all.

The pilot program that Doyle babbled on about? That pilot program was a failure. By his own description, it was a failure. You can't fine tune 'we're overwhelmed.' When that's the case, you need another pilot program to see if your adjustments worked.

There are so many problems with what was said. And while you could pan for bits of gold with Doyle, someone needed to tell Dr. Beck that she had nothing worth saying and she really wasted everyone's time. I do get that there's a temptation to think, "I have to speak! The other person's gone on forever! So let me rattle something off!" Like many temptations, that one can be resisted. And, in fact, it should be.

From the House Veterans Affairs Committee to the Senate where Senator Patty Murray is the Committee Chair. Her office notes:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Thursday, May 17, 2012

CONTACT: Murray 202-224-2834
Burr 202-228-1616

VETERANS: Murray, Burr Introduce Bill to Ensure Dignified Burials

Comes after veteran's remains were discovered to have been buried in cardboard box

(Washington, D.C.) – Today, U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), Chairman of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, and U.S. Senator Richard Burr (R-NC), Ranking Member, introduced legislation to help ensure every veteran receives a dignified burial. The Dignified Burial of Veterans Act of 2012 would authorize the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to furnish a casket or urn to a deceased veteran when VA is unable to identify the veteran's next-of-kin and determines that sufficient resources are not otherwise available to furnish a casket or urn for burial in a national cemetery. This bill would further require that VA report back to Congress on the industry standard for urns and caskets and whether burials at VA's national cemeteries are meeting that standard. Under current law, VA is not authorized to purchase a casket or urn for veterans who do not have a next-of-kin to provide one, or the resources to be buried in an appropriate manner.

Chairman Murray and Ranking Member Burr, joined by U.S. Senators Bill Nelson (D-FL) and Marco Rubio (R-FL), introduced this legislation after a veteran, with no known next-of-kin, was buried in a cardboard container at a VA National Cemetery in Florida. The exposed remains were discovered during a raise and realign project at the cemetery. The veteran's remains were later placed in a bag and reburied with what was left of the cardboard box.

"When America's heroes make a commitment to serve their country, we make a promise to care for them," said Chairman Murray. "That includes helping to provide them with a burial honoring their service. I was deeply disturbed when I heard this news. There is no reason why the remains of a veteran should ever be treated with this lack of dignity. I am pleased we are taking the appropriate steps to right this indescribable wrong."

"Those who have served our country in uniform deserve our honor, appreciation, and respect, and that responsibility does not end when they pass away," said Senator Burr. "My heart goes out to those affected by the problems at the Florida National Cemetery in Bushnell. We must ensure that the remains of veterans and servicemembers are treated with dignity and respect and that the families of those who have passed away have no doubts as to the quality of the final resting place of their loved ones."

"All veterans deserve a dignified final resting place," said Senator Nelson. "A cardboard box certainly isn't one. That's why we've got to make sure this doesn't happen again."

"Those who serve our nation in uniform deserve our respect and support, from the moment they commit to serve through their deaths and even beyond as we honor their legacies," said Senator Rubio. "Providing dignified burials for veterans is a solemn pledge we must uphold. Cases like this are outrageous and need to be corrected so that no deceased veteran is ever dishonored in this way again."

Meghan Roh

Deputy Press Secretary | Social Media Director

Office of U.S. Senator Patty Murray

@PattyMurray

202-224-2834

Get Updates from Senator Murray

Thursday, May 17, 2012

The sad downward spiral?

BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE

CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O IS IN SO MUCH TROUBLE THAT THE WHITE HOUSE IS RESORTING TO CREATIVE WEB ACCOUNTS IN AN ATTEMPT TO GIVE THE FADED STARLET A LITTLE HEAT.

MEANWHILE HE PANDERS AND CAN'T STOP FOCUSING ON URGING WOMEN THAT WHAT THEY ARE IS HOW THEY LOOK -- HE IS DEEPLY SEXIST MAN.

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

"Our nation's commitment to restoring the capabilities of disabled veterans struggling with devasting combat wounds resulting in the loss of limb began with the Civil War," declared US House Rep Ann Marie Buerkle this morning shortly after she brought the House Veterans Affairs Subcommittee on Health to order. "Restoring these veterans to wholeness was a core impetus behind the creation of the Department of Veteran Affairs and then, now, it continues to play a vital role in the Department's mission."

Buerkle is the Chair of the Subcommittee and this morning's hearing was entitled "Optimizing Care for Veterans With Prosthetics." Chair Burerkle also noted, "Following WWII, 1945, veterans disatisfied with the quality of VA prosthetic care stormed the Capitol in protest. " How is the care today? To answer that question, the Subcommittee heard from four panels. Gulf War Veteran John Register and Vietnam Veteran Jim Mayer. Disabled American Veterans' Joy Ilem, American Orthotic & Prosthetic Association's Michael Oros, Paralyzed Veterans of America's Alethea Predeoux and Southeast Wounded Warrior Project's Jonathan Pruden. The third panel was the VA's Office of Inspector General's Linda Halliday accompanied by Nicholas Dahl, Kent Wrathall and Dr. John D. Daigh Jr. and Dr. Robert Yang. The fourth panel was the VHA's Dr. Lucille Beck accompanied by Dr. Joe Webster, Dr. Joe Miller and Norbert Doyle. Some of the issues were outlined in the Ranking Member's opening remarks.

Ranking Member Mike Michaud: I've said it on this Committee before, but what seems to be the case, there is little accountability in management and, once again, procurement procedures and policies were not in place or not followed in managing nearly $2 billion worth of prosthetics and sensor aids. The VA, in the last year's budget submission, claims $355 million in savings in the Fiscal Year 2012 and 2013 due to aquistions improvements. But if the VA can't follow its own policies and procedures, how much faith can we have in the claim of acquisition savings? I hope the VA can help us understand today what accountability we should expect and to make certain that the VA does not continue to overpay for prosthetics in the future, that taxpayers and veterans receive the best value for their devices, and for management to ensure that the prosthetics and sensor aids services is fully meeting veterans needs. Finally, it has come to my attention that VA has proposed changes in the procurement of prosthetics and that there is a high degree of concern among some of our witnesses today as to the effectiveness of these changes. I look forward to hearing from the VA on these changes as well.

A proposed change that's bothering some veterans? What proposal is Ranking Member Michaud speaking of? On the second panel, Jonathan Pruden explained the proposal (and here we're using his opening written remarks which differ some what from what he delivered):

Under current practice, VA physicians and prosthetists are able to see a veteran, make a determination regarding the most appropriate type of prosthetic equipment for a veteran, and relay that information to a Prosthetics Service purchasing officer to complete a purchase-order to obtain the needed item. Those purchasing officers exclusively handle prosthetics' purchases, and are specialists in ordering medical equipment specified by health care providers. A major change that the Veterans Health Administration intends to institute on July 30th, would require that any prosthetic item whose cost exceeds $3000 -- to include such essential items as limbs, wheelchairs and limb-repair components – must be procured by a contracting officer. This is not simply a matter of substituting a generalist for a specialist. Under the proposed change, these contracting officers would use a labor-intensive system (the Electronic Contract Management System (eCMS)) designed to achieve cost savings. That system, designed for high-dollar bulk-procurement purchases that benefit from using the Government's purchasing power, requires over 300 individual steps to manually process a purchasing order. While well-suited for buying widgets, the system was neither designed for nor well-suited to procuring highly specific, individualized medical equipment. Ill-suited to prosthetics, this new process would also require increased coordination between clinicians and off-site contracting officers who would be responsible for purchasing everything from light bulbs to now highly specific prosthetic legs.

This is not a small change. Moreover, it not only increases the margin for error but also the potential for prolonged, delaying "back-and-forth," with the likelihood of clinicians having to justify why a more expensive wheelchair is clinically necessary when a seemingly-similar less- costly model exists. We see no prospect that this planned change in prosthetics procurement holds any promise for improving service to the warrior. Instead, it almost certainly threatens greater delay in VA's ability to provide severely wounded warriors needed prosthetic devices.

This would be "the wrong path" Iraq War veteran Jonathan Pruden stated. He was injured in a July 1, 2003 Baghdad bombing resulting in multiple surgeries including the amputation of his right leg. This next excerpt is from his oral testimony.

We'll note this exchange from the second panel.

Chair Ann Marie Buerkle: Mr. Pruden, in you testimony, you talked about how VA prosthetic research has lagged in recent years. Now Mr. Oros talked about outcomes but I think you're talking more generally in terms of the research. What impact -- and I shouldn't speak for you. I should let you say what research you were referring to. And then, if you could, after you tell us that piece, what impact has that had on veterans and the service that they need?

Jonathan Pruden: VA has-has stepped up in a number of capacties in the past few years. But, as Mr. Mayer pointed out earlier, DoD has taken the lead on the development of the DEKA Arm [a project DoD and the VA work on together] and all of these advanced techonology things. In years past, VA has been -- One of its key roles and one of the reasons it exists is to provide specialized medical equipment for our combat wounded, for our veterans. And VA really needs to have the capacity and the focus on research for durable medical equipment when DoD and Global War on Terror Dollars go away. And this also ties into the discusssions about the centers of excellence at Walter Reed, Brooke Army Medical Center and so forth. When these dollars go away, those DoD facilities will certainly scale back their capacity both for rehabilitation and for research. And what we're calling for is for VA through the amputee system of care and enhancements and research to be prepared to meet the needs as DoD scales back.

Chair Ann Marie Buerkle: Thank you. Miss Predeoux, I'm extremely concerned with regards to your comments about the filing system being outdated and the backlog that it creates. Could you comment on that for us?

Alethea Predeoux: Yes, in my written statement with the filing system, it refers to medical records in one VA medical center. And if, for instance, one veteran was to relocate -- For example, our director of benefits relocated to this area from San Diego and it took quite a bit of time for the medical records to be delivered from San Diego to DC simply because there's not one central system in which all the medical centers are able to locate and actually view the medical records of a veteran. And as the panel before us testified, it's not just a wait time, it's a matter of being able to be comfortable and actually to be mobil.

Noting that Wounded Warrior was favoring a freeze on VA's proposed change, Ranking Member Michaud asked Oros, "Do you think we should ask the VA to freeze the reorganization? Bringing everthing in house?" Oros responded, "Absolutely. Absolutely." US House Rep Gus Bilirakis wanted to know about the real life effects if VA went through with their change in procurement?

Jonathan Pruden: Under the current system, there are safeguards in place to ensure that VA is being fiscally responsible. And it can take a month, two months. Some of this is predicated on the clinical needs of the patient and the availablility of the product in their area which is appropriate. Our real concern is that -- is that with the new system, it would be supposition but it may take months and months longer to get purchase orders for needed equipment. And the veterans should not have to wait and the clinician's hands should not be tied. If they feel that a device is appropriate and going to provide the best care for a warrior, they should be able to prescribe that device. I have had the opportunity to speak with over a dozen VA clinicians and prosthetists who are currently serving in several former chiefs of prosthetics. And every single one of them said that they share our concerns about the ability to remain timely and potential delays in veterans receiving needed prosthetic devices under this new system. Dr. Bechel and she'll say that, 'One of the things that we're going to consider is if a device is generally available and interchangeable. Then it will fall under the federal acquisition regulations.' Who is determining what is generally available and interchangeable? It's going to be somebody in acquisitions , not a physician, not a clinician who has the patient's best interest at heart. And that -- that's our real concern.

That's one of the main points from the hearing. Time permitting, we may cover some other issues or go deeper into this one in another snapshot.

From the House to the Senate, Senator Patty Murray is the Chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee and the Committee issued the following today:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Wednesday, May 16, 2012

Contact: Murray Press Office

(202) 224-2834

Senator Murray's Statement on Sweeping Army-Wide Review of Behavioral Health Evaluations and Diagnoses

Investigations Will Review Mental Health Diagnoses Since 2001

(Washington, D.C.) -- Today, U.S. Senator Patty Murray, Chairman of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, released the following statement after the Army announced that they will begin a comprehensive, Army-wide review of soldier behavioral health diagnoses and evaluations since 2001. This major announcement comes after Senator Murray spurred an investigation into inconsistencies in diagnoses at Joint Base Lewis-McChord in her home state of Washington. The Army has since returned PTSD diagnoses to over 100 servicemembers that sought treatment there. Murray has repeatedly pushed Army leadership to investigate whether problems similar to those at Madigan were being seen at Army bases across the country.

For more information on the Army's announcement visit:

"The Army clearly realizes they have a nationwide, systematic problem on their hands. I credit them with taking action, but it will be essential that this vast and truly historic review is done the right way. That means continued engagement from Army leadership at the highest levels, prompt attention to the problems of servicemembers identified during the review, and not only the identification of problems but quick action to implement and enforce solutions.

"This comprehensive review is born out of a review I helped initiate in my home state that has already returned PTSD diagnoses to over 100 servicemembers since the beginning of this year. That review has been successful because the Army identified and reached out to affected servicemembers and veterans, conducted reevaluations using the appropriate tools and best practices, and was made a priority by top military leaders. This nationwide review must be given the same attention from leadership in order to succeed.

"But the bottom line is that the Army needs to fix the inconsistencies we have seen in diagnosing the invisible wounds of war. Out of this review, the Army needs to provide a uniform mental health policy so that service members are given the care they need.

"This is an issue that affects every aspect of the lives of those returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. Without proper mental health treatment we will continue [to] see see servicemembers struggle to readust to family life, contine to self-medicate, and in far too many cases, take their own lives.

"Servicemembers, veterans, and their families should never have to wade through an unending bureaucratic process to get proper access to care. The Army has an extrordinary opportunity to go back, correct the mistakes of the past, and ensure that they are not repeated."

###

Matt McAlvanah

Communications Director

U.S. Senator Patty Murray

202-224-2834 - press office

202--224-0228 - direct

matt_mcalvanah@murray.senate.gov

News Releases | Economic Resource Center | E-Mail Updates

Wednesday, May 16, 2012

If only he were cute when he flirts

BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE

AS ECONOMIC BLOGGER TRINA POINTED OUT LAST NIGHT, 200,000 PEOPLE LOSE UNEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE CHECKS THIS WEEKEND AND THAT THE ECONOMIC CRISIS HAS DEPLETED THE SAVINGS OF MOST AMERICANS LUCKY ENOUGH TO HAVE SAVINGS BEFORE 2008. AS AMERICANS WITH JOBS LIVE PAYCHECK TO PAYCHECK AND AS MORE AND MORE MILLIONS WITHOUT JOBS GIVE UP SEARCHING FOR JOBS THAT JUST AREN'T OUT THERE, WHAT'S THE BLESSED CELEBRITY IN CHIEF DOING?

WELL DISCLOSING HE HAD $8 MILLION IN ASSETS . . . STRANGE CONSIDERING HE CAME IN TO THE OVAL OFFICE WITH SO MUCH LESS. GOOD TO KNOW THAT WHILE AMERICA SUFFERED, CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O MANAGED TO MORE THAN DOUBLE HIS FINANCIAL PORTFOLIO.

DID HE SPEND TIME ON THE ECONOMY AND HELPING AMERICA YESTERDAY?

NO, HE TRIED TO PROVE HIS MANHOOD BY FLIRTING IN PUBLIC WITH BRITISH CITIZEN AND UNDERWEAR MODEL DAVID BECKHAM, BATTING HIS EYES AND COOING THAT BECKHAM WAS A "RARE MAN."

BARRY O'S SUCH A LITTLE PRE-TEEN GIRL.

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Today is a really sad day as the BBC spits on human rights and treats 'confessions' most likely stemming from torture as being real. Americans (wrongly) built a shrine to the BBC in 2003. And, yes, by comparison to American outlets, the BBC coverage of the lead up to the war was better. But compared to the basic standards of journalism, the BBC didn't even cut it. It was as much a failure as the American outlets. (And the providing of a confidential source's name to Blair's cabinet goes far beyond any known crimes of US outlets.) No surprise that it would again be Iraq that saw the BBC reveal its true nature.

KUNA reports, "The first session for the trial of former Vice President Tareq Al-Hashemi began here Tuesday with the charges being guiding and financing terrorist attacks." Tareq al-Hashemi (pictured above) has been a vice president since 2006. He is currently serving his second term. Currently serving. He has not been removed from office so this trial is legally not supposed to take place. But the law's never mattered in Nouri's Iraq. Nouri waited until the bulk of US forces had left to Iraq to suddenly declare his political rival al-Hashemi a "terrorist." The vice president remains in Turkey.

Iraq practices forced confessions and, despite the Iraqi Constitution insisting upon innocence until proven guilty, the Baghdad court declared al-Hashemi guilty back in Februray. Tareq al-Hashemi has repeatedly requested that the trial be moved elsewhere -- a request that should have been honored the moment the Baghdad judges declared him guilty in February at their press conference and while one judge was stating that he had been threatened by al-Hashemi! (He actually claims to have been threatened by 'supporters' of al-Hashemi -- he can't even make the claim if press for proof that it was by a bodyguard of al-Hasehmi.) Today, after being pushed back twice, the kangaroo court finally hopped into session.

Chen Zhi (Xinhua) reports that, as the trial started this morning, the court sent out spokesperson Abdul-Sattar al-Birqdar to insist, "There are many crimes that Hashimi and his bodyguards are accused of and we have confessions from them, including the assassination of six judges." A court that's dropped even the pretense of being impartial is exactly the sort that would send out a spokesperson to declare they had confessions.

AFP had a confusing report which was confusing for many reasons including: "Three other witnesses gave testimony, accusing Hashemi of masterminding the assassinations, before reporters were led out of the room." If reporters are led out of the courtroom while a trial is going on, hate to break it to AFP, but that's your lede, not the fifth sentence and fifth paragraph of your report. And that's all the more true when there were calls for international observers in advance of the trial and that call does not appear to have been heeded. Equally true, if reporters are led out of the courtroom, you explain why they were. And if no reason given to the reporters, you include that: "Reporters were ushered out of the courtroom. No reason was given for the removal."

AFP declares there were three witnesses who testified after "families of three victims whose deaths Hasemi is accused of orchestrating." They tell you nothing about those three witnesses. As noted this morning, "But I do expect to know if these people could even offer any testimony against al-Hashemi. By that I mean, victims families can testify to losses. That's all they can do unless they're eye witnesses. Even if they are eye witnesses, they have no testimony on al-Hashemi." This was confirmed by this afternoon by Sinan Salaheddin (AP) when Salaheddin reported of the family witnesses, "They said they did not witness the attacks, and only complained against al-Hashemi after hearing the accusations against him in Iraqi media." Salaheddin also states there was one other witness, someone who was an ex-employee of al-Hashemi's (worked in the vice president's "media office") and that reporters "were ordered to leave the court during" that testimony. Suadad al-Salhy, Ahmed Rasheed, Barry Malone and Alistair Lyon (Reuters) note two bodyguards and "five relatives of people allegedly killed by the death squads" and that the court is now adjourned until May 20th.

BBC files a report that indicates they had no one in the courtroom and that they didn't bother to do anything other than scan the wire reports quickly and then (also quickly) dash off a 'report.' It's very shoddy. But let's skip their bad journalism to note their shame: "Mr Hashemi's supporters have also claimed that some of his bodyguards made allegations about death squads under torture. The Iraqi judiciary dismissed the accusations of torture." How very sad that the BBC chooses to self-embarrass and self-shame on a day when the world learns (yet again) that Nouri al-Maliki is still running secret prisons and torture chambers. Equally true, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty are not "supporters" of Tareq al-Hashemi. They are human rights organizations.

March 23rd, Human Rights Watch called for an investigation into the death of Amir Sarbut Zaidan al-Batawi, a bodyguard of al-Hashemi's who died in custody, whose family states he was tortured to death and whom photos show "a burn mark and wounds." The Iraqi government tried to say his kidneys failed. As though he had some pre-existing condition (which the family denies). If he did, that would still be on the Iraqi government. If someone has a medical condition when you take them into custody, you're having custody of them means in you're responsible for their well being. Had the alleged kidney failure resulted from natural causes, the Iraqi government would still need to explain how they failed to provide treatment for a known condition? But most likely the kidneys were damaged in torture which isn't at all uncommon, especially in Latin America. Especially in Latin America? The US government taught the thugs of Iraq to behave like the death squads of El Salvador in the 80s.

In December 2003, Robert Dreyfuss reported for American Prospect:

The Prospect has learned that part of a secret $3 billion in new funds tucked away in the $87 billion Iraq appropriation that Congress approved in early November will go toward the creation of a paramilitary unit manned by militiamen associated with former Iraqi exile groups. Experts say it could lead to a wave of extrajudicial killings, not only of armed rebels but of nationalists, other opponents of the U.S. occupation and thousands of civilian Baaathists up to 120,000 of the estimated 2.5 million former Baath Party members in Iraq.

"They're clearly cooking up joint teams to do Phoenix-like things, like they did in Vietnam," says Vincent Cannistraro, former CIA chief of counterterrorism. Ironically, he says, the U.S. forces in Iraq are working with key members of Saddam Hussein's now-defunct intelligence agency to set the program in motion.

[. . .]

But the bulk of the covert money will support U.S. efforts to create a lethal, and revenge-minded, Iraqi security force. "The big money would be for standing up an Iraqi secret police to liquidate the resistance," says [John] Pike. "And it has to be politically loyal to the United States."

In addition to Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International issued the following January 30th:

Rasha Narneer Jaafer al-Hussain and Bassima Saleem Kiryakos were arrested by security forces at their homes on 1 January. Both women work in the media team of Iraqi Vice-President Tareq al-Hashemi, who is wanted by the Iraqi authorities on terrorism-related charges.

Al-Hasehmi has denied the charges, saying the accusations are politically motivated.

"The arrest of the two women appears to be part of a wider move targeting individuals connected to Tareq al-Hashemi," said Hassiba Hadj Sahraoui, Amnest International's Deputy Director for Middle East and North Africa.

"The Iraqi authorities must immediately disclose the whereabouts of Rash al-Hussain and Bassima Kiryakos. At the very minimum they should have immediate access to their family and a lawyer.

"The circumstances of their arrest and their incommunicado detention when we know that torture is rife in Iraq can only raise the greatest fears for their safety," she said.

April 14th, Amnesty noted:

One of the two women working for the Iraqi Vice-President's Office who were arrested on 1 January has been released. The other woman's whereabouts are still unknown.

Rasha Nameer Jaafer al-Hussain, who was working at the Iraqi Vice President's Office, was arrested without a warrant at her parents' house in Baghdad's al-Zayuna district on 1 January 2012. The security forces claimed they were taking her away for questioning and that she would return two hours later. Since her arrest her family has not known her whereabouts. However, the Iraqi media reported on 30 January that a Human Rights Parliamentary Committee had visited several of the Iraqi Vice-Preisdent's employees, including both arrested women, who claimed they had been tortured in detention. It is believed she was arrested in connection with a warrant for the arrest of the Iraqi Vice-President Tareq al-Hashemi, who has been wanted by the authorities since December 2011. He is accused of terrorism-related offenses, an accusation which he has publicly said is politically motivated.

But let's all make like the BBC and pretend as if torture never happens in Iraq and that the only ones claiming it does are "supporters" of Tareq al-Hashemi.

Let's stay with the topic of torture and then we'll do an Iraq fact check. Human Rights Watch issued the following today:

(Beirut) -- Iraq's government has been carrying out mass arrests and unlawfully detaining people in the notorious Camp Honor prison facility in Baghdad's Green Zone, based on numerous interviews with victims, witnesses, family members, and government officials. The government had claimed a year ago that it had closed the prison, where Human Rights Watch had documented rampant torture.
Since October 2011 Iraqi authorities have conducted several waves of detentions, one of which arresting officers and officials termed "precautionary." Numerous witnesses told Human Rights Watch that security forces have typically surrounded neighborhoods in Baghdad and other provinces and gone door-to-door with long lists of names of people they wanted to detain. The government has held hundreds of detainees for months, refusing to disclose the number of those detained, their identities, any charges against them, and where they are being held.
"Iraqi security forces are grabbing people outside of the law, without trial or known charges, and hiding them away in incommunicado sites," said Joe Stork, deputy Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. "The Iraqi government should immediately reveal the names and locations of all detainees, promptly free those not charged with crimes, and bring those facing charges before an independent judicial authority."
The government should appoint an independent judicial commission to investigate continuing allegations of torture and other ill-treatment, disappearances, and arbitrary detention in Camp Honor and elsewhere, Human Rights Watch said.
Multiple witnesses told Human Rights Watch that some detainees arrested since December 2011 have been held in the Camp Honor prison in Baghdad's International Zone, known as the Green Zone. In March 2011 the government announced it had closed Camp Honor prison, after legislators visited the site in response to evidence Human Rights Watch provided of repeated torture at the facility.
The two most sweeping arrest dragnets occurred in October and November 2011, detaining people alleged to be Baath Party and Saddam Hussein loyalists, and in March 2012, ahead of the Arab summit in Baghdad at the end of that month.
In April two Justice Ministry officials separately told Human Rights Watch that since the roundups began in October, security forces often have not transferred prisoners into the full custody of the justice system, as required by Iraq law. Instead, the officials said, security forces have transported dozens of prisoners at a time in and out of various prison facilities, sometimes without adequate paperwork or explanation, under the authority of the military office of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki.
Fourteen lawyers, detainees, and government officials interviewed by Human Rights Watch said that recent detainees have been held at Camp Honor prison. Some of the officials said that detainees have also been held at two secret detention facilities, also inside Baghdad's Green Zone. These allegations are consistent with concerns raised in a confidential letter from the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) obtained by Human Rights Watch in July 2011 after the letter's existence was made public by the Los Angeles Times.
Officials, lawyers, and former detainees also told Human Rights Watch that judicial investigators from the Supreme Judicial Council continue to conduct interrogations at the Camp Honor prison. Between December and May, Human Rights Watch interviewed over 35 former detainees, family members, lawyers, legislators, and Iraqi government and security officials from the Defense, Interior, and Justice Ministries. Without exception, they expressed great concern for their own safety and requested that Human Rights Watch withhold all names, dates, and places of interviews to protect their identities.
"It's a matter of grave concern that Iraqis in so many walks of life, officials included, are afraid for their own well-being and fear great harm if they discuss allegations of serious human rights abuses," Stork said.
"Precautionary" Detentions ahead of March 2012 Arab Summit
The most recent mass arrests occurred in March as the government dramatically tightened security throughout Baghdad in preparation for the Arab League summit there on March 29. Family members and witnesses told Human Rights Watch that arresting officers characterized the roundups as a "precautionary" measure to prevent terrorist attacks during the summit. Six detainees released in April told Human Rights Watch that while they were in detention, interrogators told them that they were being held to curb criminal activity during the summit and any "embarrassing" public protests.
Legislators from Prime Minister al-Maliki's State of Law party have denied in the news media that any preemptive arrests took place, claiming that all arrests were of suspected criminals and in response to judicial warrants. All detainees and witnesses interviewed, over 20 in all, said they had not been shown arrest warrants.
In Baghdad neighborhoods where multiple arrests were made, including Adhamiya, Furat, Jihad, Abu Ghraib, and Rathwaniya, residents told Human Rights Watch it appeared that a large proportion of those detained had previously spent time in prisons run by the US military, including Abu Ghraib, Camp Bucca, and Camp Cropper. Some family members and legislators concluded that people were being arrested not because of suspected current criminal activity, but simply because they had been detained before.
In May an Interior Ministry official told Human Rights Watch that "security forces, in the interest of keeping security incidents to a minimum during the summit, while the world was watching, sometimes decided it was easier to just round up people who had been imprisoned years before, regardless of what crime they may have committed." In April a Justice Ministry official told Human Rights Watch that of the hundreds arrested, "some have been released, about 100 will be officially charged within the justice system, and the rest are somewhere else. We do not know where."
During an April 9 parliament session, Hassan al-Sinead, head of the parliament's Security and Defense Committee and a member of Prime Minister al-Maliki's State of Law Party, held up what he said were official security reports of Baghdad Operation Command and said, in response to allegations of pre-emptive arrests by other legislators, that there were only 532 arrests in all of Baghdad during the month of March, and that none were pre-emptive.
Two other members of the parliamentary committee subsequently told Human Rights Watch that this figure greatly underreported arrests that month. At the April 9 session an investigative committee was formed, made up of members of the Security and Defense and Human Rights committees. Members of the investigative committee told Human Rights Watch that plans to visit detainees never happened. To date, no investigation results have been released.
"Baathist" Arrests
In October and November 2011, security forces arrested hundreds of people in Baghdad and outlying provinces, almost all during nighttime raids on residential neighborhoods. State television reported that Prime Minister al-Maliki ordered these arrests. Government statements, including by the prime minister, claimed that those arrested were Saddam Hussein loyalists plotting against the government. Family members told Human Rights Watch that security forces came to their doors with lists and read off names. Some of those listed were former Baath party members and others were not, including people who had died years ago. Three officials separately told Human Rights Watch that the total number arrested in the campaign approached 1,500.
A man whose 57-year-old father was arrested along with 11 neighbors on October 30 told Human Rights Watch in December, "A week after my father was arrested, some of the same police officers who arrested him came back and found family members to give them belongings [of neighborhood men who had been arrested], like clothes or money or IDs, but they still said they had no information about where they were being held, or what they were being charged with."
The man's son showed Human Rights Watch a document the police had given to him that listed the date his father was arrested but left blank the space reserved for the name of the detention facility.
Upon learning that some prisoners were being held in Baghdad's Rusafa prisons, run by the Justice Ministry, Human Rights Watch asked Justice Minister Hassan al-Shimmari on January 4 for access to the prisoners. The request was refused.
Though not all arrests have been on the same scale as those in October, November, and March, regular arrest campaigns have taken place, often in largely Sunni neighborhoods in Baghdad as well as in several outlying provinces, said witnesses, family members and media reports. Strict government secrecy regarding the number of arrests and exact charges makes it difficult to assess the scope.
While some prisoners were released within hours or days and say they were not mistreated, others told Human Rights Watch they were tortured, including with repeated electric shocks. Most said interrogators forced them to sign pledges not to criticize the government publicly or to sign confessions. They said interrogators threatened that unless they signed these documents they would suffer physical violence, female family members would be raped, or they would never be released. Some families told Human Rights Watch that they were told to pay thousands of dollars in bribes to secure their loved ones' release. In two cases known to Human Rights Watch, detainees were released after the families made such payments.
Camp Honor Prison
Camp Honor is a military base of more than 15 buildings within Baghdad's fortified International Zone, which Iraqis and others continue to refer to as the Green Zone. The Iraqi Army's 56^th Brigade, also known as the Baghdad Brigade, which falls under direct command of the Office of the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, controls the Camp Honor complex and is responsible for the security of the Green Zone.
On March 29, 2011, Justice Minister al-Shimmari told Human Rights Watch that the government had closed the camp's main detention facility, Camp Honor prison (often simply referred to as "Camp Honor"). Al-Shimmari said that authorities had moved all its detainees, whom he alleged were terrorists and Islamist militants, to three other facilities under the control of his ministry.
Contrary to this assurance, Human Rights Watch has received information from government and security officials indicating that some detainees from the "Baathist" and "Summit" roundups were held in Camp Honor prison and that it is still being used at least as a temporary holding site, or as a place to extract confessions before moving detainees into the official correctional system. This use of military prisons outside the control of the Justice Ministry is consistent with known procedures at other publicly acknowledged facilities outside of the ministry's control, such as Muthanna Airport Prison and a facility in western Baghdad run by the army's Muthanna Brigade, both of which have also housed hundreds of detainees from the recent arrests, according to government officials and former detainees.
A security official from the Defense Ministry told Human Rights Watch in April that judicial investigators attached to the Supreme Judicial Council go to the Camp Honor prison on a regular basis, where they participate in investigations and interrogations, alongside military investigators from the 56th Brigade. A lawyer who works for the government but did not want his department identified corroborated this allegation in an April interview with Human Rights Watch.
Three former detainees who spoke with Human Rights Watch between December and April gave credible accounts of what they said were their interactions with judicial investigators in Camp Honor prison. These allegations are consistent with judicial procedures known to have taken place there in the past. One detainee told Human Rights Watch in April that he had been held for over a month in Camp Honor prison, from late October to early December.
In a March interview, another man told Human Rights Watch he had been detained in Baghdad in early November and taken to a prison inside the Green Zone, which guards and other detainees told him was Camp Honor prison. His description and a sketch he made of the layout of the cells and interrogation trailers were consistent with the known layout of the facility.
Another detainee said in early December that he could confirm that he was in Camp Honor prison in May 2011 by the proximity of clearly recognizable surrounding buildings. When he was taken from the main holding facility to adjacent trailers for violent interrogations on three separate occasions, he said, he was not blindfolded. "The Defense Ministry and the old Council of Ministers [Hall] are right there," he said. "I'm a former military man, and I used to work very close to there, so I knew right where I was."
In July Human Rights Watch obtained a copy of a May 22,2011 letter written by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), which said the ICRC had "collected reliable allegations" of two separate secret detention facilities attached to Camp Honor military base, plus another facility next to the headquarters of the Counter-Terrorism Service, also in the Green Zone, "that are used to this day to hold and conceal detainees when committees visit the primary prison."
In the letter, the ICRC also documented the methods of torture used inside Camp Honor prison and affiliated facilities, consistent with torture methods Human Rights Watch had previously reported.The ICRC addressed the letter to Prime Minister al-Maliki and copied Farouq al-Araji, head of al-Maliki's military office, General Mahmoud al-Khazraji, commander of the 56th Brigade, other defense officials, Justice Minister al-Shimmari, and Judge Midhat al-Mahmoud, head of the Supreme Judicial Council.
After the Los Angeles Times made public the letter's existence on July 14, the ICRC released a statement declining to confirm or deny its authenticity, as per long-standing policy to confine its communications to officials of the government concerned. In July and August, two Iraqi government officials and one former official familiar with the letter assured Human Rights Watch of the letter's legitimacy.
Two defense lawyers separately told Human Rights Watch in May 2012 that clients of theirs had been held in Camp Honor prison as recently as August 2011. Another lawyer told Human Rights Watch that while working at the Supreme Judicial Council over the past year he encountered frequent references in comments by judges and others, as well as in court paperwork, to prisoners being held in Camp Honor prison and in "two other prisons in the Green Zone also run by the 56th Brigade." Four officials from the Defense and Justice ministries, plus two former officials, also told Human Rights Watch of the existence of these secret prisons, one also part of the Camp Honor complex, unofficially called "Five Stars," and another outside the base, but still within the Green Zone.
Treatment of Detainees
Statements to Human Rights Watch by those captured in the roundups and detained in various prisons, including those run by the Justice Ministry, varied in describing the treatment they received. Some said they were not physically mistreated. Three people detained in the "Summit" dragnet told Human Rights Watch that security officers assured them that they just had to wait until the Arab Summit was over and they would be released -- that holding them "was just a precautionary measure." Others described multiple beatings and threats and some described abuse that amounts to torture.
In May, a 59-year-old man told Human Rights Watch that he was arrested in late October in a southern province of Iraq and transported with more than 60 other prisoners to a detention facility in Baghdad, which he identified but asked Human Rights Watch to keep confidential. "When I first arrived, I was blindfolded and had my hands tied behind my back, and I had to walk down a long line of men, each of whom punched me in the face and hit my head with wire cables as I passed them," he said. "After that, I was in solitary confinement for some time, and then they brought me before the judicial investigators. I couldn't believe that they beat so hard and gave me electric shocks for three continuous hours, without even asking me any questions."
He also said that during other interrogations his captors stripped him naked, hit him with wire cables, boxed his ears, poured cold water over him, and shocked him with electrodes attached to his back.
He was released in March, five months later, after his family paid over US $10,000 in bribes and an influential politician intervened on his behalf. Before leaving custody, he was forced to sign what he said was a confession, though he is not sure of its contents, as well as a pledge to never speak "against the government" and never to talk to the media about his arrest. "They told me that if I break any of these rules, they will bring in my sons and destroy them, and rape my wife," he said. "As I left, they told me, 'We will arrest you again, and make sure you're executed.'"
Family members of detainees who spoke with Human Rights Watch said they had no idea where their loved ones were being held, despite multiple inquiries to the Ministry of Human Rights and the headquarters of the security forces that arrested them. In cases in which the government disclosed where prisoners were being held, security forces hindered or completely blocked detainees' access to legal and family visits.
"On paper, a defendant can be defended by a lawyer, but in real life, it is next to impossible," said a defense lawyer who is attempting to represent two men arrested in the "Summit" sweep in March. He told Human Rights Watch that when he is actually informed of the location of a detainee and allowed in, he is kept waiting for hours, and then told to go home because it is the end of the day. "Any lawyer attempting to see his client will be subjected to threats by the security forces holding the detainees," the lawyer told Human Rights Watch. "Several times in the past few months, they said, 'So, you want to represent a Baathist and a terrorist? I wonder what is making you do this, why you are on his side.' This is clearly an attempt to intimidate attorneys from standing up for their victims."
Families who tried to hire lawyers to defend relatives arrested in the "Baathist" sweep gave strikingly similar accounts. In December, one man told Human Rights Watch that his family went to four separate criminal defense lawyers who were at first cooperative. But when they learned that his father was taken in the "Baathist" arrests, he said, "each immediately told us that they could not interfere in this case because the arrests were by order of the prime minister's office." He cited one lawyer as saying: "This case is already decided. It's a lost case, and I can't be part of it, because they were arrested by the order of the prime minister.'"
"It is amazing that all four had the same reaction and this made us lose hope," the family member said. "We did not try to get another lawyer, and have no idea where my father is."

"What favorite show of yours did they cancel?"
"TV and politics"
"Smash"
"Isaiah, Third and the Name Calling"
"THIS JUST IN! LOOK WHO'S BITCHY!"
"He's a little bit bitchy"

Tuesday, May 15, 2012

He's a little bit bitchy

BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE

WALL STREET'S JAMIE DIMON THOUGHT HE AND CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O WERE FRIENDS BUT NOW HE'S EXPLAINING THAT HE AND BARRY O WERE NEVER THAT CLOSE AND JOINED THE CHORUS ASKING FOR REAL CHANGE IN 2012.

MEANWHILE BARRY O'S GONE BACK TO BEING THE BITCHY BARRY OF 2008 AS HE RESORTS TO NAME CALLING AND MORE INSISTING MITT ROMNEY IS A "VAMPIRE" AND A "JOBS KILLER."

SETTING ASIDE THE LITTLE THING CALLED "THE ECONOMY" AND BARRY O'S GOLFING AND VACATIONING AND PARTYING WITH MILLIONAIRES IN HOLLYWOOD WHILE AMERICA IS STILL IN THE MIDST OF THE WORST RECESSION SINCE THE GREAT DEPRESSION, BITCH BARRY HAS RESORTED TO "OLD POLITICS." YES, IN 2012 HIS CAMPAIGN SLOGAN IS "DESPAIR" AND "MORE OF THE SAME."

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

At the conservative blog American.com (American Institute Enterprise), Marc Thiessen is noting "what a different five months make," contrasting Barack's December words of eternal ties with Iraq with the New York Times report yesterday, Tim Arango's "U.S. May Scrap Costly Efforts to Train Iraqi Police." Arango reported that the police training program has already cost US taxpayers $500 million since October alone and is an utter failure with Iraqis having ceased attending training on US facilities and Americans unwilling to train the Iraqi police on Iraqi facilities due to safety concerns. If it accomplishes nothing else, Arango's article forced the State Dept and spokesperson Victoria Nuland to address Iraq in their daily briefing today (here for transcript and video):

QUESTION: Yeah. Iraq.

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

QUESTION: I realize this was addressed by the Embassy yesterday, but I just want to get from here -- you know what I'm talking about, yes? -- in terms of the elimination, or reported elimination, of the Iraqi police training program. This -- the report said that it was being considered that the whole program could be -- could vanish, that it could go away. The Embassy, while it denied that, didn't say that it wouldn't be substantially cut or whittled down to a mere fraction of what it originally had been planned to be. Can you just clarify what exactly is -- what are the plans for the police training program?

MS. NULAND: Well, first let me clarify we have no intention to cancel our police training program in Iraq. What we are engaged in, in collaboration with the Iraqis, is a right-sizing exercise for this program along with all of our programs. As you know, we are absolutely committed to, first of all, supporting Iraqi self-reliance. So if they tell us they need less support, we are going to downsize. And in this case, they are asking us to continue the advisory and training program but to downsize it, and also to saving the U.S. taxpayer money wherever we can. So I can't give you a final size for this. We are in the evaluation process now, working with the Iraqis. But we do anticipate we're going to be able to downsize it considerably while continuing to be able to support the Iraqis on the police training side.

QUESTION: Okay. This is the second time in -- since the beginning of the year that this particular publication has written something about the Embassy which you had a serious dispute with. Both times it has been cast -- the reports have cast these reductions or slashing of personnel as serious miscalculations by the Administration in terms of its Iraq policy. What's your feeling about that, that characterization of it?

MS. NULAND: Well, again, it's important to appreciate that we are in a new phase with Iraq. We're in a phase where it is up to the Iraqis to decide precisely what kind of footprint they want by foreign support, foreign countries offering support, offering assistance in the context of their overall approach to their sovereignty. So we very much need to respect that this is a collaborative decision how much support they want on the police training side. So we're trying to be in step with their increasing self-reliance. We're trying to do this in a negotiated, phased, managed way. But we're also trying to make clear to Iraqis that we think we have valuable training, valuable advice to offer, as we do to some hundred countries around the world. So we're going to work this through, but I think folks need to get on the program that we have a sovereign Iraq who's going to make its own decisions about how much outside support it wants.

QUESTION: All right. So you agree or disagree with the characterization that this is -- that this represents a serious political -- or a serious policy miscalculation?

MS. NULAND: Well, of course I'm going to disagree with that. Thank you.

QUESTION: Was the report correct that the Administration has spent $500 million so far on the police training program?

MS. NULAND: I don't have the total amount here, but as you know, we've been involved in police training from the beginning of the Iraq operation, as far back as 2003. I can take the question if it's of interest to you to sort of tote it all up. But we were involved in police work ourselves, police training for the Iraqis from the beginning, the standing up of their own professional police forces. I don't think anybody in that country wanted to submit themselves to the old Saddam-ite police, so it needed a bottom-up work and cleansing. So --

QUESTION: One other thing. The report alleged that much of the training provided by the United States, and in particular by the State Department since the departure of the U.S. military from Iraq, was not helpful to the Iraqis, that it consisted of retired or late-in-their-career American state troopers telling war stories about how they conduct their activities in the United States. And it cited one anecdote in which it said that the two key indices of someone possibly going to -- planning to launch a suicide bombing were: one, that they would withdraw a lot of money from the bank; and two, that they'd go out and get drunk. And it suggested that those were perhaps not very apposite indicators for Iraq where: one, a lot of Iraqis don't have bank accounts; and two, a lot of Iraqis don't drink. Do you -- how do you address the criticisms in the story that regardless of how many millions were spent on this, that the training wasn't actually all that useful?

MS. NULAND: Well, first of all, I'm not going to get drawn into parsing the anecdotes in a story with which we took considerable issue, both in its macro assertions and in many of its details. We had considerable difficulties with that story, as the statement from Embassy Baghdad made clear. With regard to the integrity of the police training that we do -- we have done in Iraq over these many years, we stand by it. The Iraqis have a new, modern, more democratic police force largely as a result of the support of the international community led by the United States. I'm obviously not in a position to speak to every individual involved in this, but all over the world we rely on the expertise of retired officers from the United States, from other countries, who are willing to participate in these training programs. And they participate on the basis of their experience in democratic law enforcement, not to hang around and tell inappropriate war stories. So we stand by the program. And if you'd like more on the numbers, et cetera, we can get you a separate briefing.

QUESTION: Can I just -- the last one this?

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

QUESTION: Just given the severity of the differences that you had with this, has there been any contact between the Department or anyone -- any senior officials in the Department and the editorship of the publication in question?

MS. NULAND: Well, I'm not going to get into our discussions with the --

QUESTION: Well, have you asked for a correction or clarification or --

QUESTION: Or a retraction?

MS. NULAND: We have made absolutely clear in our public statements and in our messages to that publication how we feel about the story.

QUESTION: But does that mean that you've asked for a retraction or a correction or some kind of -- I mean, after the first one, you demanded one. And you were quite open about it, and you got one.

MS. NULAND: Yeah. I think we're still working on that set of issues.

They should work on those issues.

They should also work on Victoria Nuland's status of spokesperson. That's the full exchange on Iraq so we're not accuesed of misquoting her. But the key passage to her response was this: "What we are engaged in, in collaboration with the Iraqis, is a right-sizing exercise for this program along with all of our programs. As you know, we are absolutely committed to, first of all, supporting Iraqi self-reliance. So if they tell us they need less support, we are going to downsize. And in this case, they are asking us to continue the advisory and training program but to downsize it, and also to saving the U.S. taxpayer money wherever we can."

That's exactly what Tim Arango reported. That the program was being downsized, that cuts were being considered and that the program might get scrapped. That is what he reported. Nuland can pretend to be upset and outraged but she should be most upset and outraged with herself because she confirmed Arango's report. Arango did not report, "The State Dept is closing the police training program!" His opening sentence established the main point of the article: "In the face of spiraling costs and Iraqi officials who say they never wanted it in the first place, the State Department has slashed -- and may jettison entirely by the end of the year -- a multibillion-dollar police training program that was to have been the centerpiece of a hugely expanded civilian mission here." That jibes exactly with what she said in the paragraph above.

At the conservative opinion journal Commentary, Max Boot also takes to gloating ("also" refers back to Marc Thiessen -- not to Victoria Nuland or Tim Arango). Boot insists, "All of this was utterly predictable -- and in fact was predicted by numerous commentators, including yours truly, who had no faith in State's ability to run such an ambitious undertaking in a coutry that remains so dangers." So there's Max Boots crowing about his crystal vision. I think, by contrast, I'll just sing along with Carly Simon, "I'm no prophet and I don't know natures way" ("Anticipation," written by Carly, first appears on her album of the same name).

I didn't need to be a prophet and I don't understand why the conservatives are gloating? If they really think they stumbled onto something, they've just demonstrated how out of touch they are. Let's go back to the February 8, 2012 snapshot:

We covered the November 30th House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the MiddleEast and South Asia in the December 1st snapshot and noted that Ranking Member Gary Ackerman had several questions. He declared, "Number one, does the government of Iraq -- whose personnel we intend to train -- support the [police training] program? Interviews with senior Iaqi officials by the Special Inspector General show utter didain for the program. When the Iraqis sugest that we take our money and do things instead that are good for the United States. I think that might be a clue." The State Dept's Brooke Darby faced that Subcommittee. Ranking Member Gary Ackerman noted that the US had already spent 8 years training the Iraq police force and wanted Darby to answer as to whether it would take another 8 years before that training was complete? Her reply was, "I'm not prepared to put a time limit on it." She could and did talk up Deputy Minister of the Ministry of Interior Adnan al-Asadi as a great friend to the US government. But Ackerman and Subcommittee Chair Steve Chabot had already noted Adnan al-Asadi, but not by name. That's the Iraqi official, for example, Ackerman was referring to who made the suggestion "that we take our money and do things instead that are good for the United States." He made that remark to SIGIR Stuart Bowen.

Brooke Darby noted that he didn't deny that comment or retract it; however, she had spoken with him and he felt US trainers and training from the US was needed. The big question was never asked in the hearing: If the US government wants to know about this $500 million it is about to spend covering the 2012 training of the Ministry of the Interior's police, why are they talking to the Deputy Minister?

In that hearing, nearly a month before Barack's speech, Stuart Bowen and Brooke Darby confirmed that the puppet Nouri al-Maliki had over the Minister of the Interior had said he didn't want the US training Iraqis.

In that same House Foreign Relations Committee hearing, it was also established that the State Dept had no real plan.

Ranking Member Gary Ackerman: When will they be willing to stand up without us?

Brooke Darby: I wish I could answer that question.

Ranking Member Gary Ackerman: Then why are we spending money if we don't have the answer?

[long pause]

Ranking Member Gary Ackerman: You know, this is turning into what happens after a bar mitzvah or a Jewish wedding. It's called "a Jewish goodbye." Everybody keeps saying goodbye but nobody leaves.

Given the chance, by Darby, to retract his remark, he stood by it. We could drop back further but there's no need to bother, Peter Van Buren's already beaten us to it as he explains (at Huffington Post):

In October I reported on my blog wemeantwell.com that the State Department was on Capitol Hill in front of the Subcommittee on National Security, Homeland Defense and Foreign Operations, begging a skeptical Congress for more money for police training in Iraq. "Training" was again being cited as the cure-all for America's apparently insatiable desire to throw money away in Mesopotamia. That latest tranche of taxpayer cash sought by State was one billion dollars a year, every year for five years, to pay police instructors and cop salaries in Iraq.

The U.S. has been training Iraqi cops for years. In fact, the U.S. government has spent $7.3 billion for Iraqi police training since 2003. Ka-ching! Anybody's hometown in need of $7.3 billion in Federal funds? Hah, you can't have it if you're American, it is only for Iraq!

Ever-reliable State Department tool Pat Kennedy led the pack of fibbers in asking Congress for the cash: "After a long and difficult conflict, we now have the opportunity to see Iraq emerge as a strategic ally in a tumultuous region." He went on (... and on) promising "robust this" and "robust that." Best of all, Pat Kennedy also said that providing assistance to the Iraqi police and security forces "will eventually reduce the cost of our presence as security in the country improves and we can rely on Iraqi security for our own protection."

Peter Van Buren is the author of We Meant Well: How I helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People.

Now apparently Max Boot never heard of these hearing or others like it -- there were others -- but he's happy because he had a vision and turned out to be true.

Back in the land of reality, Nicholas Noe and Walid Read (Bloomberg News) note Ahmad al-Muhanna's Al Mada column about "the bitter power struggle between the Shiite Maliki on the one side and the main Kurdish and Sunni leaders on the other. In addition, Maliki is in a scrape with his fellow Shiite Muqtada al-Sadr, whose parliamentary bloc froms the ruling coaling with the PM's party. Sadr, who unlike Maliki is a determined foe of the U.S., has openly criticized Maliki for isolation Shiites by mopolizing governming powers. He joined Maliki's opponents recently in issuing the Irbil Paper, a list of demands including one that Maliki not run again after his current term expires in 2014."

RECOMMENDED:

Cedric's Big Mix

The bad news keeps rolling in
2 days ago
The Daily Jot

THIS JUST IN! BAD NEWS FOR BARRY O!
2 days ago

Cedric's Big Mix

Friday, May 18, 2012

Which country is he president of?

Thursday, May 17, 2012

The sad downward spiral?

Wednesday, May 16, 2012

If only he were cute when he flirts

Tuesday, May 15, 2012

He's a little bit bitchy

About Me

Links

Cedric's Big Mix