Obama increasing use of mercenaries in Iraq and Afghanistan

http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/http://rebelreports.com//140378/

Obama Has 250,000 ‘Contractors’ Deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan and is Increasing the Use of Mercenaries

By Jeremy Scahill, Rebel Reports
Posted on June 1, 2009, Printed on June 6, 2009

A couple of years ago, Blackwater executive Joseph Schmitz seemed to see a silver lining for mercenary companies with the prospect of US forces being withdrawn or reduced in Iraq. “There is a scenario where we could as a government, the United States, could pull back the military footprint,” Schmitz said. “And there would then be more of a need for private contractors to go in.”

When it comes to armed contractors, it seems that Schmitz was right.

According to new statistics released by the Pentagon, with Barack Obama as commander in chief, there has been a 23% increase in the number of “Private Security Contractors” working for the Department of Defense in Iraq in the second quarter of 2009 and a 29% increase in Afghanistan, which “correlates to the build up of forces” in the country. These numbers relate explicitly to DoD security contractors. Companies like Blackwater and its successor Triple Canopy work on State Department contracts and it is unclear if these contractors are included in the over-all statistics. This means, the number of individual “security” contractors could be quite higher, as could the scope of their expansion.

Overall, contractors (armed and unarmed) now make up approximately 50% of the “total force in Centcom AOR [Area of Responsibility].” This means there are a whopping 242,657 contractors working on these two U.S. wars. These statistics come from two reports just released by Gary J. Motsek, the Assistant Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Program Support): “Contractor Support of U.S. Operations in USCENTCOM AOR, IRAQ, and Afghanistan and “Operational Contract Support, ‘State of the Union.'”

“We expect similar dependence on contractors in future contingency operations,” according to the contractor “State of the Union.” It notes that the deployment size of both military personnel and DoD civilians are “fixed by law,” but points out that the number of contractors is “size unfixed,” meaning there is virtually no limit (other than funds) to the number of contractors that can be deployed in the war zone.

At present there are 132,610 in Iraq and 68,197 in Afghanistan. The report notes that while the deployment of security contractors in Iraq is increasing, there was an 11% decrease in overall contractors in Iraq from the first quarter of 2009 due to the “ongoing efforts to reduce the contractor footprint in Iraq.”

Both Pentagon reports can be downloaded here.

Jeremy Scahill is the author of Blackwater: The Rise of the World’s Most Powerful Mercenary Army.

Dahr Jamail: Colonizing Culture

As an independent journalist, Dahr Jamail has brought the world vivid and horrifying accounts of the U.S. occupation of Iraq.  When he visited Hawai’i a few years ago, Hawaiian Independence activists introduced him to the history and current state of the U.S. occupation of Hawai’i and of the sovereignty movement.  He immediately got it.  In this article he describes the “soft” colonization of Iraq by massive, forced cultural change brought on by foreign occupation.  Of course, Hawai’i was one of the places where techniques of “soft” colonization were perfected.

http://www.truthout.org/052709R

Colonizing Culture

Wednesday 27 May 2009

by: Dahr Jamail, t r u t h o u t | Perspective

Transgress

The geo-strategic expansion of the American empire is an accepted fact of contemporary history. I have been writing in these columns about the impact of the US occupation on the people of Iraq in the wake of the “hard” colonization via F-16s, tanks, 2,000-pound bombs, white phosphorous and cluster bombs.

Here I offer a brief glimpse into the less obvious but far more insidious phenomenon of “soft” colonization. That scholars and political thinkers have talked at length of such processes only establishes the uncomfortable reality that history is bound to repeat itself in all its ugliness, unless the human civilization makes a concerted effort to eliminate the use of brute force from human affairs.

Gandhi, the apostle of non-violent resistance said:

“I do not want my house to be walled in on all sides and my windows to be stuffed. I want the cultures of all the lands to be blown about my house as freely as possible. But I refuse to be blown off my feet by any. I refuse to live in other people’s houses as an interloper, a beggar or a slave.”

This is an idea rendered irrelevant in the current scenario, where the mightier among the world’s nations have secured the mandate to invade, with impunity, any society and any state that can be exploited for resources. Unlike earlier times, modern-day invasions are invariably camouflaged by a façade of elaborate deceit that claims altruistic intent as the motive of assault. In this new scheme of things, resistance is deemed as insurgency and dissent is unpatriotic. Those that are invaded do not have the luxury to decide between being beggar and slave. Culture would be the last thing on their minds as they struggle to stay alive. Yet it is the loss of their culture that ultimately causes the disintegration of these societies to the absolute advantage of their victors.

It is said that history is written by the victor. What is not said is that destroying the enemy is only half the purpose of a victor. The other half is the subjugation and drastic alteration of the self-perception of the enemy, so as to gain unquestioned control over every aspect of the subjugated state, its populace and its resources, so that having won victory it can get on with the “much bigger business of plunder,” according to Franz Fanon, philosopher, psychiatrist, author and a pre-eminent thinker of the twentieth century.

At one level we have the Human Terrain System (HTS) I have written about previously wherein social scientists are embedded with combat units, ostensibly to help the occupiers better understand the cultures they are occupying. The veiled intent is to exploit existing schisms and fault-lines in these societies to the occupier’s own advantage through the policy of divide and conquer.

As Edward Said stated in “Orientalism”:

“… there is a difference between knowledge of other peoples and other times that is the result of understanding, compassion, careful study and analysis for their own sakes, and on the other hand knowledge – if that is what it is – that is part of an overall campaign of self-affirmation, belligerency, and outright war. There is, after all, a profound difference between the will to understand for purposes of coexistence and humanistic enlargement of horizons, and the will to dominate for the purposes of control and external enlargement of horizons, and the will to dominate for the purposes of control and external dominion.”

It is extremely obvious that the HTS belongs to this second category.

At another unquestioned level, the “democratization” and “modernization” of a “barbaric” society goes on. The embedded scholars of HTS evidently find no evidence of these cultures having withstood decades of international isolation and assault, yet sustained their sovereignty by the sheer dint of their education, culture and a well-integrated diverse social fabric. So the US sets up a range of state-funded programs, ostensibly to empower the women and youth of the target society, in the ways of democracy and modern civilization. Whether or not that suspect goal is accomplished, the badgered collective consciousness of the invaded people, traumatized by loss and conflict, does begin to submit to the “norms” of behavior prescribed by the victor, even when they are in violation of actual norms of society that may have prevailed prior to invasion.

Transform

Fanon said:

“A national culture under colonial domination is a contested culture whose destruction is sought in systematic fashion.”

Describing the psychopathology of colonization he said, “Every effort is made to bring the colonized person to admit the inferiority of his culture which has been transformed into instinctive patterns of behavior, to recognize the unreality of his ‘nation’, and, in the last extreme, the confused and imperfect character of his own biological structure.”

Fanon’s speech to the Congress of Black African Writers in 1959 is an uncanny description of Iraq’s tragedy today:

“Colonial domination, because it is total and tends to over-simplify, very soon manages to disrupt in spectacular fashion the cultural life of a conquered people. This cultural obliteration is made possible by the negation of national reality, by new legal relations introduced by the occupying power, by the banishment of the natives and their customs to outlying districts by colonial society, by expropriation, and by the systematic enslaving of men and women …

“For culture is first the expression of a nation, the expression of its preferences, of its taboos and of its patterns. It is at every stage of the whole of society that other taboos, values and patterns are formed. A national culture is the sum total of all these appraisals; it is the result of internal and external extensions exerted over society as a whole and also at every level of that society. In the colonial situation, culture, which is doubly deprived of the support of the nation and of the state, falls away and dies.”

At times we may witness blatant violations as in the distribution of backpacks with US flags to Iraqi children.

A more repulsive example is the Skin White Serum. One of many companies engaged in selling skin-bleaching cream is Skin White Research Labs. They proudly sell Skin White Serum in “over 30 countries.” There are countless other companies involved in this market, selling similar products, like Skin White Bleaching Cream and Xtreme White.

The hidden message here is that, politically, those in the culture being colonized should seek to cover their brown skin, which is in fact part of their ethnic identity, and aspire to the culture, power and influence of the dominant culture at the expense of their own.

Somewhat less subtle is the corporate colonization of Iraq’s culture. An example of this is Iraqi girls carrying Barbie backpacks in the Sadr City area of Baghdad.

In Iraq and Afghanistan, the dominant culture for a while now has been the US military. Since it has all the firepower and the brute force, it sets the norms and the standard. This is done by repeated suggestions through propaganda, and advertisements suggesting that the local population is of lesser worth than the occupiers of their country in their appearance, their beliefs, their customs and their way of life.

The material practices of society sustain its culture, which is the lifeline of identity, and affirmation that the progress of a nation depends on. Social custom, production systems, education, art and architecture are a few of the visible pillars of culture.

Community and custom become the first casualties when an entire people, unequal in the face of military might, struggle to survive under perpetual fear of loss and death. In a state of vacuum, the threatened society will grasp whatever is offered by the occupier as a “better” way of living. In the process it is bound to lose its own tried and tested self-sustaining modes of living.

With the destruction of infrastructure, education, health and livelihood sources are destroyed. When rehabilitation and restoration come packaged in alien systems of knowledge (read-USAID), that, too, is accepted in the absence of what existed earlier.

Literature, art and architecture meet with more systemic demolition.

My artist friends in Baghdad have reported,

“The occupation forces encouraged the rebels to loot museum and libraries. Five thousand years of history and art were irretrievably lost in hours. It is a loss for the world, not Iraq alone. Buildings can be fixed, so can electricity, but where can I find another Khalid al-Rahal to make me a new statue for Abu Fafar al-Mansoor? How will I replace the artifacts dating back to thousands of years? Iraq is altered forever.”

I have heard from ordinary men and women in Iraq, “We need our art, because it connects us with what has brought us here, and reminds us of where we are headed.” Dr. Saad Eskander has been director general of whatever remains of Iraq’s National Archive and Library and he says, “This building was burned twice, and looted. We have lost sixty percent of our archival collections like maps, historical records and photographs. Twenty-five percent of our books were lost … It has crippled our culture, and culture reaches to the bottom of peoples’ hearts, whereas politics do not.”

It is not difficult to see that the extent of devastation caused by the invasion and occupation of Iraq goes beyond loss of life, livelihood and property. The historical and cultural roots of the nation have been destroyed.

Dahr Jamail, an independent journalist, is the author of “Beyond the Green Zone: Dispatches From an Unembedded Journalist in Occupied Iraq,” (Haymarket Books, 2007). Jamail reported from occupied Iraq for eight months as well as from Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Turkey over the last four years.

Soldier kills five comrades at Baghdad base

washingtonpost.com

Five U.S. Soldiers’ Deaths Came at Hands of Comrade, Military Says

Gunman Opened Fire at Baghdad Base, Wounded Three Others

By Ernesto Londoño
Washington Post Foreign Service
Monday, May 11, 2009 1:30 PM

BAGHDAD, May 11 — An American soldier opened fire on comrades Monday on a large military base in Baghdad, killing five and wounding three, the U.S. military said.

The shooting at Camp Liberty, one of the largest bases in Baghdad, occurred about 2 p.m.

Lt. Col. Brian Tribus, a U.S. military spokesman, said the gunman was taken into custody.

A U.S. military officer in Baghdad said the shooting occurred at the base’s combat stress clinic.

The official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the incident shook up soldiers, many of whom are in their third and even fourth tours. Some broke down in tears, he said.

“A lot of soldiers are wondering why,” the official said. “We will be asking as leaders: What could we have done? How could have we protected the soldiers?”

Most military facilities in Iraq have combat stress clinics, where soldiers seek counseling and are at times prescribed medicine for anxiety and depression.

The Army is grappling with a growing incidence of suicide cases, which military leaders attribute to the stress inflicted by multiple deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan.

A Defense Department official in Washington said three people were wounded, but he did not know if they were military or civilians.

“It’s some form of isolated incident, an unfortunate one at that,” he said.

The military did not immediately say what the motive might have been.

“Anytime we lose one of our own, it affects all of us,” said U.S. military spokesman Col. John Robinson. “Our hearts go out to the families and friends of all the service members involved in this terrible tragedy.”

The incident was among the deadliest attacks for U.S. troops in recent months. It appears to be the deadliest incident in which U.S. deaths were caused by a fellow U.S. soldier since the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq.

The shooting was particularly chilling for soldiers based at Victory Base Compound, which includes Liberty, because it is regarded as one of the safest installations for U.S. troops in Iraq.

Control to the compound is tightly restricted, but American soldiers carry weapons on base.

Also on Monday, the military said an American soldier was killed by a roadside bomb in southern Iraq. The attack occurred Sunday at 2 p.m. in Basra province. U.S. soldiers recently deployed additional troops to the province to replace British troops, who formally ended their mission there last month.

Liberty is one of three U.S. military bases adjacent to Baghdad International Airport.

Staff writer Ann Scott Tyson contributed to this article.

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/11/AR2009051100265_pf.html

Frank Rich: The Banality of Bush White House Evil

New York Times Op-Ed Columnist

The Banality of Bush White House Evil

By FRANK RICH
Published: April 25, 2009

WE don’t like our evil to be banal. Ten years after Columbine, it only now may be sinking in that the psychopathic killers were not jock-hating dorks from a “Trench Coat Mafia,” or, as ABC News maintained at the time, “part of a dark, underground national phenomenon known as the Gothic movement.” In the new best seller “Columbine,” the journalist Dave Cullen reaffirms that Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris were instead ordinary American teenagers who worked at the local pizza joint, loved their parents and were popular among their classmates.

On Tuesday, it will be five years since Americans first confronted the photographs from Abu Ghraib on “60 Minutes II.” Here, too, we want to cling to myths that quarantine the evil. If our country committed torture, surely it did so to prevent Armageddon, in a patriotic ticking-time-bomb scenario out of “24.” If anyone deserves blame, it was only those identified by President Bush as “a few American troops who dishonored our country and disregarded our values”: promiscuous, sinister-looking lowlifes like Lynddie England, Charles Graner and the other grunts who were held accountable while the top command got a pass.

We’ve learned much, much more about America and torture in the past five years. But as Mark Danner recently wrote in The New York Review of Books, for all the revelations, one essential fact remains unchanged: “By no later than the summer of 2004, the American people had before them the basic narrative of how the elected and appointed officials of their government decided to torture prisoners and how they went about it.” When the Obama administration said it declassified four new torture memos 10 days ago in part because their contents were already largely public, it was right.

Yet we still shrink from the hardest truths and the bigger picture: that torture was a premeditated policy approved at our government’s highest levels; that it was carried out in scenarios that had no resemblance to “24”; that psychologists and physicians were enlisted as collaborators in inflicting pain; and that, in the assessment of reliable sources like the F.B.I. director Robert Mueller, it did not help disrupt any terrorist attacks.

The newly released Justice Department memos, like those before them, were not written by barely schooled misfits like England and Graner. John Yoo, Steven Bradbury and Jay Bybee graduated from the likes of Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Michigan and Brigham Young. They have passed through white-shoe law firms like Covington & Burling, and Sidley Austin.

Judge Bybee’s résumé tells us that he has four children and is both a Cubmaster for the Boy Scouts and a youth baseball and basketball coach. He currently occupies a tenured seat on the United States Court of Appeals. As an assistant attorney general, he was the author of the Aug. 1, 2002, memo endorsing in lengthy, prurient detail interrogation “techniques” like “facial slap (insult slap)” and “insects placed in a confinement box.”

He proposed using 10 such techniques “in some sort of escalating fashion, culminating with the waterboard, though not necessarily ending with this technique.” Waterboarding, the near-drowning favored by Pol Pot and the Spanish Inquisition, was prosecuted by the United States in war-crimes trials after World War II. But Bybee concluded that it “does not, in our view, inflict ‘severe pain or suffering.’ ”

Still, it’s not Bybee’s perverted lawyering and pornographic amorality that make his memo worthy of special attention. It merits a closer look because it actually does add something new – and, even after all we’ve heard, something shocking – to the five-year-old torture narrative. When placed in full context, it’s the kind of smoking gun that might free us from the myths and denial that prevent us from reckoning with this ugly chapter in our history.

Bybee’s memo was aimed at one particular detainee, Abu Zubaydah, who had been captured some four months earlier, in late March 2002. Zubaydah is portrayed in the memo (as he was publicly by Bush after his capture) as one of the top men in Al Qaeda. But by August this had been proven false. As Ron Suskind reported in his book “The One Percent Doctrine,” Zubaydah was identified soon after his capture as a logistics guy, who, in the words of the F.B.I.’s top-ranking Qaeda analyst at the time, Dan Coleman, served as the terrorist group’s flight booker and “greeter,” like “Joe Louis in the lobby of Caesar’s Palace.” Zubaydah “knew very little about real operations, or strategy.” He showed clinical symptoms of schizophrenia.

By the time Bybee wrote his memo, Zubaydah had been questioned by the F.B.I. and C.I.A. for months and had given what limited information he had. His most valuable contribution was to finger Khalid Shaikh Mohammed as the 9/11 mastermind. But, as Jane Mayer wrote in her book “The Dark Side,” even that contribution may have been old news: according to the 9/11 commission, the C.I.A. had already learned about Mohammed during the summer of 2001. In any event, as one of Zubaydah’s own F.B.I. questioners, Ali Soufan, wrote in a Times Op-Ed article last Thursday, traditional interrogation methods had worked. Yet Bybee’s memo purported that an “increased pressure phase” was required to force Zubaydah to talk.

As soon as Bybee gave the green light, torture followed: Zubaydah was waterboarded at least 83 times in August 2002, according to another of the newly released memos. Unsurprisingly, it appears that no significant intelligence was gained by torturing this mentally ill Qaeda functionary. So why the overkill? Bybee’s memo invoked a ticking time bomb: “There is currently a level of ‘chatter’ equal to that which preceded the September 11 attacks.”

We don’t know if there was such unusual “chatter” then, but it’s unlikely Zubaydah could have added information if there were. Perhaps some new facts may yet emerge if Dick Cheney succeeds in his unexpected and welcome crusade to declassify documents that he says will exonerate administration interrogation policies. Meanwhile, we do have evidence for an alternative explanation of what motivated Bybee to write his memo that August, thanks to the comprehensive Senate Armed Services Committee report on detainees released last week.

The report found that Maj. Paul Burney, a United States Army psychiatrist assigned to interrogations in Guantánamo Bay that summer of 2002, told Army investigators of another White House imperative: “A large part of the time we were focused on trying to establish a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq and we were not being successful.” As higher-ups got more “frustrated” at the inability to prove this connection, the major said, “there was more and more pressure to resort to measures” that might produce that intelligence.

In other words, the ticking time bomb was not another potential Qaeda attack on America but the Bush administration’s ticking timetable for selling a war in Iraq; it wanted to pressure Congress to pass a war resolution before the 2002 midterm elections. Bybee’s memo was written the week after the then-secret (and subsequently leaked) “Downing Street memo,” in which the head of British intelligence informed Tony Blair that the Bush White House was so determined to go to war in Iraq that “the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.” A month after Bybee’s memo, on Sept. 8, 2002, Cheney would make his infamous appearance on “Meet the Press,” hyping both Saddam’s W.M.D.s and the “number of contacts over the years” between Al Qaeda and Iraq. If only 9/11 could somehow be pinned on Iraq, the case for war would be a slamdunk.

But there were no links between 9/11 and Iraq, and the White House knew it. Torture may have been the last hope for coercing such bogus “intelligence” from detainees who would be tempted to say anything to stop the waterboarding.

Last week Bush-Cheney defenders, true to form, dismissed the Senate Armed Services Committee report as “partisan.” But as the committee chairman, Carl Levin, told me, the report received unanimous support from its members – John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman included.

Levin also emphasized the report’s accounts of military lawyers who dissented from White House doctrine – only to be disregarded. The Bush administration was “driven,” Levin said. By what? “They’d say it was to get more information. But they were desperate to find a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq.”

Five years after the Abu Ghraib revelations, we must acknowledge that our government methodically authorized torture and lied about it. But we also must contemplate the possibility that it did so not just out of a sincere, if criminally misguided, desire to “protect” us but also to promote an unnecessary and catastrophic war. Instead of saving us from “another 9/11,” torture was a tool in the campaign to falsify and exploit 9/11 so that fearful Americans would be bamboozled into a mission that had nothing to do with Al Qaeda. The lying about Iraq remains the original sin from which flows much of the Bush White House’s illegality.

Levin suggests – and I agree – that as additional fact-finding plays out, it’s time for the Justice Department to enlist a panel of two or three apolitical outsiders, perhaps retired federal judges, “to review the mass of material” we already have. The fundamental truth is there, as it long has been. The panel can recommend a legal path that will insure accountability for this wholesale betrayal of American values.

President Obama can talk all he wants about not looking back, but this grotesque past is bigger than even he is. It won’t vanish into a memory hole any more than Andersonville, World War II internment camps or My Lai. The White House, Congress and politicians of both parties should get out of the way. We don’t need another commission. We don’t need any Capitol Hill witch hunts. What we must have are fair trials that at long last uphold and reclaim our nation’s commitment to the rule of law.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/26/opinion/26rich.html?em

Leaked document reveals military knew Balad Air Base troops were exposed to toxic chemicals

Here’s another reason why, as the people of Vieques, Puerto Rico say “History does not allow us to trust what  the military says.”  Agent Orange.  Depleted Uranium. Project 112/SHAD.   Atomic and nuclear veterans.   Makua valley – Army was supposed to return the land 6 months after WWII.  Wahiawa and Pohakuloa – depleted uranium was discovered, despite the military’s claim that it never used DU in Hawai’i.  Also, it is important to note that open burn / open detonation pits were used in Makua until around 1993.

====

http://snipurl.com/dl181

Pentagon knowingly exposed troops to cancer-causing chemicals, document shows

03/10/2009 @ 9:06 am

Filed by John Byrne

A newly leaked military document appears to show the Pentagon knowingly exposed US troops to toxic chemicals that cause cancer, while publicly downplaying the risks exposure might cause.

The document, written by an environmental engineering flight commander in December of 2006 and posted on Wikileaks (PDF) on Tuesday, details the risks posed to US troops in Iraq by burning garbage at a US airbase. It enumerates myriad risks posed by the practice and identifies various carcinogens released by incinerating waste in open-air pits.

Because of the difficulties in testing samples, investigators could not prove that chemicals exceeded military exposure guidelines. But a military document released last December found that chemicals routinely exceeded safe levels by twice to six times.

The leaked report was signed off by the chief for the Air Force’s aeromedical services. Its subject is Balad Airbase, a large US military base about 70 kilometers north of Baghdad.

“In my professional opinion, the known carcinogens and respiratory sensitizers released into the atmosphere by the burn pit present both an acute and a chronic health hazard to our troops and the local population,” Aeromedical chief Lt. Colonel James Elliott wrote.

According to the document, a US Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventative Medicine investigator said Balad’s burn pit was “the worst environmental site I have ever personally visited,” including “10 years working… clean-up for the Army.”

While the Curtis memo document is a new release to Wikileaks, it was previously disclosed online by the founder and editor of VAWatchdog.org, Larry Scott, in December 2008.

Military outfits have routinely incinerated garbage in what are called burn pits. At Balad, the trash was hauled by contractors from the engineering giant KBR, a former Halliburton subsidiary.

Last December, the Pentagon issued a “Just the Facts” sheet about the burn pits to troops. While acknowledging that lab tests from 2004-2006 had found occasional carcinogens, it asserted that “the potential short- and long-term risks were estimated to be low due to the infrequent detections of these chemicals.”

The sampling reports are classified, according to the Army Times.

The Pentagon report adds, “Based on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency guidance, long-term health effects are not expected to occur from breathing the smoke.”

Strikingly, however, it does acknowledge that air samples taken in 2007 found particulate matter levels higher than military recommendations in 50 of 60 cases — some two times allowable toxic levels, but others as many as six times.

The flyer given to troops appears to contradict assertions by the Air Force’s own investigators. In the leaked document, titled “Burn Pit Health Hazards,” Air Force Bioenvironmental Engineering Flight Commander Darrin Curtis expressed shock that troops were knowingly exposed to such risks.

“It is amazing that the burn pit has been able to operate without restrictions over the past few years without significant engineering controls being put in place,” Curtis wrote.

“In my professional opinion, there is an acute health hazard for individuals,” he added. In addition to carcinogens, “there is also the possibility of chronic health hazards associated with the smoke.”

Curtis noted that the chemicals associated with burning plastics, rubber and other common trash items included arsenic, benzene, formaldehyde, hydrogen cyanide, sulfuric acid and various other chemicals.

“Just the Facts,” while playing down long-term risks, also identified dioxins among tested samples. Dioxins were also present in Agent Orange, the notorious herbicide used during the Vietnam War. Benzene is known to cause leukemia, and cyanide and arsenic have throughout history been used as poisons to induce death.

Soldiers complain of chronic conditions

An Army Times investigation in 2008 found anecdotal evidence of health conditions caused by exposure to the fires.

“Though military officials say there are no known long-term effects from exposure to burn pits in Iraq and Afghanistan, more than 100 service members have come forward to Military Times and Disabled American Veterans with strikingly similar symptoms: chronic bronchitis, asthma, sleep apnea, chronic coughs and allergy-like symptoms. Several also have cited heart problems, lymphoma and leukemia,” Army Times reporter Kelley Kennedy wrote in December.

“A lot of soldiers in my old unit have asthma and bronchitis,” a staff sergeant stationed in Iraq in 2005 was quoted as saying. “I lived 50 feet from the burn pit. I used to wake up in the middle of the night choking on it.”

“I’ve seen four or five cardiologists, but no one can tell me what’s wrong with my heart,” the staff sergeant added.

“It seems like most of these cases, anecdotally, are people who were exposed heavily to the burn pits and they got sick quickly,” Kerry Baker, legislative director for Disabled American Veterans, said. “There must be some areas that take a hit much harder than others. Everything seems to be pointing opposite to what the Defense Department is saying.”

Balad Air Base troops exposed to toxic smoke, military downplays health risks

Report cites low health risk from burn pits

By Kelly Kennedy – Staff writer

Posted : Wednesday Dec 24, 2008 16:46:03 EST

The Army staff sergeant began running long distances when she was 7 years old. A born overachiever, she made E-6 in eight years in her job as a truck driver. She ran six-minute miles and is air-assault qualified.

Then she went to Joint Base Balad in Iraq.

“I got so sick I was medevacked out,” she said, speaking on condition of anonymity. “Now I can hardly walk without using an inhaler. I’m losing my career to asthma.”

At Balad, she and two other soldiers worked the night shift as convoy supervisors for the KBR contractors who brought garbage to be dumped in the base’s open-air burn pit.

“By midnight, the smoke was so bad you couldn’t see,” she said.

Both of the other soldiers on her shift have also been diagnosed with asthma.

Though military officials say there are no known long-term effects from exposure to burn pits in Iraq and Afghanistan, more than 100 service members have come forward to Military Times and Disabled American Veterans with strikingly similar symptoms: chronic bronchitis, asthma, sleep apnea, chronic coughs and allergy-like symptoms. Several also have cited heart problems, lymphoma and leukemia.

“A lot of soldiers in my old unit have asthma and bronchitis,” said the staff sergeant, who served in Iraq in 2005. “I lived 50 feet from the burn pit. I used to wake up in the middle of the night choking on it.”

She also has been diagnosed with heart problems. “I’ve seen four or five cardiologists, but no one can tell me what’s wrong with my heart,” she said.

The U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine issued a paper entitled “Just the Facts” in December about the Balad burn pit.

It states that sampling in 2004, 2005 and 2006 found “occasional presence” of dioxins, the chemical in Agent Orange; polyaromatic hydrocarbons, or benzene, known to cause leukemia; and volatile organic compounds, some that are known or suspected to cause cancer in humans, as well as throat and eye irritations.

Those sampling reports are classified, according to the center.

But “the potential short- and long-term risks were estimated to be low due to the infrequent detections of these chemicals,” the paper states. “Based on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency guidance, long-term health effects are not expected to occur from breathing the smoke” at Joint Base Balad.

Kerry Baker, legislative director for Disabled American Veterans, isn’t buying it.

“It seems like most of these cases, anecdotally, are people who were exposed heavily to the burn pits and they got sick quickly,” he said, referring to the troops who have contacted DAV and Military Times. “There must be some areas that take a hit much harder than others. Everything seems to be pointing opposite to what the Defense Department is saying.”

He said he also found 22 service members who have deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan who had cancer – half of whom have died.

Oddly, several had cancers that most people survive.

“You’re getting these young guys who are strong and they can’t fight non-life-threatening forms of cancer,” he said.

Though he said the problems could come from a combination of exposures, many of the people who have contacted him worked directly in the draft of the burn pit plume.

Baker is building a database of troops who say the burn pit sickened them. He can be e-mailed at kbaker22@comcast.net.

He said he would like to see the Department of Veterans Affairs notify doctors that veterans have been exposed to chemicals from fires in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as look for trends that could make such exposure presumptive evidence for some illnesses.

The “Just the Facts” paper says data from a report for air samples taken in 2007 show particulate matter levels higher than military recommendations in about 50 of the 60 samples from Balad. Most are at least two times allowable rates, but several are at six times allowable rates.

Craig Postlewaite, a senior force health protection analyst for the Pentagon, told Military Times there are no known long-term effects from particulate matter.

The Defense Health Board sent a letter in June to S. Ward Cascells, assistant secretary of defense for health affairs, asking the Pentagon:

• To rework its 2007 analysis to state that the sampling at Balad constituted a screening that would determine the need for more assessment, and that it was not a comprehensive risk assessment in itself.

• To acknowledge that “the relationship between locations and personnel-level exposure is not defined.”

• To acknowledge that the report offers “a relatively large level of uncertainty regarding actual personnel exposure levels and health risks” and the number of samples was “relatively small.”

The board also identified other areas where “further clarification, analysis or investigation was needed,” the letter states.

Source: http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/12/airforce_burnpit_122308/

Schofield soldier acquitted of killing an Iraqi

Soldier acquitted in killing of Iraqi

A jury rejects charges by the prosecution that the soldier’s story had several holes in it

Schofield Barracks soldier Trey Corrales credits his acquittal of premeditated murder to his commander’s testimony about Corrales’ role in a coordinated operation to root out insurgents in Iraq.

In a Wheeler Army Air Field courtroom last night, a military jury declared Sgt. 1st Class Corrales not guilty of killing the unarmed Iraqi civilian who was a suspected insurgent.

After the verdict, Corrales talked about the importance of the testimony of Lt. Col. Michael Browder, who detailed how drones, helicopters and soldiers were used to track down insurgents about to set off a roadside bomb in June.

Corrales said it feels like a 200-pound weight had been lifted from his shoulders.

“I felt confident. I know this is going to sound weird, but I wasn’t surprised,” he said. “But it was just a long time coming.”

Corrales’ wife, Lily, told their daughter Victoria, 7, “Your daddy’s free! He’s OK,” moments after the verdict was read. The sergeant held his 10-year-old son, Trey II, in a long embrace.

GENE PARK AND AP

FULL STORY »

By Gene Park
gpark@starbulletin.com

Decorated Schofield Barracks soldier Trey Corrales was acquitted yesterday of charges that he killed an unarmed, suspected Iraqi insurgent in June.

Sgt. 1st Class Corrales faced life in prison without parole after being charged with premeditated murder, obstruction of justice and allegedly soliciting the murder by instructing a subordinate to fire at the Iraqi, tentatively identified by the Army as Salih Khatab Aswad.

After more than seven hours of deliberation, the nine-member jury panel returned with the not-guilty verdict on all charges. Corrales appeared calm, and his family and fellow soldiers immediately hugged each other tight.

“I haven’t been nervous this whole time,” Corrales said after the verdict. “I still have so much faith and confidence in this Army.”

The three-day trial ends what Corrales described as a harrowing period for him and his wife and three children. He said it felt like he had left one battlefield and entered another.

He said his immediate thoughts after the verdict was read went to the 10 soldiers from his platoon who died in a helicopter crash last August. The soldiers were intended to be witnesses in Corrales’ trial.

“When this happened, I felt robbed,” Corrales said through tears. “I wanted to be with them. But I wanted to be with (my daughter) and my son and my wife. Being a soldier, you’re split between two worlds and two loves.”

Earlier in the day, Army prosecutor Capt. Laura O’Donnell told the jury not to believe Corrales’ account of the shooting, where he denied premeditation, the alleged planting of an AK-47 rifle onto the unarmed man and ordering Pvt. Christopher Shore to shoot the wounded Iraqi.

There were holes in Corrales’ account of the June 23 incident, she said, including how the detainee was able to make it to the back yard after the raided home near Kirkuk was declared secure by

Corrales’ 25th Infantry Division elite scout platoon.

“That detainee somehow made it past 16 soldiers,” she said. “That detainee magically made it to the back yard. That doesn’t make sense. What makes sense is the accused pushed him to the back yard.”

But defense attorney Frank Spinner called into question the testimony of several witnesses, including Shore’s. Shore, convicted of aggravated assault in relation to the shooting, is serving time in the Ford Island brig.

Spinner said Shore’s initial statement about the incident was that he was unsure whether he shot the wounded man. He later testified that he had shot to the right of the man, missing him.

“This whole theory … is threadbare,” Spinner said. “The centerpiece of their case wasn’t even addressed.”

Spinner attributed the shooting to the “fog of war,” where the rules of engagement becomes ambiguous according to different situations.

“This was a dynamic environment, an intense mission,” Spinner said.

Corrales credited testimony from his battalion commander at the time, Lt. Col. Michael Browder, in selling the case that it was a coordinated effort to root out insurgent movement in the area.

Corrales said he expects criticism from people who are surprised with the verdict, particularly those “who sympathize with the insurgents.”

He said Iraqi insurgents have a different value of human life than ordinary citizens do, including those in Iraq.

“The rules here in America, we can’t take them to Iraq and apply those same rules to the insurgents on the ground,” he said. “If we did, there wouldn’t be just 4,000 American soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen dead right now.”

Corrales said he was grateful to get another chance to spend more time with his family, especially since he is expected to deploy back to Iraq this October. He returned to Schofield Barracks last October from Iraq.

Source: http://archives.starbulletin.com/2008/04/26/news/story01.html

Another KBR Rape Case

Published on Thursday, April 3, 2008 by The Nation

Another KBR Rape Case

by Karen Houppert

Editor’s Note: Lisa Smith is a pseudonym used on request. Additional reporting by Te-Ping Chen. Research support provided by the Investigative Fund of The Nation Institute.

Houston, Texas

It was an early January morning in 2008 when 42-year-old Lisa Smith*, a paramedic for a defense contractor in southern Iraq, woke up to find her entire room shaking. The shipping container that served as her living quarters was reverberating from nearby rocket attacks, and she was jolted awake to discover an awful reality. “Right then my whole life was turned upside down,” she says.

What follows is the story she told me in a lengthy, painful on-the-record interview, conducted in a lawyer’s office in Houston, Texas, while she was back from Iraq on a brief leave.

That dawn, naked, covered in blood and feces, bleeding from her anus, she found a US soldier she did not know lying naked in the bed next to her: his gun lay on the floor beside the bed, she could not rouse him and all she could remember of the night before was screaming and screaming as the soldier anally penetrated her while a colleague who worked for defense contractor KBR held her hand–but instead of helping her, as she had hoped, he jammed his penis in her mouth.

Over the next few weeks Smith would be told to keep quiet about the incident by a KBR supervisor. The camp’s military liaison officer also told her not to speak about what had happened, she says. And she would follow these instructions. “Because then, all of a sudden, if you’ve done exactly what you’ve been instructed not to do–tell somebody–then you’re in danger,” Smith says.

As a brand-new arrival at Camp Harper, she had not yet forged many connections and was working in a red zone under regular rocket fire alongside the very men who had participated in the attack. (At one point, as the sole medical provider, she was even forced to treat one of her alleged assailants for a minor injury.) She waited two and a half weeks, until she returned to a much larger facility, to report the incident. “It’s very easy for bad things to happen down there and not have it be even slightly suspicious.”

Over the next month and a half, she says, she faced a series of hurdles. She would be discouraged from reporting the incident by several KBR employees, she says. She would be confused by the lack of any written medical protocol for sexual assault (as the only medical person on site, she treated herself with doxycycline). She would wander through a tangled maze of interviews with KBR and Army investigators about the incident without any clear explanation of her rights. She would be asked to sign several documents agreeing not to publicly discuss the incident, she says. She describes having her computer–which she saw as her lifeline, her main access to the outside world–confiscated by Army investigators as “evidence” within hours of receiving her first e-mail from a stateside lawyer she had reached out to for help.

And eventually she would find herself temporarily assigned to sleeping quarters between two Army Criminal Investigation Division (CID) officials, who, she says, assured her that it was for her own safety, since her alleged assailants were at the same camp for questioning; they roamed freely. When she wanted to move about the camp to get meals etc., she was escorted.

Smith felt very alone. But she was not.

In fact, a growing number of women employees working for US defense contractors in the Middle East are coming forward with complaints of violence directed at them. As the Iraq War drags on, and as stories of US security contractors who seem to operate with impunity continue to emerge (like Blackwater and its deadly attack against Iraqi civilians on September 16, 2007), a rash of new sexual assault and sexual harassment complaints are being lodged against overseas contractors–by their own employees. Todd Kelly, a lawyer in Houston, says his firm alone has fifteen clients with sexual assault, sexual harassment and retaliation complaints (for reporting assault and/or harassment) against Halliburton and its former subsidiary Kellogg, Brown & Root LLC (KBR), as well as Cayman Island-based Service Employees International Inc., a KBR shell company. (While Smith is technically an SEII employee, she is supervised by KBR staff as a KBR employee.)

Jamie Leigh Jones, whose story made the news in December–when she alleged that her 2005 gang rape by Halliburton/KBR co-workers in Iraq was being covered up by the company and the US government–also initially believed hers was an isolated incident. But today, Jones reports that she has formed a nonprofit to support the many other women with similar stories. Currently, she has forty US contractor employees in her database who have contacted her alleging a variety of sexual assault or sexual harassment incidents–and claim that Halliburton, KBR and SEII have either failed to help them or outright obstructed them.

Most of these complaints never see the light of day, thanks to the fine print in employee contracts that compels employees into binding arbitration instead of allowing their complaints to be tried in a public courtroom. Criminal prosecutions are practically nonexistent, as the US Justice Department has turned a blind eye to these cases.

Jones’s case was the subject of a House Judiciary hearing in December. Right now, Jones’s lawyers are awaiting a decision on whether she will get her day in court or be forced to submit to binding arbitration, which KBR is insisting on. Likewise, the company is pressuring Lisa Smith into pursuing her claims against the company through its Dispute Resolution Program based on the contract she signed before she went to Iraq. Critics argue that the company’s arbitration system allows it to minimize bad publicity and lets assailants off the hook.

Smith, who retained a lawyer only two weeks ago, is weighing her options.

KBR attorney Celia Balli, responding to a letter from Smith’s lawyer, wrote in a letter dated March 17, “The Company takes Ms. Smith’s allegations very seriously and has and will continue to cooperate with the proper law enforcement authorities in the investigation of her allegations to the extent possible.” Balli noted that the matter has been turned over to the CID and said that Smith has been “afforded with counseling and referral services through the Company’s Employee Assistance Program.” Balli wrote in the letter that there are “inaccuracies” in the description Smith has put forward regarding her treatment after the alleged sexual assault. “Therefore, the Company requests that you fully investigate all the facts alleged by Ms. [Smith] as the Company intends to pursue all available remedies should false statements be publicized.”

Such “investigation” may prove difficult for her attorney. In the next sentence, the company says it is “not in a position to release any personnel or investigative records regarding Ms. [Smith’s] allegations at this time.” In response to a request for comment on this story, a company spokesperson wrote in an e-mail that Smith’s “allegations are currently under investigation by the appropriate law enforcement authorities. Therefore, KBR cannot comment on the specifics of the allegations or investigation.” The spokesperson added, “Any allegation of sexual harassment or assault is taken seriously and investigated thoroughly.” It remains unclear, however, what law enforcement investigation is examining the KBR employee’s role in the alleged assault, since Army CID is charged with investigating only cases that involve US military personnel.

For her part, Smith can’t quite call herself a victim yet. In the course of several conversations over several days, she never once says the word “victim” out loud. Let alone “rape.” Let alone “gang rape.”

She simply describes what happened, moving through the course of events as if this had happened to someone else, as if the recitation of details were an act of contrition she was compelled to perform.

Like many rape survivors, she feels guilty. In this case, Smith confesses that she broke company policy the evening of the incident by having a drink (alcohol is expressly forbidden). She had landed at Camp Harper only a week earlier, when she returned from a stateside R&R with her family. Since arriving in Iraq six months earlier, she had been at a larger facility, Camp Cedar. But her new posting at Camp Harper put her in a smaller outpost of sixty people: part US military, part KBR employees, part SEII workers. When some KBR colleagues invited her to join them for a drink after work, she did.

Smith says she had only one drink–and she asked someone to hold it after a few sips while she went outside for a smoke. Smith’s attorney, Daniel Ross, speculates that someone slipped the date-rape drug Rohypnol in her drink.

Smith’s memory of the evening is fuzzy, and the only thing she remembers clearly about the events surrounding her assault is the aforementioned moment of oral and anal penetration. She also remembers screaming.

The morning after the incident, Smith says, she was called into the office of her supervisor, who was Camp Harper’s KBR manager; he appeared to know–at least in part–what had happened. She would later learn from an Army investigator that her supervisor had been in the room where the drinking and alleged rape had taken place at least twice that evening. Smith, who appears to have blacked out, has no direct knowledge of his participation–or indeed of who else among the crowd initially gathered in the room may have been involved. “He was one of the people involved in saying, ‘Don’t say anything,'” Smith says of her conversation with the KBR camp manager the morning following the incident. “Then he said, ‘This will never happen again.'”

Smith offered to pack up and go home. But he sent her back to work. First, though, he responded to Smith’s plea to get the soldier she still had not been able to rouse out of her bed by contacting the military’s Special Forces liaison at Camp Harper. The liaison, whom Smith knew only by his nickname, DJ, was direct. “He told me not to speak of this to anyone and that he would take care of it,” Smith says.

Smith sat tight for a few days but then contacted a friend at Camp Cedar, where her permanent assignment was, and asked if the Employee Assistance person for KBR was back from her R&R yet. She was not. Smith was worried about even discussing the incident, since she knew that none of her conversations were confidential. “Camp Harper has only three phones,” she says. “One is in the camp manager’s office. One is in the Operations Office. And one is in a hallway.” She wavered. A few days later, when she knew that the Employee Assistance person for KBR would be back, Smith called her on the phone. The Employee Assistance woman was a friend of hers and, without getting too specific about the details of the incident, Smith sought her advice. “We had worked other situations together in the past, and I talked to her and she was like, ‘I don’t know if I’d report that. You know what happens when you report things.’ And I did. I’d seen it.”

Despite Smith’s silence, rumors were circulating at the camp. Two and a half weeks after the incident, she was questioned by someone from the KBR Employee Relations office, who appeared to be investigating a series of improprieties at the camp, Smith says. Fearful, she denied knowledge of any wrongdoing at the camp.

When Smith returned to her original posting at Camp Cedar, a larger facility with a human resources person and more friends she could approach for advice, she recontacted the man from Employee Relations who had been investigating “improprieties” and told him her story.

This set the wheels in motion for a series of interviews, most of which concluded with Smith being asked to sign a nondisclosure statement by representatives of the company, she says.

Eventually, shortly before she was slated to return to the United States for R&R, one of the investigators for KBR suggested that Smith get tested for STDs, hepatitis, HIV, etc. and took her to the nearby military Combat Support Hospital. “The doctor took me into her office, and we talked a long time before she did an exam,” Smith says. “We talked about the assault and the details and she was actually very, very kind and encouraged me to report it to the military. She tried convincing me that it wasn’t my fault [for having a drink]. She was just a really kind lady–and that was the first time I had given any of the whole details of all that had happened.”

In fact, military protocol compelled the doctor to report the incident; Smith was immediately contacted by the Army Criminal Investigation Division and questioned.

A few days later, shortly after contacting an attorney in the United States to advise her on her rights, the attorney sent her a draft letter he was sending to KBR on her behalf, notifying the company that he was representing her and briefly summarizing her accusations. The military came to her office within hours, she alleges, and confiscated her computer as “evidence,” effectively limiting her access to the outside world. The CID did not respond to requests for comment.

Many victims of sexual assault find themselves without meaningful recourse when they work for US defense contractors that are powerful companies on foreign soil. “It’s one big battle over where to fight the battle,” said Smith’s attorney Ross, who is considering if and how and against whom to file charges on behalf of his client.

Take Jamie Leigh Jones’s case, for example.

Since Jones alleged she was gang raped in 2005, while KBR was still a Halliburton subsidiary, her case is covered by an extralegal Halliburton dispute-resolution program implemented under then-CEO Dick Cheney in 1997. The program has all the hallmarks of the Cheney White House’s penchant for secrecy. While Halliburton declared the program’s aim was to reduce costly and lengthy litigation (and limit possible damage awards in the process), in practice it meant that employees like Jones signed away their constitutional right to a jury trial–and agreed to have any disputes heard in a private arbitration hearing without hope of appeal. (While two lower courts declared the tactic illegal, in 2001, the Texas Supreme Court overturned those rulings.)

Accordingly, Jones faces two major roadblocks in the fight for justice. The first is the battle to have the perpetrators prosecuted in criminal court–which, because of Order 17, may be nearly impossible. According to the order, imposed by Paul Bremer, US defense contractors in Iraq cannot be prosecuted in the Iraqi criminal justice system. While they can technically be tried in US federal court, the Justice Department has shown no interest in prosecuting her case. In fact, for more than two years now, the DOJ has brought no criminal charges in the matter. Representative Ted Poe, a Texas Republican who has taken up Jones’s cause, reports that federal agencies refuse to discuss the status of the investigation; meanwhile, in December, the DOJ refused to send a representative to the related Congressional hearing on the matter.

Even more appalling, the Justice Department, which can and should prosecute most of these cases, has declined to do so. “There is no rational explanation for this,” says Scott Horton, a lecturer at Columbia Law School who specializes in the law of armed conflict. Prosecutorial jurisdiction for crimes like the alleged rape of Jones is easily established under the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act and the Patriot Act’s special maritime and territorial jurisdiction provisions. But somebody has to want to prosecute the cases.

Horton wonders what the 200 Justice Department employees and contractors stationed in Iraq do all day, noting that there has not been a single completed criminal conviction against a US contractor implicated in a violent crime anywhere in Iraq since the invasion.

“We have a complete process in place for solving military criminal violations when soldiers commit crimes, but for the 180,000 employees of private contractors over there, there is nothing,” says Horton. “It’s like Texas west of the Pecos in 1890 over there!” It’s just common sense that you’re going to have some violent crimes when you throw this many people together, he says. “Think about it. You have 180,000 people over there, you’re going to have a few crimes. I don’t know how anybody could fairly view this as a partisan issue. Crimes happen when you bring people together anywhere, and in a war setting, without adult supervision, crimes are going to increase. That is just a fact. And if you eliminate law enforcement, the crimes are going to get worse because people will quickly learn they can get away with it.”

Things don’t look a whole lot rosier when it comes to seeking relief in the civil courts.

For example, KBR is fighting tooth and nail to make sure Jones’s case stays in private arbitration, as per her contract. And given that in February, a federal district court ruled that Tracy Barker–another KBR employee who says she was sexually assaulted–couldn’t present her case in open court, prospects for the civil suit Jones brought last May look dim.

And that’s particularly troubling, according to Jones’s attorney Todd Kelly, because the clandestine nature of arbitration allows corporate malfeasance to go unchecked. Trials serve a purpose above and beyond pronouncing verdicts. “It’s like the Enron trial here in Houston,” he says. “Where every day in the Houston Chronicle there was a story exposing what egregious things go unchecked in the corporate culture. The United States got to peek into the corporate underwear drawer and saw it was not as pretty as it looked from the outside.” Kelly argues that Halliburton and KBR ought to be similarly exposed to public scrutiny via jury trials. These civil remedies arranged in a secretive manner have repercussions beyond the dollar figures. “It allows for future rapes to occur,” he says, arguing that these defense contractors have been able to quietly settle and compel victims to remain silent: the public remains oblivious to the crimes, no one is punished and a hostile and violent workplace continues unchecked.

In the future, the sole recourse for victims like Jones may be through Congress. Last October the House overwhelmingly passed legislation that requires the FBI to investigate allegations of wrongdoing and permits all US contractors to be tried under American jurisdiction. The Senate has yet to vote on the legislation.

For her part, Jones intends to persevere. “Part of the reason I’m going forward with this case is to change the system,” she says. “Who knows how many of us rape victims are out there?”

Smith, who is now back in the United States on two weeks R&R, is uncertain what the future holds for her. “I don’t think I’ve been able to make any decisions or plans or goals yet,” she says. First of all, there is the fact that she arrived home from Iraq to learn that her husband had been rushed to the hospital earlier that day after a partial stroke. She needs her job with SEII because she is the one who gets health insurance–vital not only for the two teenage daughters still living at home but for her husband, with his health problems. She worries, “Human Resources made me sign statements saying that I’m supposed to be back in Dubai on April 7 at 10 p.m., and if I’m not there I will not be reimbursed my $1,600 airfare or for my two weeks’ vacation.”

And indeed, the March 17 letter her attorney received from KBR attorney Celia Ballí says that Smith can be placed on medical leave “pending resolution of the investigations related to this matter” but warns, “However, per Company policy, [her] leave will be unpaid.” She is welcome to apply for workers’ comp, the lawyer states.

Can she return to her old job as a paramedic in Lena, Illinois?

“Yes, my license is in good standing, and I’ve never had a problem,” she says. “But it means a difference of about $6,000 a month in salary and no health insurance. My biggest reason for working for KBR in the first place was so I could get insurance for my husband and girls…” Smith’s sentence trails off. She begins a new one. Stops midway. She tries again to organize her thoughts. “I’ve been trying to figure out how I’m going to go back to work. How am I going to make myself do this?” she says, manifesting the confused indecisiveness and sense of a “foreshortened future” that are hallmarks of post-traumatic stress disorder.

Has she seen a rape crisis counselor?

Not yet, Smith says. “Someone from KBR Employee Assistance gave me a flier to call someone in Houston,” she says, but it turned out to be for general financial or emotional problems during deployment. They referred her to a website. “I’m 9,000 miles away in Iraq and the website says, ‘Please put in your zip code and we’ll refer you to a rape crisis counselor in your zip code area.'”

Smith, who says she cannot sleep, appears exhausted. She tells her story without affect, little inflection and tamped emotion. She only tears up twice, most visibly when speaking about one of her sons, a 22-year-old US soldier who served in the Middle East recently. While she was in the process of debating whether–and how–to go about reporting her assault, she contacted him to see what his feelings were on the matter. “I didn’t want him upset with his mom,” she says, explaining that she was very loyal to the mission in Iraq and that he was similarly loyal to his service. “I was assaulted by somebody who was wearing the same uniform as him, and I just didn’t want him to think bad of me. My children are pretty much my world.” Smith’s eyes fill with tears, and she pauses to collect herself. “I didn’t want him to be upset because I was calling out somebody who was wearing his same uniform. They’re supposed to be proud of what they do. And I’m proud of my sons. And in my mind, I live that war every day. I can make all sorts of excuses under the sun for bad behavior.”

Her son advised her to make the formal complaint.

“He was like, ‘Of course you’re going to talk to CID, Mom. Of course you are.'” Smith smiles. “He doesn’t think people should be allowed to wear his uniform and act like that. He’s been in the war too and says it’s no excuse. They’re better trained than that. That’s what my son thought. And he’s not angry at his mom.”

©2008 The Nation

Source: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080421/houppert

Sergeant routinely abused Iraqis, say soldiers at hearings

Posted on: Monday, February 25, 2008

Sergeant routinely abused Iraqis, say soldiers at hearings

By William Cole
Advertiser Columnist

Back in October, Schofield Barracks soldiers described Spc. Christopher Shore as a peaceful guy, a very funny guy, a good guy, very friendly, an outstanding soldier who didn’t have a propensity for violence.

At his sentencing Wednesday for aggravated assault in the shooting death of an unarmed Iraqi detainee, he wiped away tears in a courtroom at Wheeler Army Airfield.

“I know it’s real easy if you’ve never been in this situation to Monday quarterback and say what the law says,” he said. “You don’t know until you’re there.”

In Iraq, things went terribly wrong for the scouts platoon of Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 2nd Battalion, 35th Infantry, the unit to which Shore belonged.

Testimony at both a preliminary hearing in October and Shore’s court-martial last week pointed to routine abuse of Iraqis by a bullying and out-of-control platoon leader, culminating with the shooting in the village of al Saheed outside Kirkuk last June.

Sgt. 1st Class Trey Corrales, 35, that platoon leader, is accused of shooting the unarmed Iraqi multiple times, and then ordering Shore to “finish” him.

Instead of carrying out the order, Shore said he fired two shots next to the detainee’s head in the dirt “to defuse the situation.”

Shore said Corrales had tried to get the Iraqi to take an AK-47 rifle after the raid, and then ordered the man to run.

Confused, the Iraqi, wearing a white tunic, said, “No mister, no mister, not me,” Shore said.

Another soldier testified that as the Iraqi backed up, he saw Corrales raise his rifle, and as the soldier turned away – not wanting to see what came next – he heard a succession of shots.

The Iraqi man was shot five times.

Shortly afterward, knowing what had happened was wrong and with the story spreading fast, several soldiers went to higher command.

Shore, 26, of Winder, Ga., was sentenced to 120 days’ confinement, received a reprimand and was reduced in rank, officials said.

He had gone to court-martial on a charge of third-degree murder – roughly equivalent to a civilian manslaughter charge – but was convicted of aggravated assault.

Corrales, of San Antonio, faces court-martial on April 22. He is charged with premeditated murder, wrongfully soliciting another soldier to shoot the Iraqi, and wrongfully impeding the investigation by having an AK-47 rifle planted near the victim. He faces life in prison without parole if convicted.

Soldiers described a litany of abuse by Corrales against Iraqis, and the fear they felt themselves.

Shore said Corrales once stuck the barrel of his M-4 rifle down an Iraqi’s throat until he gagged.

On another occasion, Corrales took out his knife, pulled out an Iraqi man’s tongue, and threatened to cut it off, Shore said.

Sgt. 1st Class Dennis Bulham said he saw Corrales abuse Iraqis, and punch and kick them.

Spc. Trinity Ison said he remembered a car out after curfew. Corrales pulled up, opened the car’s door and he “just started hitting the guy in the car,” Ison said.

Some soldiers testified they regularly lived in fear that the 5-foot-6 Corrales, who was explosive at times and calm at others, would fire them from the prestigious scouts platoon.

After the Iraqi was shot, the fear grew. One soldier slept with a knife at the ready.

Staff Sgt. Ronald Shipp said “I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t afraid – afraid of somebody going off the deep end.”

Soldiers said Corrales had a close relationship with the battalion commander, Lt. Col. Michael Browder. Michael Waddington, Shore’s attorney, said Corrales was known as Browder’s “wrecking ball.”

Shore said he initially didn’t think anything would come of the shooting, and it would be swept under the rug.

Browder, the battalion commander, was relieved of command. He’s now deputy commander of a basic training brigade at Fort Benning, Ga., officials said.

The Corrales family, on a MySpace page, said Trey Corrales has fought for his country in Macedonia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq.

As a result of the charges, the Corrales family said, it is faced with mortgaging “all that we have worked so hard for throughout our life, in order to pay for an attorney to defend him; to defend him from the very organization that he has proudly served for, for over 14 years.”

IN BRIEF

Army report says there’s no plans to put Strykers aboard Superferry

Suspicion continues, mostly in the blogosphere, over supposed connections between the Hawaii Superferry and the Army’s Stryker brigade, which is in Iraq.

In an environmental impact statement recommending that the Stryker brigade be permanently stationed in Hawai’i, the Army addressed the question of how the 19-ton armored vehicles would be moved to the Big Island for training.

The Army said its primary method of transporting the Strykers is by logistics support vessels operated by the Army.

If those aren’t available, the Army said, it would use private contract vessels. Typically, those are barges, and the service said it is required to get bids from multiple vendors.

“The Army does not know if the Superferry would ever bid on such a contract or if it could even be configured to carry military equipment with the chains and bracing needed to transport Stryker vehicles,” the service said. “No contract currently exists or is being formulated between the Army and the Superferry for transporting the (Stryker brigade).”

Reach William Cole at wcole@honoluluadvertiser.com.

Source: http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2008/Feb/25/ln/hawaii802250323.html

Army jury convicts island soldier of assault in death of Iraqi civilian

Army jury convicts island soldier of assault in death of Iraqi civilian

STORY SUMMARY »

A military jury convicted a Schofield Barracks soldier yesterday of a reduced charge of assault in the death of an Iraqi civilian last year.

Army Spc. Christopher Shore of Winder, Ga., was found guilty of aggravated assault in the June 23 shooting death. He was sentenced to 120 days in jail, will have his rank reduced to private and will receive a reprimand. He was originally charged with murder, but that was reduced to manslaughter and the jury found him guilty of the lesser offense.

Shore contends he shot at the civilian but purposely missed after being ordered to kill the man. He says he was following the orders of his platoon leader, Sgt. 1st Class Trey Corrales.

Corrales is charged with premeditated murder and will be tried starting April 22.

FULL STORY »

By Gregg K. Kakesako
gkakesako@starbulletin.com

A 26-year-old Schofield Barracks soldier was convicted yesterday of assault after being cleared of murdering a 28-year-old unarmed, wounded Iraqi civilian last summer.

Spc. Christopher Shore of Winder, Ga., was sentenced to 120 days in jail, will receive an official reprimand, and will be demoted to private.

Derrick Sparks, Shore’s half brother, said the conviction on a lesser charge was “an answer to our prayers. We spent a long time praying. A lot of people prayed for my brother, and I want to tell everybody thank you. … I knew my brother was innocent.”

The verdict, by the jury of five enlisted soldiers and four officers, came after four hours of deliberation. Shore showed little emotion when the verdict was read, but once the court-martial went into a recess, he hugged his father, Brian; his wife, Katherin; and Sparks in the hallway outside of the courtroom.

During the sentencing phase of his court-martial, Shore cried when asked by his attorney Michael Waddington to describe his relations with members of his scout platoon.

Shore recalled that nearly half his platoon of 26 did not survive the 15-month Iraq deployment that ended in October. Ten soldiers died Aug. 22 when their Black Hawk helicopter crashed returning to base.

He initially had been charged with premeditated murder. He said he had been only following the orders of his platoon leader, Sgt. 1st Class Trey Corrales, during an early morning raid June 23 near Kirkuk. Corrales is charged with premeditated murder and will be tried starting April 22.

An investigative officer, following an Article 32 hearing in October, recommended that Shore be charged with aggravated assault. However, Lt. Gen. Benjamin Mixon, in one of his last actions as commanding general of the 25th Infantry Division, sent the matter to a court-martial with the manslaughter charge.

Army prosecutors maintained that Shore could have avoided firing his rifle by leaving the scene as other members of his platoon did.

Army prosecutor Capt. James Leary said Shore’s decision to fire two shots at the victim was itself illegal.

Throughout the investigation, subsequent hearings and this week’s court-martial, both sides did not dispute that Corrales shot the Iraqi. But there was conflicting testimony on whether Shore fired any shots at the victim. Waddington said Shore deliberately aimed away from the Iraqi’s body.

Waddington repeatedly argued during the two-day court-martial that there was not enough forensic evidence to prove that bullets from Shore’s M-4 carbine killed the Iraqi. He described the investigation as “sloppy,” saying investigators initially went to the wrong house and excavated the wrong yard.

Waddington, in closing arguments, said Shore also was under duress because he feared his platoon leader, Corrales.

Yesterday, Waddington read into the court record the written statement of Essa Ahmed, the unit’s interpreter, who said he was asked by Corrales to translate the word “run” in Arabic, which Corrales used several times in instructing the victim.

After hearing four shots, Ahmed said he heard Corrales tell his soldiers, “I killed that mother—-.”

An autopsy later revealed the Iraqi was shot five times in the head, left and right arms, and back.

Source: http://archives.starbulletin.com/2008/02/21/news/story04.html

 OpenCUNY » login | join | terms | activity 

 Supported by the CUNY Doctoral Students Council.  

OpenCUNY.ORGLike @OpenCUNYLike OpenCUNY

false