On the verdict: http://www.ajc.com/shared-blogs/ajc/luckovich/mike0307a.gif
Ed


http://select.nytimes.com/2007/03/05/opinion/05krugman.html?th&emc=th

Valor and Squalor

By PAUL KRUGMAN
NY Times Op-Ed: March 5, 2007

When Salon, the online magazine, reported on mistreatment of veterans at the
Walter Reed Army Medical Center two years ago, officials simply denied that
there were any problems. And they initially tried to brush off last month's
exposé in The Washington Post.

But this time, with President Bush's approval at 29 percent, Democrats in
control of Congress, and Donald Rumsfeld no longer defense secretary -
Robert Gates, his successor, appears genuinely distressed at the situation -
the whitewash didn't stick.

Yet even now it's not clear whether the public will be told the full story,
which is that the horrors of Walter Reed's outpatient unit are no
aberration. For all its cries of "support the troops," the Bush
administration has treated veterans' medical care the same way it treats
everything else: nickel-and-diming the needy, protecting the incompetent and
privatizing everything it can.

What makes this a particular shame is that in the Clinton years, veterans'
health care - like the Federal Emergency Management Agency - became a
shining example of how good leadership can revitalize a troubled government
program. By the early years of this decade the Veterans Health
Administration was, by many measures, providing the highest-quality health
care in America. (It probably still is: Walter Reed is a military facility,
not run by the V.H.A.)

But as with FEMA, the Bush administration has done all it can to undermine
that achievement. And the Walter Reed scandal is another Hurricane Katrina:
the moment when the administration's misgovernment became obvious to
everyone.

The problem starts with money. The administration uses carefully cooked
numbers to pretend that it has been generous to veterans, but the historical
data contained in its own budget for fiscal 2008 tell the true story. The
quagmire in Iraq has vastly increased the demands on the Veterans
Administration, yet since 2001 federal outlays for veterans' medical care
have actually lagged behind overall national health spending.

To save money, the administration has been charging veterans for many
formerly free services. For example, in 2005 Salon reported that some Walter
Reed patients were forced to pay hundreds of dollars each month for their
meals.

More important, the administration has broken longstanding promises of
lifetime health care to those who defend our nation. Two months before the
invasion of Iraq the V.H.A., which previously offered care to all veterans,
introduced severe new restrictions on who is entitled to enroll in its
health care system. As the agency's Web site helpfully explains, veterans
whose income exceeds as little as $27,790 a year, and who lack "special
eligibilities such as a compensable service connected condition or recent
combat service," will be turned away.

So when you hear stories of veterans who spend months or years fighting to
get the care they deserve, trying to prove that their injuries are
service-related, remember this: all this red tape was created not by the
inherent inefficiency of government bureaucracy, but by the Bush
administration's penny-pinching.

But money is only part of the problem.

We know from Hurricane Katrina postmortems that one of the factors degrading
FEMA's effectiveness was the Bush administration's relentless push to
outsource and privatize disaster management, which demoralized government
employees and drove away many of the agency's most experienced
professionals. It appears that the same thing has been happening to
veterans'
care.

The redoubtable Henry Waxman, chairman of the House Committee on Oversight
and Government Reform, points out that IAP Worldwide Services, a company run
by two former Halliburton executives, received a large contract to run
Walter Reed under suspicious circumstances: the Army reversed the results of
an audit concluding that government employees could do the job more cheaply.

And Mr. Waxman, who will be holding a hearing on the issue today, appears to
have solid evidence, including an internal Walter Reed memo from last year,
that the prospect of privatization led to a FEMA-type exodus of skilled
personnel.

What comes next? Francis J. Harvey, who as far as I can tell was the first
defense contractor appointed secretary of the Army, has been forced out. But
the parallels between what happened at Walter Reed and what happened to New
Orleans - not to mention parallels with the mother of all scandals, the
failed reconstruction of Iraq - tell us that the roots of the scandal run
far deeper than the actions of a few bad men.

***

A Federal Witchhunt
The Persecution of Sami Al-Arian

By ALEXANDER COCKBURN

http://counterpunch.org/
Weekend Edition
March 3 / 4, 2007

One of the first big show trials here in the post-9/11
homeland was of a Muslim professor from Florida, now
49, Sami al-Arian. Pro-Israel hawks had resented this
computer professor at the University of South Florida
long before Atta and the hijackers flew their planes
into the Trade towers, because they saw al-Arian, a
Palestinian born in Kuwait of parents kicked out of
their Homeland in 1948, as an effective agitator here
for the Palestinian cause. As John Sugg, a fine
journalist, then based in Tampa, who's followed al-
Arian's tribulations for years, wrote in the spring of
2006 on this website:

    "When was al-Arian important? More than a decade
    ago, when Israel's Likudniks in the United States,
    such as [Steven] Emerson, were working feverishly
    to undermine the Oslo peace process. No Arab voice
    could be tolerated, and al-Arian was vigorously
    trying to communicate with our government and its
    leaders. He was being successful, making speeches
    to intelligence and military commanders at MacDill
    AFB's Central Command, inviting the FBI and other
    officials to attend meetings of his groups. People
    were beginning to listen and to wonder why only one
    side of the Middle East debate was heard here. That
    was the reason for Al-Arian's political
    prosecution."

Now the United States is a country that is blessed by a
constitution, a Bill of Rights and the rule of law, all
of them upheld with degrees of enthusiasm that rise and
fall according to sex, income and ethnicity. The fall
is particularly drastic if your name is Arab, you
publicly profess the justice of the Palestinian cause.
Living in Florida doesn't help either.

At the direct instigation of Attorney General Ashcroft,
the feds threw the book at al-Arian in February 2003.
He was arrested with much fanfare and charged in a
bloated terrorism and conspiracy case. He spent two and
a half years in prison, in solitary confinement under
atrocious conditions. To confer with his lawyers, he
had to hobble half a mile, shackled hand and foot, his
law files balanced on his back.

The six-month trial in US District Court in Tampa
featured 80 government witnesses (including 21 from
Israel) and 400 intercepted phone calls (the results of
a decade of surveillance and half a million recorded
calls). The government's evidence against Al-Arian
consisted of speeches he gave, magazines he edited,
lectures he presented, articles he wrote, books he
owned, conferences he organized, rallies he attended,
news he heard and websites no one accessed. One bit of
evidence consisted of a conversation a co-defendant had
with al-Arian in his dream. The defense rested without
calling a single witness or presenting any evidence
since the government's case rested entirely on First
Amendment­protected activities.

The man presiding over al-Arian's trial was US District
Court Judge James Moody, a creature from the dark
lagoon of Floridian jurisprudence. Hospitable to all
testimony from Israelis, Moody ruled that al-Arian and
his associates could not say a single word about the
military occupation or the plight of the Palestinian
people. During closing arguments, the prosecution noted
a document that mentioned UN Resolution 242. Moody
nixed that on the grounds that it showed Palestinians
in altogether too warm a light and therefore might tax
the objectivity of the jurors. As Sugg wrote after that
ruling, if MLK had been on trial in Judge Moody's
courtroom for disturbing the peace, he wouldn't have
been allowed to mention Jim Crow or lynchings.

In December 2005, despite Moody's diligence, the jury
acquitted al-Arian of the most serious charges. On
those remaining, the usual prosecutorial flailings
under conspiracy statutes, jurors voted 10 to 2 for
acquittal. Two co-defendants were acquitted completely.
It was a terrible humiliation for the Justice
Department, which had flung an estimated $50 million
into the trial.

A jury split 10-2 in a defendant's favor doesn't augur
well for conviction in a retrial. Indeed in the spring
of 2006 the government declined to retry a wealthy
Tampa businessman (the founder of Hooters) on tax
evasion charges because the jury was hung 6 to 6, and
therefore the proportion was too high to realistically
expect a conviction during a retrial.

But the feds insisted they wanted to put al-Arian
through the wringer again and -- prudently, given
Moody's prejudice-al-Arian's lawyers urged him to make
a plea and put an end to his ordeal and end the
suffering of his family.

The terms of the plea agreement were in line with Al-
Arian's long-standing contention, despite the
government's accusations, that he never contributed to
the violent actions of any organization. The government
settled for a watered-down version of a single count of
providing services to people associated with the
Palestinian Islamic Jihad. The Statement of Facts in
the agreement included only these innocuous activities:

    (1) hiring an attorney for his brother-in-law,
    Mazen Al-Najjar, during his deportation hearings in
    the late 1990s;

    (2) filling out immigration forms for a resident
    Palestinian scholar from Britain; and

    (3) not disclosing details of associations to a
    local reporter. (I remain completely baffled as to
    why it should be a crime to withhold information
    from a newspaper reporter.)

A central aspect of the plea agreement was an
understanding that al-Arian would not be subject to
further prosecution or called to cooperate with the
government on any matter. The government recommended
the shortest possible sentence.

On May 1, 2006, al-Arian came before Judge Moody for
sentencing. Watching the proceedings Sugg, as he
reported on the CounterPunch website, noted a smug air
among the prosecutors. He also noted that Attorney
General Alberto Gonzalez had arrived in the Tampa area
five days earlier. Under the plea, al-Arian's sentence
amounted to little more than time served, followed by
his departure from the United States. But Judge Moody
sentenced al-Arian to the maximum, using inflamed
language about al-Arian having blood on his hands, a
charge one juror said the jury emphatically rejected.

Now al-Arian faced eleven months more in prison, with
release and deportation scheduled for April 2007. But
the feds' appetite was far from slaked. In October,
Gordon Kromberg, an assistant federal prosecutor in
Virginia notorious as an Islamophobe, called al-Arian
to testify before a grand jury investigating an Islamic
think tank. The subpoena was a outright violation of
al-Arian's April plea agreement and his attorneys filed
a motion to quash it. The motion included affidavits by
attorneys who participated in the negotiations
attesting to the fact that "the overarching purpose of
the parties' plea agreement was to conclude, once and
for all, all business between the government and Dr.
al-Arian." The defense lawyers insisted that al-Arian
would never have entered a plea that left him
vulnerable to government fishing expeditions.

Al-Arian's lawyers feared that their client was being
set up for a perjury trap. Up in Virginia, Kromberg
ranted to al-Arian's attorney about "the Islamization
of America," while down in Tampa, Judge Moody ruled
that federal marshals could drag al-Arian to Virginia
to testify. On November 16, al-Arian was brought before
the grand jury and placed in civil contempt for
refusing to testify.

One month after al-Arian was placed in civil contempt,
the grand jury term expired, so Kromberg promptly
impaneled a new one. Al-Arian was again subpoenaed and
again expressed his ethical stance against testifying.
This judge also held him in contempt, which could
prolong his imprisonment by up to 18 months.

Al-Arian, who is diabetic, then went on a hunger
strike. February 26 marked the sixth week of his water-
only hunger strike, in which he has lost 40 pounds and
has grown considerably weaker. On the 23rd day of his
hunger strike, Al-Arian collapsed and hit his head; he
has since been moved to a federal prison medical
facility in Butner, North Carolina.

On January 22, when Al-Arian appeared before Judge Lee
on the charge of contempt, he had this to say about his
recent treatment:

    "In the past three weeks, I have been to four
    prisons. I spent fourteen days in the Atlanta
    penitentiary under 23-hour lockdown, in a roach and
    rat infested environment. On two occasions, rats
    shared my diabetic snack. When I was transported
    from Atlanta to Petersburg (Virginia) and from
    Petersburg to Alexandria, they allowed me only to
    wear a t-shirt in subfreezing weather during long
    walks. In the early morning, the Atlanta guard took
    my thermal undershirt which I purchased from the
    prison and threw it in the garbage and when I
    complained, he threatened to use a lockbox on my
    handcuffs which would make them extremely
    uncomfortable. In Petersburg, the guard asked me to
    take off my clean t-shirt and boxers and gave me
    dirty and worn out ones. When I complained, he told
    me to 'shut the f up.' And when I asked why he was
    treating me like that, he said 'because you're a
    terrorist.' When I further complained to the
    lieutenant in charge, he shrugged it off and said
    if I don't like it, I should write a grievance to
    the Bureau of Prisons. When I said he had the
    authority to give me clean clothes, he refused and
    said if I don't like it I should write a grievance
    to the Bureau of Prisons. During one of the
    airlifts, an air marshal further tightened my
    already tightened handcuffs, and asked me 'Why do
    you hate us?' I told him, 'I don't hate you.' He
    said, 'I know who you are, I've read your s-h-i-t.'
    These are examples of the government's harassment
    campaign against me that's been taking place for
    years because of my political beliefs."

Measured against José Padilla, a man driven insane on
Rumsfeld's orders, I guess al-Arian is lucky. He's
alive, and still sane, though getting weaker by the
day. He needs all the support we can muster. Across the
globe, where al-Arian's case has aroused much outrage,
respect for the US commitment to Constitutional
freedoms sinks lower still.

For information on the case, go to
www.freesamialarian.com.

_____________________________________________

Portside aims to provide material of interest
to people on the left that will help them to
interpret the world and to change it.

Submit via email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe: portside.org/subscribe
Search the archives: portside.org/archive




------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
Great things are happening at Yahoo! Groups.  See the new email design.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/lOt0.A/hOaOAA/yQLSAA/7gSolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LAAMN: Los Angeles Alternative Media Network
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Digest: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archive1: <http://www.egroups.com/messages/laamn>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archive2: <http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
    mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Reply via email to