Group items tagged

U.S. Navy sailors exposed to radioactive fallout from the Fukushima nuclear disaster have been falling ill, even as the Defense Department insists that they were not exposed to dangerous levels of radiation. Many of the sailors have now joined in a class action lawsuit against Fukushima operators and builders Tokyo Electric Power Company (Tepco), Toshiba, Hitachi, Ebasco and General Electric. Even if they wanted to — which many do not — the sailors would be unable to sue the Navy. According to a Supreme Court ruling from the 1950s known as the Feres Doctrine, soldiers cannot sue the government for injuries resulting directly from their military service.

Yet in the four years since the disaster, at least 500 sailors have fallen ill, and 247 of them have joined the class-action suit. The 100-page legal complaint chronicles their symptoms: an airplane mechanic suffering from unexplained muscle wasting; a woman whose baby was born ill; a sailor told his health problems must be genetic, even though his identical twin is perfectly healthy; and case after case of cancer, internal bleeding, abscesses, thyroid dysfunction and birth defects.

The defendants initially claimed that they could not be sued in a U.S. court, so plaintiffs’ attorney Paul Garner asked the sailors to come to a court hearing in San Diego, to offer moral support. Nearly all of them refused, for fear of public attack. Initial plaintiff Lindsey Cooper, for example, had already been mocked by atomic energy experts on CNN and by conservative radio hosts. Others were afraid of being perceived as anti-military, or un-American.

Three years have passed since the earthquake and tsunami that caused the nuclear disaster at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant in Japan. The tsunami's immediate death toll was more than 15,000, with close to 3,000 still missing. Casualties are still mounting, though, both in Japan and much farther away. The impact of the Fukushima nuclear meltdown on health and the environment is severe, compounded daily as radioactive pollution continues to pour from the site, owned by the Tokyo Electric Power Company, TEPCO.In an unusual development, more than 100 U.S. Marines and Navy sailors have joined a class action suit, charging TEPCO with lying about the severity of the disaster as they were rushing to the scene to provide humanitarian assistance. They were aboard the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan and other vessels traveling with the Reagan, engaged in humanitarian response to the disaster. The response was dubbed "Operation Tomodachi," meaning "Operation Friendship."

This is the second attempt to sue TEPCO on behalf of these sailors and Marines. The first lawsuit had eight plaintiffs and was dismissed for technical reasons based on the court's lack of jurisdiction. "By June of 2013, we had 51 sailors and Marines who had contacted us with various illnesses," lead attorney Charles Bonner explained, "including thyroid cancers, testicular cancers, brain cancers, unusual uterine problems, excessive uterine bleeding, all kinds of gynecological problems, problems that you do not see in a population of 20-year-olds, 22-year-olds, 23-year-olds, even 35-year-olds. ... So, now we have filed a class action for approximately a hundred sailors." As news of the lawsuit spreads, many more will likely join in. The USS Reagan had at least 5,500 people on board when off the coast of Japan.

The ongoing nuclear disaster at Fukushima should serve as a warning to the world. Instead of following the wisdom of Naoto Kan, President Barack Obama is committing public funds to build the first new nuclear power plants in the United States in more than 30 years. In the wake of Fukushima, Obama's Nuclear Regulatory Commission put out talking points designed to diminish growing public concern with the safety of nuclear power plants in the U.S. NBC News obtained the NRC's internal emails instructing staff to downplay safety risks. U.S. nuclear plants are not safe. The U.S. sailors and Marines of Operation Tomodachi deserve their day in court. The U.S. public deserves an honest assessment of the grave risks of nuclear power.

By Ray McGovern On June 8, 1967, Israeli leaders learned they could deliberately attack a U.S. Navy ship and try to send it, together with its entire crew, to the bottom of the Mediterranean – with impunity. Israeli aircraft and torpedo boats attacked the USS Liberty, a state-of-the-art intelligence collection platform sailing in international waters off the Sinai, killing 34 of the 294 crew members and wounding more than 170. On the 47th anniversary of that unprovoked attack let’s be clear about what happened: Israeli messages intercepted on June 8, 1967, leave no doubt that sinking the USS Liberty was the mission assigned to the attacking Israeli warplanes and torpedo boats as the Six-Day War raged in the Middle East. Let me repeat: there is no doubt – none – that the mission of the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) was to destroy the USS Liberty and kill its entire crew.

Here, for example, is the text of an intercepted Israeli conversation, just one of many pieces of hard, unambiguous evidence that the Israeli attack was not a mistake: Israeli pilot to ground control: “This is an American ship. Do you still want us to attack?” Ground control: “Yes, follow orders.” … Israeli pilot: “But, sir, it’s an American ship – I can see the flag!” Ground control: “Never mind; hit it!”

Halbardier skated across the Liberty’s slippery deck while it was being strafed in order to connect a communications cable and enable the Liberty to send out an SOS. The Israelis intercepted that message and, out of fear of how the U.S. Sixth Fleet would respond, immediately broke off the attack, returned to their bases, and sent an “oops” message to Washington confessing to their unfortunate “mistake.” As things turned out, the Israelis didn’t need to be so concerned. When President Johnson learned that the USS America and USS Saratoga had launched warplanes to do battle with the forces attacking the Liberty, he told Defense Secretary Robert McNamara to call Sixth Fleet commander Rear Admiral Lawrence Geiss and tell him to order the warplanes to return immediately to their carriers. According to J.Q. “Tony” Hart, a chief petty officer who monitored these conversations from a U.S. Navy communications relay station in Morocco, Geiss shot back that one of his ships was under attack. Tellingly, McNamara responded: “President Johnson is not going to go to war or embarrass an American ally over a few sailors.”

More than a dozen nationalists threw red paint and rocks at three sailors from USS Ross, called them killers and put sacks on their headsIncident took place in Eminonu section of Istanbul Wednesday USS Ross was docked on an inlet of the Bosphorus Strait in the Black SeaThe sailors were forced the flee on foot from the angry mob chasing after them US Navy and US Embassy in Ankara have condemned the attack 

The incident stirred strong nationalist sentiment in Turkey and was dramatized in the 2006 Turkish blockbuster Valley of the Wolves: Iraq. 'Soldiers from the occupying country think they can walk around freely in Eminonu,' association spokesman Melik Dibek said, referring to the neighborhood where the incident occurred. 

'It's obvious why they've anchored here —because of their ambitions in the Mediterranean and the Black Sea. American imperialism is the reason why the Middle East has turned into a chamber of fire.' 

A report by the Senate Intelligence Committee concludes that the CIA misled the government and the public about aspects of its brutal interrogation program for years — concealing details about the severity of its methods, overstating the significance of plots and prisoners, and taking credit for critical pieces of intelligence that detainees had in fact surrendered before they were subjected to harsh techniques. The report, built around detailed chronologies of dozens of CIA detainees, documents a long-standing pattern of unsubstantiated claims as agency officials sought permission to use — and later tried to defend — excruciating interrogation methods that yielded little, if any, significant intelligence, according to U.S. officials who have reviewed the document.

“The CIA described [its program] repeatedly both to the Department of Justice and eventually to Congress as getting unique, otherwise unobtainable intelligence that helped disrupt terrorist plots and save thousands of lives,” said one U.S. official briefed on the report. “Was that actually true? The answer is no.”

Several officials who have read the document said some of its most troubling sections deal not with detainee abuse but with discrepancies between the statements of senior CIA officials in Washington and the details revealed in the written communications of lower-level employees directly involved.Officials said millions of records make clear that the CIA’s ability to obtain the most valuable intelligence against al-Qaeda — including tips that led to the killing of Osama bin Laden in 2011 — had little, if anything, to do with “enhanced interrogation techniques.”The report is divided into three volumes — one that traces the chronology of interrogation operations, another that assesses intelligence officials’ claims and a third that contains case studies on virtually every prisoner held in CIA custody since the program began in 2001. Officials said the report was stripped of certain details, including the locations of CIA prisons and the names of agency employees who did not hold ­supervisor-level positions.One official said that almost all of the critical threat-related information from Abu Zubaida was obtained during the period when he was questioned by Soufan at a hospital in Pakistan, well before he was interrogated by the CIA and waterboarded 83 times.Information obtained by Soufan, however, was passed up through the ranks of the U.S. intelligence community, the Justice Department and Congress as though it were part of what CIA interrogators had obtained, according to the committee report.

A USS Cole case defense attorney read aloud from just disclosed emails Tuesday in a ongoing bid to portray a recent order to war court judges to live permanently at Guantánamo as unlawful meddling meant to rush justice in the death-penalty case.Navy Cmdr. Brian Mizer, defending Abd al Rahim al Nashiri, said the documents he got through a court order overnight demonstrated that the Pentagon office knew that the rule change adopted last month would not just make waves but could constitute the U.S. military crime of unlawful influence.“In trying to speed up a trial, are we affecting its fairness?” wrote a legal adviser, Cmdr. Raghav Kotval, on the staff of the Convening Authority for Military Commissions. “If, for example, the judge is less inclined to grant a continuance because it means more time on Gitmo, is that adverse to the accused?”The Nov. 14 email circulated among U.S. military legal staff reviewing a proposed war-court regulation for the Convening Authority, retired Marine Maj. Gen. Vaughn Ary, the Pentagon–based overseer of military commissions. Less than a month later, on Dec. 9, Ary formally asked Deputy Secretary of Defense Robert Work for the change. Work did just that on Jan. 7, ordering judges assigned to Guantánamo cases to give up their prestigious day jobs.

Defense lawyers cast the open-ended relocation order to judges living with family in more comfortable settings in Italy and the East Coast of the United States as punishment that exiles them for not proceeding swiftly through a complicated pretrial phase to trials. The 9/11 and USS Cole case judges have spent years navigating thorny pretrial issues — such as torture and secrecy, CIA involvement in the court and evolving war court law.A case prosecutor, Navy Lt. Paul Morris, dismissed the documents as nothing more than routine “brainstorming of potential issues” among colleagues. Another prosecutor, Army Col. Robert Moscati, said there was no proof that their boss, Ary, knew of the reservations they raised.Ary was scheduled to testify Wednesday by video-teleconference from his headquarters outside Washington, D.C.

In a filing, prosecutors defend the judge’s move-in order as simply surging staff to the war court for “the increased operational tempo that’s expected.”The three war court judges hearing Guantánamo cases have not complied, in part, because the top lawyers in the Army, Navy and Air Force were taken by surprise by the decision that strips them of judges who handle the courts-martial of American service members, too. Mizer cast Kotval as a potential whistleblower, and asked the judge to order his testimony along with that of two other U.S. military officers serving as Ary’s legal advisers in the email chain that received this from Kotval:“Issue: Are we coercing or by unauthorized means influencing the action of a judge?” he wrote. “If not, why are we intruding on what is not typically or traditionally a convening authority’s role. What is the explanation for the action?”Defense attorneys call the order an example of unlawful command influence — a crime in the U.S. military — designed to rush the judges to trial so they can leave this remote base. They want the case dismissed.

In an abrupt retreat Friday, the Pentagon revoked an order to war court judges to drop their other military duties and take up residence at this remote base until their cases are over.The 9/11 case judge swiftly responded by lifting a freeze on preparations for the terror trial of alleged mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed and four accused accomplices; the judge had imposed the freeze 48 hours earlier with a ruling that found the move-in order appeared to be an illegal bid to rush justice.Defense lawyers in the Sept. 11 and USS Cole death-penalty cases described the Jan. 7 relocation order as “unlawful influence,” a pressure play designed to exile military judges to the remote base in Cuba, cut short pretrial hearings and move straight to trial. Commanders meddling in the judicial function is a crime in the U.S. military. The about-face also averted testimony in the USS Cole bombing case by three three-star officers, the top lawyers of the Navy, Army and Air Force, on how the Pentagon order to move the judges took them by surprise — and its impact.

But it did not settle the conflict. Defense lawyers for Saudi Abd al Rahim al Nashiri, 50, argued that the way the order was adopted and withdrawn was illegal.They asked the judge, Air Force Col. Vance Spath, to dismiss the death-penalty charges against Nashiri, who is accused of orchestrating al-Qaida’s Oct. 12, 2000 suicide bombing off the coast of Yemen. Seventeen U.S. sailors were killed and dozens more wounded in the warship attack.Alternatively, Nashiri’s lawyers asked the judge to exclude from the case the architect of the move-in order — retired Marine Maj. Gen. Vaughn A. Ary, as well as his legal staff, who oversee the war court in the so-called Office of the Convening Authority. The new Secretary of Defense, Ash Carter, should replace them with officials untainted by the relocation order, said Nashiri’s civilian lawyer, Rick Kammen.

Ary “can’t be trusted” to act impartially, said Kammen, noting Ary’s role includes funding the defense and choosing the jury pool of U.S. military officers — Kammen called it driving “the death train” by handpicking “the people that he wants to kill Nashiri.”Prosecutors said, with the move-in order gone, the issue was over. They urged Spath to drop it. “We get that there is an appearance issue,” said the chief war crimes prosecutor, Army Brig. Gen. Mark Martins. “We all are guardians. The independence of the judiciary is at the heart of this.” Spath disagreed. Testimony earlier this week by Ary, the judge said, demonstrated there was “some evidence of unlawful influence.” Spath never dropped his other duties and never moved to this base. But hearing evidence this week disclosed a behind-the-scenes plan to remove Spath from the USS Cole case rather than relieve him of his other job as chief of the Air Force judiciary.Ary undertook this change “knowing it could remove a sitting trial judge,” said Spath, adding he would rule Monday morning on the defense motion to dismiss the charge

You can find them in dusty, sunbaked badlands, moist tropical forests, and the salty spray of third-world littorals. Standing in judgement, buffeted by the rotor wash of a helicopter or sweltering beneath the relentless desert sun, they instruct, yell, and cajole as skinnier men playact under their watchful eyes. In many places, more than their particular brand of camouflage, better boots, and designer gear sets them apart. Their days are scented by stale sweat and gunpowder; their nights are spent in rustic locales or third-world bars. These men -- and they are mostly men -- belong to an exclusive military fraternity that traces its heritage back to the birth of the nation. Typically, they’ve spent the better part of a decade as more conventional soldiers, sailors, marines, or airmen before making the cut. They’ve probably been deployed overseas four to 10 times. The officers are generally approaching their mid-thirties; the enlisted men, their late twenties. They’ve had more schooling than most in the military. They’re likely to be married with a couple of kids. And day after day, they carry out shadowy missions over much of the planet: sometimes covert raids, more often hush-hush training exercises from Chad to Uganda, Bahrain to Saudi Arabia, Albania to Romania, Bangladesh to Sri Lanka, Belize to Uruguay. They belong to the Special Operations forces (SOF), America’s most elite troops -- Army Green Berets and Navy SEALs, among others -- and odds are, if you throw a dart at a world map or stop a spinning globe with your index finger and don’t hit water, they’ve been there sometime in 2015.

This year, U.S. Special Operations forces have already deployed to 135 nations, according to Ken McGraw, a spokesman for Special Operations Command (SOCOM).  That’s roughly 70% of the countries on the planet.  Every day, in fact, America’s most elite troops are carrying out missions in 80 to 90 nations, practicing night raids or sometimes conducting them for real, engaging in sniper training or sometimes actually gunning down enemies from afar. As part of a global engagement strategy of endless hush-hush operations conducted on every continent but Antarctica, they have now eclipsed the number and range of special ops missions undertaken at the height of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.   In the waning days of the Bush administration, Special Operations forces (SOF) were reportedly deployed in only about 60 nations around the world.  By 2010, according to the Washington Post, that number had swelled to 75.  Three years later, it had jumped to 134 nations, “slipping” to 133 last year, before reaching a new record of 135 this summer.  This 80% increase over the last five years is indicative of SOCOM’s exponential expansion which first shifted into high gear following the 9/11 attacks.

Special Operations Command’s funding, for example, has more than tripled from about $3 billion in 2001 to nearly $10 billion in 2014 “constant dollars,” according to the Government Accountability Office (GAO).  And this doesn’t include funding from the various service branches, which SOCOM estimates at around another $8 billion annually, or other undisclosed sums that the GAO was unable to track.  The average number of Special Operations forces deployed overseas has nearly tripled during these same years, while SOCOM more than doubled its personnel from about 33,000 in 2001 to nearly 70,000 now.

Ukraine accused Russia on Saturday of having staged a “military invasion” of the country, saying Russian troops had seized one village outside Crimea and briefly landed at another.In a statement posted to its website, Ukraine’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said 80 Russian soldiers – supported by four helicopter gunships supported by four helicopter gunships and three “armoured combat machines” – seized the town of Strilkove on Saturday. Strilkove, which is home to 1,300 people, is about 16 kilometres outside of Crimea, on a thin peninsula in adjacent Kherson oblast.

Earlier in the day, the Ukrainian Defence Ministry said it had “repelled” – apparently without any shots being fired – another landing by dozens of Russian paratroopers 28 kilometres further into Kherson oblast, at Arbatskaya Strelka. The Ukrainian military said its air force had been used in forcing the Russians to withdraw.The alleged incursions come one day before a referendum in Crimea, a predominantly Russian-speaking region on Ukraine’s Black Sea coast, asking its two million residents whether they wish to join the Russian Federation.The Kherson region supplies Crimea with most of its electricity, water and natural gas. The paratrooper landing at Arbatskaya Strelka appeared aimed at capturing a natural gas distribution facility there.

There was no immediate confirmation or denial from the Russian Foreign Ministry of the military moves outside Crimea. On Friday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry at a meeting in London that Moscow “has no, and cannot have, any plans to invade the southeast region of Ukraine.”If the Ukrainian accusations are correct, the incursions would mark a serious escalation of the crisis here, which began last month when pro-Western protesters in Kiev ousted the Moscow-backed government of Viktor Yanukovych.

On Feb. 2, the White House rolled out its military and intelligence budget proposal for 2016—and it’s a doozy. The administration wants $534 billion for the Pentagon’s normal “base” budget plus another $51 billion for combat operations in Afghanistan and the Middle East.That’s $585 billion combined, $25 billion more than Congress approved last year. Washington conceals spending on the country’s 16 spy agencies—as much as $80 billion—largely inside the main Pentagon budget.But the official numbers don’t reflect the true cost of America’s wars and national defense. In reality, the United States spends closer to trillion dollars a year on its current and former soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, intel agents and their equipment—and also the paramilitary “homeland security” personnel whose equivalents in many other countries are uniformed troops.The U.S. Coast Guard, for instance.

Mandy Smithberger, director of the Straus Military Reform Project at the Center for Defense Information—part of the Project on Government Oversight in Washington, D.C.—has helpfully crunched some of the numbers.Smithberger counts $1.003 trillion in national security spending in the administration’s 2016 budget proposal. That includes the Pentagon’s $534-billion base budget and the $51-billion war fund, which Smithberger points out “is traditionally used as a slush fund to pay for [Defense Department] priorities that couldn’t make it into the base budget.”