Bradley Manning Refused To Enter A Plea At His Court-martial 24 Feb 2012.

Private Bradley Manning declined to enter a plea on 24 Feb 2012 at his arraignment to the charges that he handed over hundreds of thousands of classified US files to WikiLeaks. Almost two years after his arrest at a military base in Iraq, Private Manning decided to defer pleading guilty or not guilty to allegations he was the source of the largest intelligence leak in US history and that he had aided America's enemies. Because he refused to plead, the military judge was required according to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) to enter a plea of 'not guilty' for him.

David Coombs, Private Manning's civilian defense lawyer, said that Manning's due process rights were being infringed by the slow progress. The case is already over 600 days old. The Defense wants the case to go to trial no later than June. The Arraignment lasted about one hour.

"If the government gets its way, he will have been in pre-trial confinement for over 800 days before trial," he said.

The young soldier was arrested in Camp Liberty, near Baghdad, in May 2010 and spent nine months in solitary confinement in a military prison at Quantico, Virginia before being transferred to a lower security facility in Fort Levenworth, Kansas.

Manning, who faces life imprisonment if convicted, also deferred a decision on whether he wished to be tried by a military jury or a judge alone. According to the Uniform Code Of Military Justice (UCMJ) he can opt for a jury composed either of only officers or a mixture of officers and enlisted members.

The Convening Authority for this General Court-martial decided earlier this year not to push for the death penalty, even though the charges are serious enough to warrant it.

The Arraignment was held at Fort Meade, Maryland. In the sparse court room's public gallery sat Michael Ratner, a pro-bono lawyer for Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks. Mr Assange is under virtual house arrest at a stately home in Norfolk, England. He awaits possible extradition to Sweden on sex assault charges. He is paying close attention to the proceedings in the U.S. against Private Manning.

Manning could strike a deal with the U.S. government at any time.He could accept a lesser sentence in return for agreeing to help prosecutors pursue a case against Mr Assange. It has long been assumed that the US Government real motive in prosecuting Manning is to flip him and get him to testify against Julian Assange.

Manning is a 24 year-old intelligence analyst for the U.S. military who was stationed in Iraq when he came across thousands of improperly classified documents. He described the moral dilemma he faced: "if you had free reign over classified networks for long periods of time… and you saw incredible things, awful things… things that belonged in the public domain, and not on some server stored in a dark room in Washington DC… what would you do?" Actions attributed to him indicate he chose to courageously and selflessly expose abuses. The documents, which have served as primary sources for thousands of articles in the mainstream press, reveal a disturbing trend of corporate influence on the U.S.'s foreign policies, as well as the frequency with which officials around the world actively mislead citizens regarding crimes against human rights and the environment. According to journalists, Bradley's alleged actions helped motivate the democratic revolution in Tunisia. Also, by highlighting the failure of the military to appropriately address war crimes, they contributed to the Obama Administration finally agreeing to withdraw all U.S. troops from the occupation in Iraq. Maanning faces the possibility of life in prison. If the military continues to refuse to acknowledge PFC Manning as a whistle-blower, he may become the first person in U.S. history to be convicted of "Aiding the enemy through indirect means" for telling the public the truth.

The next hearing is scheduled to take place at Fort Meade,Maryland on March 15.



The Star Witness in the Webster Smith court-martial was not believed by the jury panel members. The accused was found not guilty of all charges related to her testimony.

The surprise witness in the Webster Smith Court-martial was the girl friend of Webster Smith. She was a witness for the prosecution. This was quite a surprise because she had been the love of his life. She was his one and only true love. She almost bore him a child, and he nursed her through a recovery period following a difficult abortion.

Bradley Manning is an avowed homosexual, so it is unlikely that he will have an old girlfriend testifying against him. However, a former male partner may venture forward to give testimony. But, will that testimony be for the prosecution or the defense?

Webster Smith took the witness stand and testified in his own behalf. It was a fatal mistake. He was wrapped in a presumption of innocence. He did not have to prove hat he was innocent. The burden of proof was on the Prosecution to prove that he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. There was no physical evidence presented against him. The only evidence against him was the testimony of one key female cadet. It was his word against her word. That was a pure "he-said, she-said" case. The jury was going to rule in favor of whoever demonstrated the strongest character and whoever had the greatest credibility. If Webster Smith had never taken the witness stand, he would never have put his character in issue. Based on the presumption of innocence, and the fact that the female was testifying under a grant of immunity from prosecution, Webster Smith would have been found not guilty, more than likely. Even if the jury members had been so obtuse as to find him guilty under those circumstances, the Defense would have been compelled to move for Judgement Non Obstante Verdicto (N.O.V.), shorthand acronym of Latin for non obstante veredicto (nahn ahb-stan-tuh very-dick-toe) meaning "notwithstanding the verdict," referring to a decision of a judge to set aside (reverse) a jury's decision in favor of one party in a lawsuit or a guilty verdict when the judge is convinced the judgment is not reasonably supported by the facts and/or the law. The result is called a "judgment N.O.V." Granting a motion for such a ruling means the court realizes it should have directed the jury to reach an opposite verdict in the first place.

Impersonating Military Officers.

The court-martial of former cadet Webster Smith, the first cadet ever tried by court-martial at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy was a tragedy, but it was no accident. It was was more than just a tempest in a teapot. Congressman Christopher Shays, a Republican, held Congressional hearings on how officials were responding to reports of sexual assaults in the service academies. Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro, a Democrat, inserted a request into a Department of Homeland Security spending bill for the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to monitor the Coast Guard Academy's progress in responding to sexual harassment claims.

The trial of Webster Smith appears to have been the main attraction in a three ring circus. The Coast Guard Academy and Connecticut Congressional Representative Christopher Shays were planning to stag a show-trial for the nation to show how military academies should handle incidents of sexual assaults at the academies. Representative Shays was chairman of the Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats, and International Relations. He had organized the Washington, DC portion of the circus. He scheduled a panel entitled "Sexual Assualt and Violence Against Women in the Military and at the Academies". On the day that the star witness for the rape charge, Kristen Nicholson, was testifying at the Coast Guard Academy, a Coast Guard Admiral from the Academy was in Washington,DC at the invitation of Representative Shays to appear before his Committee.

Rear Admiral Paul J. Higgins, Director of Health and Safety, at the Coast Guard Academy was on the witness list along with the Commandants from the other military academies. The publicity from these hearings would have been enough to get Shays reelected. However, the trial did not turn out as expected. The Convening Authority for the Court-martial, the Superintendent at the Coast Guard Academy was Admiral James Van Sice. He was tried at an Admiral's Mast for inappropriate behavior and forced to retire.Then the furor surrounding this issue of sexual assault at military academies seemed to die down. This issues disappeared from the Washington,D.C. political radar scope. And Christopher Shays, a 10-term incumbent lost his re-election bid in November 2008.

When the full history of the Webster Smith case is written, it may turn out that Congressman Shays was the real author of the first court-martial at the Coast Guard Academy.

The hearings appeared to have been grandstanding on the part of Christopher Shays. For most of his life he appeared to have distanced himself from the military. He certainly wanted no part of duty in the armed forces. When push came to shove he claimed conscientious objector status. He has never worn the uniform of any military service. Shockingly, he is not alone.

A few of the men who once shouted "hell no; We won't go", are now claiming that they did. Not only are they claiming that they did go, but also that they distinguished themselves with valor, above and beyond the call of duty. Some were draft protesters, others were draft evaders, and others draft dodgers. They should not all be lumped together.

Draft protesters were often the men who burned their Draft cards in public ceremonies. Draft Dodgers took steps to violate Selective Service laws. Draft evaders were not like draft dodgers.

Some avoided conscription by taking advantage of loopholes in the Selective Service laws, a perfectly legal if not sometimes arbitrary option. In 1966 actor George Hamilton was exempted from the Draft after petitioning his own Draft Board for a deferment base on hardships at home, advising them that his mother needed him to care for her. Of course it didn't hurt his cause that at the time he was also dating the daughter of President Lyndon Johnson. And perhaps it was just such inequities in the Selective Service program that most angered the young. They were upset not so much being called to serve as they did to the fact that often the rich, the powerful, and the brightest college students escaped being called up.

Some young men sought exemption from the Draft due to special situations: sole surviving son, deferment to complete an education, and even for personal reasons such as religious prohibitions against military service. The latter are called Conscientious Objectors (C.O.) and many of them did serve in non-combat roles, at least two C.O.s earning Medals of Honor, while others belonged to faiths that prohibited even these non-combat roles.

In 2010 according to the New Haven Register, a poll was taken after news broke that Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal falsely claimed on several occasions to have served in Vietnam during the war shows his Republican challengers for a U.S. Senate seat closing the gap.

Only about a quarter of voters, however, said he should withdraw from the race to replace retiring Democratic U.S. Sen. Christopher J. Dodd.

The Rasmussen telephone poll, showed Blumenthal, the leading Democratic contender, losing most of his lead over Republicans Linda McMahon and Rob Simmons.

A longer version of the video shot in Norwalk on March 2, 2008, was posted on Republican candidate Linda McMahon’s website. It showed Blumenthal correctly describing his military service before saying that he served “in Vietnam.”

“I really want to add my words of thanks,” Blumenthal tells the audience on the video, “as someone who served in the military during the Vietnam era in the Marine Corps.”

Blumenthal served stateside as a Marine reservist after receiving five deferments, reaching the rank of sergeant. On Tuesday, Blumenthal said he “misspoke” at times and regretted the errors.

Democrats in Connecticut and Washington stood by Blumenthal.

"On a few occasions, I have misspoken about my service and I regret that. And I take full responsibility," said Blumenthal. "But I will not allow anyone to take a few misplaced words and impugn my record of service to our country."

The crisis erupted when The New York Times reported that Blumenthal had repeatedly distorted his military service. The story included quotations and a video of Blumenthal saying at a 2008 event that he had "served in Vietnam." The newspaper also said Blumenthal intimated more than once that he was a victim of the abuse heaped on Vietnam veterans upon their return home.

At a veterans event in Shelton, Conn., for example, he said, "When we returned from Vietnam, I remember the taunts, the verbal and even physical abuse we encountered," according to a 2008 Connecticut Post story.

Blumenthal, 64, joined the Marine Reserve in 1970 and served six years, none of it overseas. He put in much of his time in Washington, where he took part in such projects as fixing a campground and working on a Toys for Tots drive, according to the Times.

He received at least five military deferments that enabled him to stay out of the war between 1965 and 1970, during which time he went to Harvard, studied in England and landed a job in the Nixon White House. Once he secured a spot in the Marine Reserve, he had almost no chance of being sent to Vietnam, the newspaper reported.

Former Representative Christopher Shays and Beth Davis, former Air Force Academy Cadet.


He is a close friend of Congressman Christopher Shays, whose early political career was marked by acts of defiance. He registered for conscientious objector status during the Vietnam War and acknowledges he would not have served if drafted. He said that he is a good friend of Richard Blumenthal’s and that he had watched with worry as Mr. Blumenthal gradually embellished his military record over the years. Over the last few years, however, more sweeping claims crept into Mr. Blumenthal’s descriptions, he said: for example, that Mr. Blumenthal had served in Vietnam, and had felt the sting of an ungrateful nation as he returned.

“He just kept adding to the story, the more he told it,” Mr. Shays said.

Michael Ray Jacobs, 52, is accused in federal court of wearing a naval officer's uniform on at least four occasions in March 2010. He has been charged with impersonating a Navy officer, complete with medals he never earned. Court records in the case say that he was seen in the uniform at the Oceana Naval Air Station stables, the Oceana exchange, a Navy dental clinic in Norfolk and a recruiting office. He is also charged with stealing a uniform from the Oceana exchange.

Navy officials said Jacobs never served in the Navy.

The U.S. attorney's office is prosecuting the case.

Impersonating a member of the armed forces has been a hot-button topic among veterans groups and in Congress, where a law was passed in 2006 making it a crime to falsely claim to have been awarded medals and decorations for military service.

Jeremy Michael Boorda (November 26, 1939 – May 16, 1996) was an admiral of the United States Navy and the 25th Chief of Naval Operations (CNO). Boorda is the only CNO to have risen to the position from the enlisted ranks. He was the first CNO who was not a graduate of the United States Naval Academy.

Boorda died May 16, 1996 a suicide, having apparently shot himself in the chest in his office while reporters from Newsweek magazine were waiting to interview him concerning his medals and awards. He reportedly left two suicide notes. He was reported to have been disturbed over a news media investigation, led by David Hackworth of Newsweek, into Valor device enhancements he wore on his Navy Commendation Medal and Navy Achievement Medal (small bronze "V" devices, signifying valor in combat), which the media report claimed he was not entitled to wear. He was said to be worried this issue would cause more trouble for the Navy's reputation.

A new Superior Court Judge in Norwark, CA. claimed to be a Viet Nam vet. He was not. A history professor at West Point claimed to be a Viet Nam combat vet. He was not. A Connecticut State Congressman claimed to be a Viet Nam vet. He was not. Why are all these draft dodgers and conscientious objectors claiming to be military veterans??

A panel of special masters from the California Commission on Judicial Performance(CJP) found May 15, 2001 that Judge Patrick Couwenberg misrepresented his educational and military backgrounds to various sources, including the governor who appointed him.

CJP lawyer Jack Coyle argued that Couwenberg should be removed from the bench because his lies about his military service and his educational and professional experience were a factor in his appointment to the bench.

Couwenberg’s lawyers said the judge deserved an opportunity to remain in office. They argued that his statements were not malicious, but were the product of a psychological impairment, and pointed to praise the jurist has received for his work from both prosecutors and defense attorneys who have appeared before him.

Couwenberg is continuing to hear criminal cases in Norwalk, California.

The judge has admitted that he falsely claimed to hold a master’s degree in psychology and made false claims of military experience, including an award of a Purple Heart, in Vietnam.

The special masters found that he also lied to the commission itself, in sworn testimony, by claiming to have participated in covert operations with the CIA in Southeast Asia in 1967 and 1968. Couwenberg testified that those claims are true, although he no longer maintains he was with the CIA and says he doesn’t know what agency he was looking for.

A CIA official testified that Couwenberg wasn’t working for that agency and that it’s highly unlikely that any other agency would have recruited Couwenberg for operations in Laos because no such missions were authorized.

Couwenberg claimed that some of his misstatements were intended to be humorous. Other statements, he claimed, were typed onto official forms by his wife, based on statements he had made to her 20 years earlier, a claim the masters found lacking in credibility.

A psychiatrist testified that the judge suffers from "pseudologica fantastica," a symptom of low self-esteem rooted in the judge’s early childhood in what is now Indonesia followed by difficult relocations, first to Holland and then to the United States.

The doctor said that the condition causes Couwenberg to mix fact and fantasy, but that it is treatable with therapy and doesn’t render him unfit for judicial service.

The masters, however, largely agreed with a psychiatrist called by commission lawyers at the masters’ hearing. Psychological testing data, Dr. James Rosenberg said, doesn’t show that the judge’s "repetitive lying" as an adult is due to childhood trauma, nor that he suffers from any recognized mental illness.

The CJP's removal order, issued Aug. 15 and effective Sept. 14, 2001 followed revelations that Couwenberg had, among several other things, lied about being a Vietnam veteran, receiving a Purple Heart, serving in covert operations for the CIA and earning a master's degree from California State University, Los Angeles.

Couwenberg's lawyers and doctors said the 1976 graduate of the University of La Verne College of Law in Ontario suffers from a pathological lying condition called pseudologia fantastica, which they tied to his childhood in an Indonesian concentration camp at the end of World War II.

Joseph John Ellis (born 18 July 1943 in Washington, D.C.) was a Professor of History at Mount Holyoke College and also at the U.S.Military Academy at West Point until 1972.

Ellis became the subject of embarrassing controversy when the Boston Globe published an article on June 18, 2001, revealing that Ellis lied about fighting in the Vietnam War (he served in uniform in America but did not go to Vietnam as he had claimed to his students and to the media).He claimed to have been a platoon leader and paratrooper with the 101st Airborne Division. He said he served in Saigon under Gen. William Westmoreland. Ellis did not serve in Vietnam at all, according to military records obtained by the Globe Newspaper and interviews with his friends from the 1960s. He spent his three years in the Army teaching history at the US Military Academy at West Point, N.Y. Ellis also appears to have exaggerated the extent of the involvement he claims to have had in both the antiwar and civil rights movements.

Ellis also falsely claimed to have scored a winning touchdown in a decisive game while playing for his high school football team. In fact, Ellis never played for his high school team.

On June 21, 2001 Professor Ellis issued a statement saying: "Even in the best lives, mistakes are made. I deeply regret having let stand and later confirming the assumption that I went to Vietnam. For this and any other distortions about my personal life, I want to apologize to my family, friends, colleagues and students."

WASHINGTON (AP) — Xavier Alvarez stood up at a public meeting and called himself a wounded war veteran who had received the top military award, the Medal of Honor. He was lying about his medal, his wounds and his military service, but he wasn't the first man to invent war exploits.

He was, however, one of the first people prosecuted under a 2006 federal law aimed at curbing false claims of military valor.

Concerns that the law improperly limits speech and turns people into criminals for things they say, rather than do, are at the heart of the Supreme Court's review of his case and the Stolen Valor Act.

Veterans groups have come to the aid of the Obama administration, which calls the law a narrowly crafted effort to protect the system of military awards that was established during the Revolutionary War by Gen. George Washington. The high court will hear the case Wednesday, which is Washington's 280th birthday.

"They're committing fraud. They're impersonating somebody else. They take on attributes of somebody else, attributes of a hero who served honorably," said Pam Sterner, whose college term paper calling for the law wound up in the hands of members of Congress. "When you do that, impersonating someone else, that's fraud, not freedom of speech."

Civil liberties groups, writers, publishers and news media outlets, including The Associated Press, have told the justices they worry the law, and especially the administration's defense of it, could lead to more attempts by government to regulate speech.

When he established military decorations in 1782, seven years before he was elected as the nation's first president, Washington himself also prescribed severe military punishment for soldiers who purported to be medal winners but weren't. Since then, many men have embellished their war records, and some have won special recognition.

It long has been a federal crime to wear unearned medals, but mere claims of being decorated were beyond the reach of law enforcement.

The House of Representatives has more than once voted to name a post office after men who claimed awards they never received. The Air Force named an award after a man who falsely claimed to have survived the Bataan Death March and been awarded the Silver Star in World War II. The Boxing Writers of America named its perseverance award after the late Pat Putnam of Sports Illustrated because of his made-up tale of surviving a Chinese prisoner of war camp in the Korean War and receiving a Navy Cross.

The Stolen Valor Act aimed to solve that problem, and garnered significant support in Congress during a time of war.

"The admiration and respect for the military increased dramatically after 9/11 and the false claims, as well," said Thomas A. Cottone Jr., a retired FBI agent who investigated phony award cases.

Alvarez made his claims by way of introducing himself as an elected member of the Three Valleys Municipal Water District in Pomona, California. There is nothing to suggest that he received anything in exchange or that listeners especially believed him.

Even Alvarez' lawyers acknowledged their client sometimes has trouble telling the truth. "Xavier Alvarez lied," they declare in the first sentence of their Supreme Court brief and go on to recount six separate lies in the next few lines.

He lied when he claimed he played ice hockey for the Detroit Red Wings of the National Hockey League, married a Mexican starlet who made paparazzi swoon, was an engineer, rescued the American ambassador during the Iranian hostage crisis and was shot when he went back for the U.S. flag. Alvarez also lied, they said, when he talked about his military service.

But the lies Alvarez told harmed no one, they said, so what he did couldn't be considered fraud.

A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco struck down the law as an unconstitutional restraint on free speech and said the government might instead invest in an awards database that would make it harder for people to lay claim to medals they never won. Last month, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver upheld the law in a separate case, saying the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which guarantees freedom of speech does not always protect false statements.

The issue might never have reached this stage if not for the efforts of Sterner, and her husband, Doug.

He is a decorated Vietnam veteran who has made it his work in recent years to ensure that service members get the recognition they deserve and expose those who falsely claim acts of heroism under fire. Rather than wait for the government to act, Doug Sterner has entered nearly 100,000 award citations since the American Civil War (1861-1865) in his online database, including all 3,475 Medal of Honor winners in U.S. history. His archive is used by the Military Times newspapers, published by Gannett Co.

Pam Sterner went back to school in her early 40s at Colorado State University in Pueblo, Colorado. In a political science course, she wrote a paper that grew out of her husband's frustrations over phony award claimants whose worst punishment was public embarrassment. That paper eventually led to the Stolen Valor Act.

Doug Sterner's database did not save Rep. Jason Chaffetz, a Utah Republican, from some embarrassment when he invited cameras and reporters to watch him pin medals on an elderly Korean War veteran in June.

The veteran, Myron Brown of Utah, said his Distinguished Service Cross and Silver Star were awarded belatedly, and he asked Chaffetz to present them to him publicly.

After the ceremony took place, Sterner and others raised questions about the medals and the Pentagon confirmed to Chaffetz in December that they were not authentic.

"Others have been burned by this. I have too, but I want to solve the problem," Chaffetz told the Salt Lake Tribune. He is planning a hearing of the House Oversight and Government Reform subcommittee he leads to explore creating a government-run awards database.

___
http://news.yahoo.com/high-court-dilemma-lie-medal-crime-100520506.html

Bad Grass Never Dies.

Wednesday, October 12, 2011

Commissioner Robert Axel Says He Will Step Down in December

By SHERRI M. OKAMOTO, Staff Writer

Los Angeles Superior Court Commissioner Robert Axel said yesterday that he plans to participate in the voluntary separation program announced by the court last Thursday.

Axel, who just turned 69 this month, remarked that he has “been with the court 37 years, and could go on another 37 years,” but decided in light of “my personal situation as well as the court’s,” that it was “time for me to pack up my gear and head off into the sunset.”

He noted that the court has been through “a lot of ups and downs” during his tenure as a commissioner, but its current fiscal situation is “by far the worst,” as the judiciary is “in dire straits.”

The commissioner said the decision was “traumatic” for him, since his time with the court has been “the best part of my life in terms of working life.” Axel spoke highly of his colleagues in Norwalk, and predicted “it will be tough to leave” after “all the wonderful times” they shared.

Axel disclosed that he plans to “take some time off” after he leaves the court, but he is “not ready to lie down” since he has “got a lot of working years left.”

Come January, Axel said, “it will be the first time in 56 years that I’ll be unemployed,” so “I’ll be looking” for work.

His first job was working in a hardware store, when he was 14, Axel said. The New York native, who is the son of former Los Angeles Municipal Court Judge Nathan Axel, went on to attend Burbank High School and what is now California State University Northridge, where he served as student body president.

Axel earned his law degree from UCLA and joined the State Bar in 1967. He worked for the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office while in law school, but entered private practice after graduation.

He was a sole practitioner focusing on surety and construction completion bond matters in Beverly Hills before being elected as a commissioner.

He served on the Superior Court Executive Committee in 1987 and again in 1995, and was president of the California Court Commissioners Association in 1984.

Axel is the first of the court commissioners contacted to indicate his intention to participate in the voluntary separation program, which is providing an incentive for up to 30 bench officers to step down before the end of the year.

Commissioner Marilyn Martinez said yesterday she has made “no decision” and had no additional comment. Steff Padilla and Marshall Rieger on Friday both said that they too were undecided.

Martin Gladstein, Jeffrey M. Harkavy, Alan Friedenthal, John Chemeleski and Robert Harrison have said they do not plan to take part.

Edmon last week told the MetNews that the court stands to save $7,071,570 annually, starting in fiscal year 2012-13, if 30 commissioners opt to separate. If 30 court reporters participate in the incentive program being organized for them, the court would save an additional $3.6 million.

The program entails a one-time payment of six-months salary to as many as 30 commissioners who voluntarily separate from court service effective Dec. 30, a court spokesperson said.

Any of the court’s 109 full-time commissioners in good standing are eligible to participate, and must inform the court before the close of business Nov. 21 if they wish to participate, the spokesperson added.

Axel remarked yesterday that the choice of whether or not to participate is “a very difficult decision for any of us to make,” and praised the court leadership for offering such an “innovative” program to address its budgetary crisis.

“If you got to be asked to leave, they did it in the best way possible,” Axel said. “The administration of the court is doing it in a very considered, humane-type way, and a lot of thought has gone into it,” he concluded.

The Future of Social Security Disability

The Future of Social Security Disability
How does the future look for the Social Security Disability program? Is SSD solvent? What are the origins of the current SSDI debate? Learn more from Midwest Disability, P.A.

February 09, 2012 /24-7PressRelease/ -- In early December 2011, the House Committee on Ways and Means held the first hearing of a series on "Securing the Future of the Social Security Disability Program." During testimony, witnesses spoke on the importance of the program, the exhaustion of the SSDI trust fund and the potential for reform.

The Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) program has been in the news for quite some time now, especially since the Social Security Administration trustees announced the disability trust fund will be unable to pay full benefits starting in 2017 or 2018. Critics of SSDI have said that the program is a burden on taxpayers, is not strict enough and is too subjective. Testimony from the December program shows these points are inaccurate and that the Social Security Disability program is solvent.

History of the SSDI Debate

Committee Chairman Sam Johnson began the December program by discussing the history of SSDI. The cash benefit program was signed into law by President Eisenhower in 1956, during a time when the majority of families only had one breadwinner -- a time without internet and a time with shorter life spans. Even then, there was debate about the program's subjectivity.

Today, the SSDI landscape has changed dramatically. Steve Goss, the Chief Actuary of the Social Security Administration, highlighted the changes that have affected SSDI:

- Baby boomers have reached prime disability ages

- Women have entered the workforce and more women are working consistently enough to be insured by SSDI

- Women used to be less likely to be disabled than men, but are now on par with men

- People are becoming disabled earlier in life

The economic recession has also added to the cost of the SSDI program. There has been a spike in the number of SSDI applicants, and SSDI recipients, in recent years.

The SSDI Prognosis: Not Bad

The data shows that the program is not working the same way it once did. Demographics have changed, and many would argue that the program has become unsupportable and should therefore undergo substantial reform. However, the problem is not as massive as SSDI opponents and news media would make it seem.

According to U.S. Congressman Xavier Becerra, SSDI has taken in 14.6 trillion dollars and has only paid out 12 trillion since its inception. Steve Goss adds that we are at the peak of the problem right now. "We have already moved into the worst of times." Baby boomers have reached their prime disability ages, which means disability insurance has reached its peak cost. Women are now on par with men regarding the number eligible for SSDI as well as the number receiving SSDI. The SSA expects stability in the future. Similarly, the shift toward disabilities earlier in life has leveled out.

What does this mean? According to Goss, the cost of SSDI is at its highest right now and is even declining. The SSA has not projected it to go higher. Furthermore, it's "on a sustainable course." While the Social Security trust fund could be exhausted in 2017, tax income will still cover 86 percent of benefits. By 2085, there will still be enough money from tax income to pay 83 percent of benefits.

A Necessary Program for Many Americans

Andrew G. Biggs, resident scholar at American Enterprise Institute, argued that the number of people receiving SSDI is more than what you would expect from an aging population, especially during a time when the jobs are less physically demanding and people have higher incomes. He stated that employers need to provide reasonable accommodation for individuals with disabilities to keep workers working. He also believes that Congress needs to decide who is eligible for SSA, taking the "subjective decision-making" burden away from SSA examiners and administrative law judges.

His argument assumes that people currently on Social Security Disability Insurance would be able to work. As testimony from other witnesses showed, however, the current requirements for SSDI are very strict and most people on SSDI have no other option to bring bread to the table.

Virginia Reno, Vice President for Income Security Policy at the National Academy of Social Insurance, said, "People who get benefits rely very heavily on them." Approximately one half of benefit recipients rely on SSDI as their entire income. They are not living rich lives. In fact, SSDI only puts recipients slightly above the poverty level. It is an "essential lifeline."

The Difficult SSDI Application Process

In order to receive SSDI benefits, applicants must show they have worked in jobs covered by Social Security, that they can no longer work due to a medical condition and that their disability is terminal, or has lasted or is expected to last for at least one year. On its website, the SSA drills the point home: "This is a strict definition of disability. Social Security program rules assume that working families have access to other resources to provide support during periods of short-term disabilities, including workers' compensation, insurance, savings and investment."

Yet, many people who need SSDI benefits are denied by the SSA. A 2011 Rand Institute study found that 70 to 80 percent of people who were denied SSDI benefits did not go back to work. And those whose applications weren't denied likely faced a long battle, possibly including many appeals.

According to Congressman Becerra, more than 1.5 million Americans are currently waiting for a decision on their applications. Some have lost their homes, even their lives, while waiting. That is why many Social Security disability lawyers and advocates of individuals with permanent disabilities are fighting hard against attempts to make the SSDI requirements even stricter.

When asked whether people were using SSDI as a way to find money during the recession, Steve Goss said, "Many people, through force of will, worked" even though they had a severe disability. Americans "have a strong work ethic -- most people would take a good paying job over benefits." But some people don't have a choice. For them, SSDI is their only means of meeting their financial needs.

Read the testimony from the meeting on Securing the Future of the Social Security Disability Insurance Program here:

- Testimony by Steve Goss, Chief Actuary, Social Security Administration

- Statement of Virginia P. Reno, Vice President for Income Security Policy, National Academy of Social Insurance

- Testimony by Andrew G. Biggs, Resident Scholar, American Enterprise Institute

Article provided by Midwest Disability, PA

Visit us at www.midwestdisability.com

---
Securing the Future of the Social Security Disability Insurance Program
Testimony by Steve Goss, Chief Actuary, Social Security Administration
House Committee on Ways and Means, Subcommittee on Social Security
December 2, 2011
Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member Becerra, and members of the subcommittee, thank you
very much for the opportunity to speak to you today about the Social Security Disability
Insurance program. I would like to share thoughts on three topics: (1) the nature of disability
insurance; (2) the financial status of the Disability Insurance program; and (3) the “drivers” of
the cost of the Disability Insurance program.
(1) The Nature of Disability Insurance
Disability insurance is arguably the most difficult form of insurance to administer. It is easy to
determine whether an insured person has reached retirement age or has died. It is also easy to
determine whether a car is wrecked or a house destroyed. It is even relatively easy to determine
if health insurance should cover doctor and hospital bills. However, disability is by nature a very
subjective concept. Whether a “medically determinable impairment” eliminates the ability to
engage in any “substantial gainful activity” depends on a myriad of issues related to a person’s
residual functional capacity, past job experience, desire to work, and availability of suitable jobs.
All of these issues differ among individuals, across geographic regions, and over time.
The determination of whether a person is disabled is a highly complex process subject to human
judgment by the claimant, their representative, the claim examiner, and the medical consultant.
Becoming disabled can be a gradual process. A person may not qualify when they initially
apply, but may “cross the threshold” of disability during the appellate process or at a subsequent
age resulting in reapplication. Initial disability determinations and periodic continuing disability
reviews make administration of the Disability Insurance program an enormous challenge. The
Social Security Administration meets this challenge effectively and efficiently. Accuracy rates
in determinations are high, and multiple appeal steps are available to claimants. Yet, less than
2.5 percent of program expenditures are for administrative expense.
(2) The Financial Status of the Disability Insurance Program
The Disability Insurance Trust Fund assets expressed as a percent of annual program cost peaked
in 2003. The 2011 Trustees Report projects assets to become exhausted in 2018, with continuing
tax revenue sufficient to pay 86 percent of scheduled benefits thereafter. The unexpectedly large
COLA for December 2011 and a lower-than-expected increase in average earnings for 2010 may
exhaust trust fund reserves even earlier. For 2085, the Trustees Report projects continuing tax
revenue will be sufficient to pay 83 percent of scheduled benefits.
Sustainable solvency can be restored for the Disability Insurance program with a 16-percent
reduction in benefits, a 20-percent increase in revenue, or some combination of these changes.
Even in the absence of such change, a simple tax-rate reallocation between OASI and DI, as was
2
Social Security Trust Fund Ratios
Assets as Percent of Annual Cost
Trustees Report Intermediate Projections

Trust
Funds
done in 1994, could equalize the financial prospects of the trust funds. We estimate that
temporarily raising the Disability Insurance program’s share of the 12.4-percent OASDI payroll
tax rate from 1.8 to 2.2 percent for 2012 through 2024 and to 2.0 percent for 2025 through 2029
would make scheduled benefits payable for both OASI and DI beneficiaries until 2036.
Overall OASDI cost will rise over the next 20 years as the baby boomers retire and are replaced
in the working ages with lower-birth-rate generations born after 1965. The drop in birth rates
after 1965 will cause a permanent shift in the age distribution of the population with fewer
workers to support more elderly retirees.
Figure 2: OASDI Cost as Percent of GDP 1975-2085
2011 Trustees Report Intermediate Assumptions

Baby Boomers
reach ages 45-64
in 2010
3
However, the baby boomers already moved from young ages (25-44) in 1990, where few were
disabled, to older ages (45-64) in 2010, where many more are disabled. Thus, the 20-year
demographic shift in the age-distribution of the population has already occurred for DI.
Figure 3: DI Cost and Income as Percent of GDP 1975-2085
2011 Trustees Report Intermediate Assumptions

Baby Boomers
reach ages 45-64
in 2010
Baby Boomers
reach ages 25-44
in 1990
DI Cost
DI Income
Lower birth rates slow population growth at all ages. We project similar but slower growth rates
in both the workforce and DI beneficiaries for the future.
Figure 4: OASDI Workers and DI Beneficiaries 1975 to 2085

Millions
Workers
DI Beneficiaries
As a result, the number of workers per DI beneficiary is expected to be relatively stable in the
future. This means that restoring sustainable solvency for the DI program will not require
continually greater benefit cuts or revenue increases. A one-time change to offset the drop in
birth rate is all that is needed to sustain the DI program for the foreseeable future.
4
Figure 5: Workers per Disability Insurance Beneficiary

Baby Boomers
reach ages 45-64
in 2010
Baby Boomers
reach ages 25-44
in 1990
(3) The “Drivers” of the Cost of the Disability Insurance Program
Several drivers specific to DI program cost will be changing in the future. The first important
driver is the size of the disability-insured population. Since 1970, this population grew
explosively as increasing numbers of women worked consistently and stayed insured.
Figure
6:

In the future, we project that men will be less likely to be insured, reflecting increased
restrictions on undocumented aliens after 2001, and insured rates for women will stabilize close
to men. This change will substantially slow the growth in the cost of the DI program.
The second important driver of DI cost is rate at which insured workers become newly disabled.
Changes in the rate of disability incidence are best seen by excluding the effects of any change in
the age-distribution of the general population. For men, this age-adjusted incidence rate has
5
averaged somewhat over five new disability awards per thousand exposed (insured but not
already disabled) workers and has seldom been below this level. Since 1980, the age-adjusted
incidence rate for women has been moving up to a level much closer to men. We expect that
male and female age-adjusted disability incidence rates will be fairly stable in the future.

A more careful look at past fluctuations in the overall age-sex-adjusted disability incidence rate
reveals a number of specific economic and policy drivers that have influenced disability cost.
Periodic economic recessions, as illustrated by the civilian unemployment rate in bright orange
in the figure below, have been associated with temporary increases in disability incidence.

The very recent recession of 2008-2009 resulted in an increase in disability incidence that was
exceeded only by the incidence rate in 1975. One apparent exception to the relationship between
disability incidence and economic recessions is the strong recession of 1981-1982. Here the
effect of the recession appears to have been offset by the net effects of the 1980 Amendments,
which: (1) sharply increased the levels of pre-effectuation review of disability allowances and
continuing disability reviews of current beneficiaries; (2) introduced the extended period of
disability to encourage work; and (3) lowered the maximum family benefit for DI beneficiaries.
Additional policy changes over the years had significant effects on disability incidence. Doubledigit
ad-hoc benefit increases in 1970 through 1974 made disability benefits more attractive.
The 1984 Amendments may have countered the effects of a strong economic recovery with
increased emphasis on multiple impairments and mental listings, and requirement to show
medical improvement for benefit cessation. The SSI outreach to disabled adults likely added to
the effects of the 1990-1991 recession. Also, the 1996 Amendments may have partially
counteracted the effects of a strong economic recovery with elimination of drug addiction and
alcoholism as disabling impairments, and effecting a 7-year plan to eliminate a backlog of
continuing disability reviews. Future policy changes and economic cycles will undoubtedly
continue to cause fluctuations in disability incidence rates.
Disability incidence rates tell us the rate at which healthy workers become newly disabled. The
cost of providing benefits to disabled workers also depends on how long their disability lasts.
Disability incidence and length of the period of disability can be combined by considering the
number of insured workers who are currently disabled at each age, regardless of how long ago
they became newly disables. Disability prevalence rates are simply the percent of the insured
population at a given age that is currently receiving disabled worker benefits, regardless of when
benefits started. Age-sex-adjusted disability prevalence rates eliminate the effects of changing
population age distribution and isolate the effects of disability-specific drivers.
Figure
9:
DI
Disabled
Workers
per
1,000
Insured
Population

The figure above shows that the age-sex adjusted disability prevalence rate for men increased by
about a third between 1990 and 2010, even though age-sex-adjusted incidence rates were fairly
stable over the observed period 1970-2010. Female prevalence rates increased even more
because their age-sex-adjusted incidence rates did increase over the observed period.
The reason for the rise in male age-sex-adjusted disability prevalence between 1990 and 2010
lies in the age distribution of disability incidence rates. While the overall age-sex-adjusted
incidence rate was fairly stable for men, a relative shift toward new disabled-worker awards at
younger ages explains the prevalence increase. All else being equal, shifting new disability
incidence from ages 45-64 to ages 25-44 will increase the total number of beneficiaries, or
prevalence, because the younger awardees may remain disabled for many more years.
The figure below illustrates the degree to which disability incidence rates at ages 25-44 grew
relative to incidence rates at ages 45-64, both for men and women, between 1980 and 2010. The
shift toward relatively lower ages of disability incidence was even stronger for women than for
men. This, combined with the age-sex-adjusted increase in disability incidence for women,
largely explains the historical increase in prevalence rates for women.
The shift toward relatively lower ages in disability incidence rates stabilized after 2000. We
expect that the relative incidence rates by age will continue to be stable in the future. This,
combined with stable age-sex-adjusted overall incidence rates, explains our relatively stable
projection of future age-sex-adjusted disability prevalence rates.
Figure 10: Young Incidence Rate (ages 25-44)
as Percent of Older Incidence Rate (ages 45-64)

Male Female
While we feel fairly confident about projections for the future, two questions remain about the past:
(1) why did disability incidence grow at younger ages relative to older ages; and (2) are there any
special characteristics of the additional, younger disabled worker awards?
Due to the complexity of the disability criteria and determination process, and the nature of
disability, it is very difficult to determine why incidence rates at younger ages rose from the levels in
8
1975-1985 to the levels in 2000-2010. However, we can gain some insight into both questions by
considering the characteristics of younger versus older disability beneficiaries over time. For
example, we can consider (a) relative benefit levels across ages and (b) the distribution of primary
diagnosis for younger versus older disabled worker awards.
The chart below provides an interesting comparison of benefit levels for younger versus older
disabled worker beneficiaries in 1985 and 2010. For each group, the average benefit level is
expressed as a percentage of the national average wage index (AWI) for the year.
In 1985, the average benefit level for all younger beneficiaries (age 25-44) was very close to the
average benefit level of older beneficiaries (45-64). By 2010, the average benefit level for younger
beneficiaries was 24 percent lower than that for older beneficiaries. The change is similar for men
and women considered separately. This suggests that the increase in younger disabled worker
awards between 1985 and 2010 came from insured workers with low career-average earnings levels,
either because they were low paid workers or because they had intermittent employment. The
implication for future average benefit levels is also interesting. As the recent younger beneficiaries
with low benefit levels age, they will gradually restrain the growth in the average benefit level for
older beneficiaries in 2030 and later. Thus, the increase in disability prevalence from younger
disabled worker awards will be partly mitigated by lower future benefit levels.
Figure 11: Disabled Worker Benefits as Percent of Average Wage
1985 and 2010 (ratio of 25-44 benefit to 45-64 benefit)

Male and Female Combined Male Female
1985 2010
A second characteristic we can consider regarding younger versus older disabled worker
beneficiaries is any change in awards by category of medically determinable impairment
(primary diagnosis code). The figure below shows that even though the number of female
disabled worker awards at younger ages has risen rapidly, the distribution by diagnosis has
remained very stable. The pattern for younger men is very similar.
9
Figure
12:
Distribution
of
New
Female
Disabled
Workers
at
Ages
30-­‐39
by
Primary
Diagnosis
At higher ages, female disabled worker awards show increases in musculoskeletal diagnoses and
decreases in circulatory diagnoses. The patterns for males are also similar at these older ages.
These effects do not appear to explain the increase in young awards.
Figure
13:
Distribution
of
New
Female
Disabled
Workers
at
Ages
50-­‐59
by
Primary
Diagnosis
10
Conclusion
Disability insurance is highly complex and challenging to administer. General demographic
changes have increased the cost of the DI program over the past 20 years in much the same way
that demographics will raise OASI and Medicare costs over the next 20 years. Disability insured
rates have increased substantially for women, as have age-sex-adjusted incidence rates for
younger insured women, further contributing to higher DI cost. However, all of these trends
have stabilized or are expected to do so in the future.
We project that the number of DI beneficiaries will continue to increase in the future, but only at
about the rate of increase in workers. Thus, the current shortfall in tax income compared to DI
program cost is projected to be stable in the future. Restoring sustainable solvency for the DI
program requires about a 16-percent reduction in benefits, a 20-percent increase in revenue, or
some combination of these changes. Even if such changes are not effected soon, a modest
reallocation of the total OASDI payroll tax can be enacted prior to 2018 that would equalize the
actuarial status of the OASI and DI programs, allowing both to pay full scheduled benefits until
2036.

What Did You Do In The War Daddy?

The court-martial of former cadet Webster Smith, the first cadet ever tried by court-martial at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy was a tragedy, but it was no accident. It was was more than just a tempest in a teapot. Congressman Christopher Shays, a Republican, held Congressional hearings on how officials were responding to reports of sexual assaults in the service academies. Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro, a Democrat, inserted a request into a Department of Homeland Security spending bill for the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to monitor the Coast Guard Academy's progress in responding to sexual harassment claims.

The trial of Webster Smith appears to have been the main attraction in a three ring circus. The Coast Guard Academy and Connecticut Congressional Representative Christopher Shays were planning to stag a show-trial for the nation to show how military academies should handle incidents of sexual assaults at the academies. Representative Shays was chairman of the Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats, and International Relations. He had organized the Washington, DC portion of the circus. He scheduled a panel entitled "Sexual Assualt and Violence Against Women in the Military and at the Academies". On the day that the star witness for the rape charge, Kristen Nicholson, was testifying at the Coast Guard Academy, a Coast Guard Admiral from the Academy was in Washington,DC at the invitation of Representative Shays to appear before his Committee.

Rear Admiral Paul J. Higgins, Director of Health and Safety, at the Coast Guard Academy was on the witness list along with the Commandants from the other military academies. The publicity from these hearings would have been enough to get Shays reelected. However, the trial did not turn out as expected. The Convening Authority for the Court-martial, the Superintendent at the Coast Guard Academy was Admiral James Van Sice. He was tried at an Admiral's Mast for inappropriate behavior and forced to retire.Then the furor surrounding this issue of sexual assault at military academies seemed to die down. This issues disappeared from the Washington,D.C. political radar scope. And Christopher Shays, a 10-term incumbent lost his re-election bid in November 2008.

When the full history of the Webster Smith case is written, it may turn out that Congressman Shays was the real author of the first court-martial at the Coast Guard Academy.

The hearings appeared to have been grandstanding on the part of Christopher Shays. For most of his life he appeared to have distanced himself from the military. He certainly wanted no part of duty in the armed forces. When push came to shove he claimed conscientious objector status. He has never worn the uniform of any military service. Shockingly, he is not alone.

A few of the men who once shouted "hell no; We won't go", are now claiming that they did. Not only are they claiming that they did go, but also that they distinguished themselves with valor, above and beyond the call of duty. Some were draft protesters, others were draft evaders, and others draft dodgers. They should not all be lumped together.

Draft protesters were often the men who burned their Draft cards in public ceremonies. Draft Dodgers took steps to violate Selective Service laws. Draft evaders were not like draft dodgers.

Some avoided conscription by taking advantage of loopholes in the Selective Service laws, a perfectly legal if not sometimes arbitrary option. In 1966 actor George Hamilton was exempted from the Draft after petitioning his own Draft Board for a deferment base on hardships at home, advising them that his mother needed him to care for her. Of course it didn't hurt his cause that at the time he was also dating the daughter of President Lyndon Johnson. And perhaps it was just such inequities in the Selective Service program that most angered the young. They were upset not so much being called to serve as they did to the fact that often the rich, the powerful, and the brightest college students escaped being called up.

Some young men sought exemption from the Draft due to special situations: sole surviving son, deferment to complete an education, and even for personal reasons such as religious prohibitions against military service. The latter are called Conscientious Objectors (C.O.) and many of them did serve in non-combat roles, at least two C.O.s earning Medals of Honor, while others belonged to faiths that prohibited even these non-combat roles.

In 2010 according to the New Haven Register, a poll was taken after news broke that Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal falsely claimed on several occasions to have served in Vietnam during the war shows his Republican challengers for a U.S. Senate seat closing the gap.

Only about a quarter of voters, however, said he should withdraw from the race to replace retiring Democratic U.S. Sen. Christopher J. Dodd.

The Rasmussen telephone poll, showed Blumenthal, the leading Democratic contender, losing most of his lead over Republicans Linda McMahon and Rob Simmons.

A longer version of the video shot in Norwalk on March 2, 2008, was posted on Republican candidate Linda McMahon’s website. It showed Blumenthal correctly describing his military service before saying that he served “in Vietnam.”

“I really want to add my words of thanks,” Blumenthal tells the audience on the video, “as someone who served in the military during the Vietnam era in the Marine Corps.”

Blumenthal served stateside as a Marine reservist after receiving five deferments, reaching the rank of sergeant. On Tuesday, Blumenthal said he “misspoke” at times and regretted the errors.

Democrats in Connecticut and Washington stood by Blumenthal.

"On a few occasions, I have misspoken about my service and I regret that. And I take full responsibility," said Blumenthal. "But I will not allow anyone to take a few misplaced words and impugn my record of service to our country."

The crisis erupted when The New York Times reported that Blumenthal had repeatedly distorted his military service. The story included quotations and a video of Blumenthal saying at a 2008 event that he had "served in Vietnam." The newspaper also said Blumenthal intimated more than once that he was a victim of the abuse heaped on Vietnam veterans upon their return home.

At a veterans event in Shelton, Conn., for example, he said, "When we returned from Vietnam, I remember the taunts, the verbal and even physical abuse we encountered," according to a 2008 Connecticut Post story.

Blumenthal, 64, joined the Marine Reserve in 1970 and served six years, none of it overseas. He put in much of his time in Washington, where he took part in such projects as fixing a campground and working on a Toys for Tots drive, according to the Times.

He received at least five military deferments that enabled him to stay out of the war between 1965 and 1970, during which time he went to Harvard, studied in England and landed a job in the Nixon White House. Once he secured a spot in the Marine Reserve, he had almost no chance of being sent to Vietnam, the newspaper reported.

Former Representative Christopher Shays and Beth Davis, former Air Force Academy Cadet.


He is a close friend of Congressman Christopher Shays, whose early political career was marked by acts of defiance. He registered for conscientious objector status during the Vietnam War and acknowledges he would not have served if drafted. He said that he is a good friend of Richard Blumenthal’s and that he had watched with worry as Mr. Blumenthal gradually embellished his military record over the years. Over the last few years, however, more sweeping claims crept into Mr. Blumenthal’s descriptions, he said: for example, that Mr. Blumenthal had served in Vietnam, and had felt the sting of an ungrateful nation as he returned.

“He just kept adding to the story, the more he told it,” Mr. Shays said.

Michael Ray Jacobs, 52, is accused in federal court of wearing a naval officer's uniform on at least four occasions in March 2010. He has been charged with impersonating a Navy officer, complete with medals he never earned. Court records in the case say that he was seen in the uniform at the Oceana Naval Air Station stables, the Oceana exchange, a Navy dental clinic in Norfolk and a recruiting office. He is also charged with stealing a uniform from the Oceana exchange.

Navy officials said Jacobs never served in the Navy.

The U.S. attorney's office is prosecuting the case.

Impersonating a member of the armed forces has been a hot-button topic among veterans groups and in Congress, where a law was passed in 2006 making it a crime to falsely claim to have been awarded medals and decorations for military service.

Jeremy Michael Boorda (November 26, 1939 – May 16, 1996) was an admiral of the United States Navy and the 25th Chief of Naval Operations (CNO). Boorda is the only CNO to have risen to the position from the enlisted ranks. He was the first CNO who was not a graduate of the United States Naval Academy.

Boorda died May 16, 1996 a suicide, having apparently shot himself in the chest in his office while reporters from Newsweek magazine were waiting to interview him concerning his medals and awards. He reportedly left two suicide notes. He was reported to have been disturbed over a news media investigation, led by David Hackworth of Newsweek, into Valor device enhancements he wore on his Navy Commendation Medal and Navy Achievement Medal (small bronze "V" devices, signifying valor in combat), which the media report claimed he was not entitled to wear. He was said to be worried this issue would cause more trouble for the Navy's reputation.

A new Superior Court Judge in Norwark, CA. claimed to be a Viet Nam vet. He was not. A history professor at West Point claimed to be a Viet Nam combat vet. He was not. A Connecticut State Congressman claimed to be a Viet Nam vet. He was not. Why are all these draft dodgers and conscientious objectors claiming to be military veterans??

A panel of special masters from the California Commission on Judicial Performance(CJP) found May 15, 2001 that Judge Patrick Couwenberg misrepresented his educational and military backgrounds to various sources, including the governor who appointed him.

CJP lawyer Jack Coyle argued that Couwenberg should be removed from the bench because his lies about his military service and his educational and professional experience were a factor in his appointment to the bench.

Couwenberg’s lawyers said the judge deserved an opportunity to remain in office. They argued that his statements were not malicious, but were the product of a psychological impairment, and pointed to praise the jurist has received for his work from both prosecutors and defense attorneys who have appeared before him.

Couwenberg is continuing to hear criminal cases in Norwalk, California.

The judge has admitted that he falsely claimed to hold a master’s degree in psychology and made false claims of military experience, including an award of a Purple Heart, in Vietnam.

The special masters found that he also lied to the commission itself, in sworn testimony, by claiming to have participated in covert operations with the CIA in Southeast Asia in 1967 and 1968. Couwenberg testified that those claims are true, although he no longer maintains he was with the CIA and says he doesn’t know what agency he was looking for.

A CIA official testified that Couwenberg wasn’t working for that agency and that it’s highly unlikely that any other agency would have recruited Couwenberg for operations in Laos because no such missions were authorized.

Couwenberg claimed that some of his misstatements were intended to be humorous. Other statements, he claimed, were typed onto official forms by his wife, based on statements he had made to her 20 years earlier, a claim the masters found lacking in credibility.

A psychiatrist testified that the judge suffers from "pseudologica fantastica," a symptom of low self-esteem rooted in the judge’s early childhood in what is now Indonesia followed by difficult relocations, first to Holland and then to the United States.

The doctor said that the condition causes Couwenberg to mix fact and fantasy, but that it is treatable with therapy and doesn’t render him unfit for judicial service.

The masters, however, largely agreed with a psychiatrist called by commission lawyers at the masters’ hearing. Psychological testing data, Dr. James Rosenberg said, doesn’t show that the judge’s "repetitive lying" as an adult is due to childhood trauma, nor that he suffers from any recognized mental illness.

The CJP's removal order, issued Aug. 15 and effective Sept. 14, 2001 followed revelations that Couwenberg had, among several other things, lied about being a Vietnam veteran, receiving a Purple Heart, serving in covert operations for the CIA and earning a master's degree from California State University, Los Angeles.

Couwenberg's lawyers and doctors said the 1976 graduate of the University of La Verne College of Law in Ontario suffers from a pathological lying condition called pseudologia fantastica, which they tied to his childhood in an Indonesian concentration camp at the end of World War II.

Joseph John Ellis (born 18 July 1943 in Washington, D.C.) was a Professor of History at Mount Holyoke College and also at the U.S.Military Academy at West Point until 1972.

Ellis became the subject of embarrassing controversy when the Boston Globe published an article on June 18, 2001, revealing that Ellis lied about fighting in the Vietnam War (he served in uniform in America but did not go to Vietnam as he had claimed to his students and to the media).He claimed to have been a platoon leader and paratrooper with the 101st Airborne Division. He said he served in Saigon under Gen. William Westmoreland. Ellis did not serve in Vietnam at all, according to military records obtained by the Globe Newspaper and interviews with his friends from the 1960s. He spent his three years in the Army teaching history at the US Military Academy at West Point, N.Y. Ellis also appears to have exaggerated the extent of the involvement he claims to have had in both the antiwar and civil rights movements.

Ellis also falsely claimed to have scored a winning touchdown in a decisive game while playing for his high school football team. In fact, Ellis never played for his high school team.

On June 21, 2001 Professor Ellis issued a statement saying: "Even in the best lives, mistakes are made. I deeply regret having let stand and later confirming the assumption that I went to Vietnam. For this and any other distortions about my personal life, I want to apologize to my family, friends, colleagues and students."

Did Pfc Manning Expose War Crimes or Commit War Crimes?

HAGERSTOWN, Md. - Military District of Washington Commander Major General Michael Linnington is the Convening Authority (CA) in the case of U.S. vs Pfc Bradley Manning. He has taken the recommendation of the Article 32 Investigating Officer (IO) and referred all charges against Pfc. Bradley Manning to a General Court-martial. Manning is a low-ranking intelligence analyst charged in the biggest leak of classified information in U.S. history.

This means Pfc. Manning will stand trial for allegedly giving more than 700,000 secret U.S. documents and classified combat video to the anti-secrecy website WikiLeaks for publication.

Manning is a 24-year-old native from Crescent, Oklahoma. He faces 22 charges, including aiding the enemy. A General Court-martial has the power to impose the death penalty. The Convening Authority has said that it has taken the death penalty off the table. So, the maximum punishment that Manning faces if convicted is life imprisonment.

A judge who is yet to be appointed will set the trial date. The military judge will immediately face a "speedy trial" issue. Under the UCMJ, Uniform Code Of Military Justice, an accused must be brought to trial within 120 days of the preferral of charges.

Manning's lead defense counsel, is a civilian attorney, David Coombs.

Defense lawyers say Manning was clearly a troubled young soldier whom the Army should never have deployed to Iraq or given access to classified material while he was stationed there from late 2009 to mid-2010.

At a preliminary hearing in December, military prosecutors produced evidence that Manning downloaded and electronically transferred to WikiLeaks nearly half a million sensitive battlefield reports from Iraq and Afghanistan, hundreds of thousands of diplomatic cables, and video of a deadly 2007 Army helicopter attack that WikiLeaks shared with the world and dubbed "Collateral Murder."

Manning's lawyers countered that others had access to Manning's workplace computers. They say he was in emotional turmoil, partly because he was a gay soldier at a time when homosexuals were barred from serving openly in the U.S. armed forces.

The DADT (Don't ask, Don't Tell) policy of the military will loom large as part of the defense strategy. It is possible that the Defense Witness List would include the names of such people as retired Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullens.

On February 2, 2010, Admiral Mike Mullen and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said that they fully support President Obama’s decision to end the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law, which prevented openly gay people from serving in the military. “It is my personal belief that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly would be the right thing to do,” Mullen said at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing. “No matter how I look at the issue…I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens…For me, it comes down to integrity – theirs as individuals and ours as an institution.”

The defense also claims Manning's apparent disregard for security rules during stateside training and his increasingly violent outbursts after deployment were red flags that should have prevented him from having access to classified material. Manning's lawyers also contend that the material WikiLeaks published did little or no harm to national security.

In the December hearing at Fort Meade, Md., prosecutors also presented excerpts of online chats found on Manning's personal computer that allegedly document collaboration between him and WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.

Federal prosecutors in northern Virginia are investigating Assange and others for allegedly facilitating the disclosures.

The Bradley Manning Support Group, which contends Manning heroically exposed war crimes, issued a statement calling his prosecution "fundamentally unjust."

"This administration owes all Americans an honest explanation for their extraordinary retaliation against Bradley Manning," said Jeff Paterson, one of the group's lead organizers.

They Always Get Their Man, and Sometimes Woman.

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police are renown for always getting their man. Well, the Canadian Military Police appears to have done them one better. One cadet instructor appears to have gotten his man and his woman.

Canadian military police have charged an officer with disgraceful conduct and sexual offences against two cadets in B.C.

Capt. Daniel Moriarty, an instructor at the Cadet Instructors Cadre, is accused of having an inappropriate relationship with a 16-year-old girl and sexually assaulting a boy starting when the youth was 15.

The CIC trains youth 12-18 to be cadets in the army, navy and air force. The alleged offences occurred between 2008 and 2011, at the LGen E.C. Ashton Armoury in Victoria and the Vernon Army Cadet Summer Training Centre in Vernon.

Military police began an investigation after one of the teens came forward.

"(They) uncovered the facts of the case, and additional allegations were brought forward," said Capt. Karina Holder, spokeswoman for the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service (CFNIS).

Moriarty was arrested in July and released on strict orders not to have any contact with cadets or attend any cadet functions. He was relieved of his duties without pay, pending the outcome of the charges.

Moriarty is charged with two counts of sexual exploitation, one count of sexual assault or sexual interference and one count of behaving in a disgraceful manner, the CFNIS announced Monday.

Holder declined to reveal Moriarty's age or hometown, but said he is "a younger officer."

"Those in a position of leadership in the Canadian Forces are expected to conduct themselves in a professional manner at all times, and this type of alleged behaviour is treated with the utmost seriousness by the military police," said Lt.-Col. Robert Delaney of the CFNIS.

Moriarty is charged under both the National Defence Act and the Criminal Code, and the case will proceed through military court martial, which has the authority to impose criminal sentences. The sexual offences carry maximum penalties that range from five to 10 years in prison. Violating the military's code of conduct could result in a maximum prison term of five years.
Reader's comments »

Killing Americans Citizens Without Due Process.

You may remember that lawyers for the Obama administration have advised the president that using drones to target and kill American citizens without a trial is perfectly legal. If you were outraged by this so-called legal opinion and convinced it was made without any respect for the Constitution's due process requirements, take heart: The American Civil Liberties Union agrees with you.

In fact, the ACLU has now filed suit against the Obama administration to provide details of, believe it or not, the 10-year-old program of using drones to target and kill American citizens.

"The request relates to a topic of vital importance: the power of the U.S. government to kill U.S. citizens without presentation of evidence and without disclosing legal standards that guide decision makers," says the ACLU suit. "Given the momentous nature of the governmental powers that are subject of the request, the fullest possible transparency and disclosure is vital."

Momentous, indeed. The legal organization has said no one knows just how many Americans have been killed since the program began around 2002, but it's a huge concern that has dire constitutional implications, especially following the government's determination that even suspected terrorists can be killed, even if they are Americans by birth and citizenship.

The ACLU's complaint stems from the Obama administration's decision to kill Anwar al Awlaki, a U.S. citizen and leading al Qaeda figure who died following a drone strike on his position in a mountainous region of Yemen Sept. 30. Two other U.S. citizens - al Awlaki's son, Abdulrahman, and Samir Khan, were also killed by drone strikes in Yemen last year. And like al Awlaki, none of them were ever charged with terrorism, and you have to charge Americans with a crime if you think they're guilty of something. That's the way it works.

But instead of being forthright, the president has chosen instead to downplay the program, telling viewers during a digital interview from the White House recently only a few civilians have been killed in drone strikes.

"I want people to understand that drones have not caused a huge number of civilian casualties," he said in the interview. "For the most part, they have been very precise, precision strikes against al-Qaeda and their affiliates, and we have been very careful about how it's been applied."

Sure.

The truth is, other than a few privileged elites within the administration, no one really knows whether the president is being honest or not. And the ACLU says we have a right to know. The organization is undoubtedly correct on this matter.

"The government's self-serving attitude toward transparency and disclosure is unacceptable," says the ACLU complaint. "Although U.S. government officials, including the president and the secretary of defense, have made statements on the record confirming the existence of the targeted killing program, the government has not disclosed the process by which it adds names to the so-called 'kill lists;' the standards under which it determines which Americans may be put to death; or the evidentiary basis on which it concluded that those standards were satisfied in any particular case."

U.S. lawmakers and international legal bodies also want more information about the program. But like the ACLU's complaint makes clear, those who deserve answers most are us - the taxpayers and citizens the Constitution was written to protect.

Sources for this article include:

http://www.naturalnews.com/034587_anti-government_targets_Obama.html

http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/02/02/43592.htm

http://news.yahoo.com

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rPMPMqOjKY

http://www.washingtonpost.com

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/034869_ACLU_Obama_drones.html#ixzz1lfoieSUQ

Color Blind Justice.

Color Blind Justice.

Air Force Academy Cadets Evenson, Claxton, and Cressy.



The Air Force Academy announced on January 5 that three male cadets had been charged with sex crimes stemming from unrelated incidents between February 2010 and May 2011. Academy officials said the three cases were announced together because the investigations happened to end at about the same time.



Cadet Robert M. Evenson Jr. is charged with rape. Evenson, for his part, allegedly masturbated over a cadet and ejaculated on her stomach while holding her down sometime during the month of November 2010. Between March and July of that year, he's also suspected of forcing sex "using power or strength or restraint to her person sufficient that she could not avoid or escape the sexual conduct." In addition, in February 2010, the Charge Sheet contends that he helped a cadet in an Honor case "in return for a dating relationship and sexual favors, requiring her to violate her probation in return for helping her, and threatening to harm her military career if she did not comply."



Cadet Stephan H. Claxton is charged with abusive sexual assault. Claxton is charged with illicit acts in March and November of last year. In the first, he's said to have placed a cadets hand on his penis while engaging in underage drinking. In the second, he is accused of striking a fellow cadet on the face with his fist and unbuttoning and unzipping her pants without her consent, as well as forcibly kissing and choking her.



Cadet Kyle A. Cressy is charged with aggravated assault. The Cressy incidents date to May 2011. The charges state that he penetrated a female cadet's vagina with his hand or finger, as well as his penis, while she was "substantially incapacitated."



Evenson and Claxton face other, non-sex-related counts.



It is not clear how many cases the Air Force Academy could have prosecuted; but, at least, they did not simply try to paint the crime with a black face.

The sexual assault charges against the Air Force Cadets are serious but they are not worthy of a Court-martial. Only Cadet Robert M. Evenson, Junior deserves stronger discipline. He abused his position as an Honor Code enforcer to obtain sexual favors. He should receive a Special Court-martial, not a General Court-martial. He should be held to a higher standard of conduct because he was in a position of trust. He abused that trust by taking advantage of a younger and less mature female cadet. Article 15, Non-judicial punishment, would be the appropriate forum to dispose of all the other charges. These few incidents of bad behavior should not become the most significant factors in determining their futures. Courts-martial should be reserved for terrorists and mass murderers. To bring out the big guns for such minor offenses would be a bad lesson in judgement to teach all the other cadets in the Academy.


Rep. Jackie Speier, a California Democrat, said in an interview the day of Panetta's announcement that the military culture has "run amok" and the rules for handling sexual abuse need an overhaul. She has introduced a bill that would create a separate system within the military to investigate and prosecute sex crimes.

Currently, a victim's commander might be part of the decision-making process. That creates a conflict of interest; the commander could suffer career damage if a subordinate is victimized; the commander could be a friend of the suspect; or the commander could be the suspect, Speier said.

"We've got to do something fairly dramatic to get the academies back on track and the military back on track," she said.



"How do you measure prevention?", asked Teresa Beasley, the Air Force Academy's sexual assault coordinator.



Are these cadets simply a reflection of the same social dating forces at play in American society at large? It isn't clear whether the disturbing news means sexual predation is on the rise at the Military academies. It could simply reflect the better efforts to encourage cadets to report any kind of unwanted sexual contact.



The Air Force Academy's sex assault prevention campaign starts before freshman studies begin. Among other things, cadets are told the Department of Defense definition of sexual assault includes "intentional sexual contact ... when the victim does not or cannot consent."

The breadth of the definition comes as a surprise to some.

"When they come in at basic, you see the 'deer-in-the-headlight' look — 'Wow, I didn't realize I'd been assaulted,'" said Teresa Beasley.

Coast Guard Academy Cadet Webster Smith.

The Coast Guard had more than 10 cases of rape or sexual assault prior yo 2005. All of the sexual predators were white. None were prosecuted. Then, along came Webster Smith. He was African American and several women accused him of sexual assault. The Coast Guard Academy spared no effort or expense in prosecuting him in 2006. There was an attempt to make Webster Smith the poster child of sexual assault at the Coast Guard academy. It did not work.

In the book CONDUCT UNBECOMING an Officer and Lady I paint an accurate picture of the Coast Guard Academy sexual predator based on actual eye witness interviews. https://www.amazon.com/author/cgachall.blogspot.com