Health Dominates Domestic Concerns: Healthcare Reform And Vaccines: Gardasil, H1N1 , And Military Programs Under The Microscope: Middle East Dominates The World News.
CLERMONT COUNTY, Ohio -- Target 5 has discovered that an alarming number of U.S. troops are having severe reactions to some of the vaccines they receive in preparation for going overseas.
"This is the worst cover-up in the history of the military," said an unidentified military health officer who fears for his job.
A shot from a syringe is leaving some U.S. servicemen and women on the brink of death.
"When the issue, I believe, of the use of the vaccine comes out, I believe it will make the Walter Reed scandal pale in comparison," said the health officer.
Lance Corporal David Fey, 20, has dialysis three days a week. His kidneys are failing, his military career is over, and he feels like his country abandoned him.
"I can't look at my old pictures. I really can't," said Fey. "I start looking at my old pictures, and I start crying."
Fey grew up amid the farm fields of Clermont County.
"I never missed a day at school," he said. "I was never sick. I was never sick."
A passion for sports and a sense of patriotism prompted the Blanchester High School athlete to join the Marines the day he turned 18.
"I looked at every branch, but I wanted the Marine Corps, because the Marine Corps was the few and the proud," said Fey.
Fey said he loved every minute of boot camp and combat training at 29 Palms in California. But on Nov. 28, 2005, his life would change forever. Fey was one of a group of Marines who lined up for an undisclosed shot.
"They asked us our name. We stood on these yellow footprints, and they gave us this shot, and we got the rest of the day off," he recalled. "After that shot, I started swelling up. I gained 30 pounds of water. My eyes swelled up where I couldn't see. I started snoring. I developed a rash on my hand."
Three weeks later, Fey was back in Clermont County on his death bed at Clinton Memorial Hospital. His kidneys were failing, and his body was so swollen that it left stretch marks.
"I would pray a lot," said Fey's mother, Cindy. "I would pray a lot, 'God take him.' When I couldn't hug my son because he would scream in pain or yell at me for touching him and stuff, I used to pray to God, 'just take him tonight.'"
Cindy Fey began pouring over medical records in search of answers. She said the shot was never listed in he son's medical records. The military claimed he never received a shot.
But as Target 5 discovered, the military's story would change.
The Department of Defense stated that "all service members' vaccinations are documented in the individual's permanent medical record." But Fey's military medical records revealed no shot on that day. Another Marine in Fey's unit told Target 5 that there is no shot listed in his medical records either and also said that the people who administered the shot never told his unit what it was.
When Cindy Fey called the U.S. Marine Hospital in 29 Palms to find out what kind of vaccine her son was given, she was told that the information was confidential.
Eleven months later, her son's medical records were mysteriously changed with a handwritten notation indicating that the mystery shot was a flu vaccine.
The military official who spoke to Target 5 on the condition of anonymity said that it was not surprising that nothing appeared originally in Fey's records.
"We have a lovely term for that," he said. "We call it C.Y.A. That's unfortunately an S.O.P. in the military."
Fey is one of a growing number of U.S. servicemen and women who are getting sick after receiving vaccines. And the highly praised Department of Defense medical officer who spoke with Target 5 said that the number is up in the thousands. The symptoms range from joint aches and pains and arthritic symptoms to death.
The Department of Defense said that it encourages "healthcare workers and vaccine recipients to report adverse (reactions) events." But the military never reported Fey's reaction to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the FDA.
"I see the way the propaganda and information war is waged against America's sons and daughters and how patients are treated who claim to be injured from a vaccine," said the unidentified health officer. "That's troubling. That should trouble America." The officer said those who have claimed to have had adverse reactions to shots are treated like it is all in their heads.
Asked whether servicemen and women are receiving experimental vaccines, the officer said, "I would hope to God not. But from what I've seen, I would have to say yes."
The Department of Defense maintains that the vaccines given to U.S. troops are safe.
Meanwhile, Fey is still waiting for a kidney transplant.
"My biggest wish -- just to get up and be without pain," he said. "To get up and just be happy again."
Fey's mother has been in contact with U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown in an effort to receive some answers. Target 5 contacted Brown's office and received the following statement:
“My office is in frequent communication with the Marine Corps and the family, and we’ve requested answers to the family’s specific questions. I have also assisted Mr. Fey in receiving his VA benefits for health care, service-connected disability, and education assistance. His mother has been a strong advocate on his behalf, and I look forward to continuing working with her to resolve outstanding issues. It is imperative that everything possible is done to keep the brave men and women serving in our military safe.”
A Proposal for Breaking the Israel-Palestine Deadlock
JURIST Guest Columnist Anthony D'Amato of Northwestern University School of Law says that the Obama administration can break the sixty-year deadlock in negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians by supporting the establishment of a special moot court - a quasi-official, transparent, privately funded tribunal that would render a non-binding advisory opinion on the two sides' competing claims...
Sixty years of negotiations between Israel and Palestine have produced nothing of substance. Yet the Obama administration still harbors the magical belief that forcing the two sides to talk to each other will enable them to resolve their differences.
It's not just that negotiations between Israel and Palestine haven’t succeeded, it's that they cannot succeed. Neither side can afford to be persuaded by rational, logical, or fairness arguments. It would be political suicide for a delegate to concede anything of substance in the negotiations and then go home and tell the public that he was suddenly persuaded that the other side was right.
But even if the negotiations involve exchanges and not just assertions, the issues dividing Palestine and Israel are incommensurate. For example, suppose Hamas offers to cease its rocket attacks out of Gaza and asks in return some of the land that Israel is occupying. Israel would undoubtedly reply that the rocket attacks are illegal and therefore Israel is not going to bribe Hamas to stop violating international law. By the same token, suppose Israel offers to move back to the border those portions of its Wall that encroach upon Palestinian territory, in exchange for Palestine rescinding its declaration of permanent war against Israel. Palestine will undoubtedly reply that the International Court of Justice has already advised that the Israeli encroachments are illegal and hence Palestine will not bribe Israel to obey international law.
Adding a third-party mediator, like the United States, will not break the negotiating deadlock. Anything the United States proposes, including seemingly neutral matters such as suggesting an agenda for the conference, will be viewed as political by one side or the other. The more neutral a United States proposal, the more deviously political will it be characterized.
Perhaps the core reason for the failure of negotiations is suggested by the Latin maxim nemo debet esse iudex in propria causa: no one should be judge in his own cause. In bilateral negotiations there are two judges who are judging their own cause.
If instead Israel and Palestine were trying to convince a neutral judge, their arguments would shift from the political to the rational. Fortunately we have a thousand years of experience with neutral adjudication: namely, courtroom trials.
I propose the establishment of a Moot Court to adjudicate the issues dividing Israel and Palestine. Its decision of course cannot be legally binding. It would be purely advisory. Nor by any means will the court itself be partisan like the one-sided Russell Tribunal on Palestine now being set up in Belgium. Our new court should be quasi-official: endorsed by governments, financed privately, open and transparent, with full media coverage, opening up a daily world-wide debate on the issues. No court like this has ever been constituted.
Israel and Palestine would probably oppose the Moot Court. But their approval should not be sought. The case is not about them; it’s about the mutual problem they have failed to solve.
Further explanation will be most efficient if I invent some Frequently Asked Questions and then proceed to give answers that will hopefully provoke readers to give answers that are better than mine.
(1) Will it be a private court or a government court? Neither; it will be an in-between court. Governments and NGO’s can participate in its creation as well as private individuals and groups.
(2) If its decisions are not binding, will anyone care about its final judgment? The interest in this trial, growing with each day of televised hearings, may be the most watched event of all time. Bloggers and news reporters will argue the merits of the case as it unfolds in the courtroom. Speculation about the final judgment will be immense. The educational value to the world public of the form, substance, and application of law will be unique and incalculable.
(3) How much money will be needed and where will it come from? $50 million will be needed, mostly for technology and translators. Twenty-five foundations and charitable trusts from around the world will be given an opportunity on a first-come-first-served basis to contribute no less and no more than $2 million each. These foundations will be listed prominently as the sponsors of the Court.
(4) Who will establish the Court and pick the judges? A group of Organizers, which can include government officials, foundation sponsors, and prominent international lawyers. George Mitchell, for example, should certainly be one of the organizers.
(5) Who will serve as judges? A panel of seven judges from around the world with reputations for wisdom, justice, and legal ability. Two judges will be partisans of Palestine and Israel. But their participation in the Court’s deliberations will assure Israel and Palestine that their positions will be fairly conveyed to the entire panel of judges.
(6) Will Israel and Palestine each appoint a partisan judge? They will have the right to do so, but if they decline, judges will be appointed for them.
(7) What law will govern the trial? The judges will apply international law and international principles of equity.
(8) Plaintiffs have the burden of production. Which country will be the plaintiff? Since Palestine wants to change the status quo more than Israel does, the plaintiff should be Palestine.
(9) Won’t Palestine argue that Israel should be Plaintiff because it has the burden of justifying its illegal occupation of Palestinian territory? The Court cannot begin by assuming either side is acting illegally. NOTE: The argument over who is the Plaintiff is just the kind of issue that brings bilateral negotiations to a screeching halt. Fortunately this Moot Court can be set up without necessarily paying attention to protestations coming from Israel or Palestine.
(10) How will the lawyers for Israel and Palestine be chosen? Israel and Palestine will be able to choose their own lead counsel. If they decline to make a choice, the Organizers will choose lead counsel and two assistants each from among the world’s best attorneys. Lawyers and judges may select their own clerks, who will be paid a modest salary by the Court.
(11) What will the lawyers and judges be paid? They will be paid a continuation of their usual income stream.
(12) Where will the court be located? It should be near the United Nations. The pre-trial location, which will only consist of a few brief meetings, can take place in any available courtroom in Manhattan, including courtrooms in law schools. The trial itself should take place on the campus of a college or community college at a reasonable distance from Manhattan.
(13) What about the pre-trial proceedings? The judges should meet with the attorneys to set schedules and deadlines. The plaintiff should be given a month to submit a Complaint; the defendant a month to submit an Answer and Counterclaims if any; the plaintiff two weeks to reply to the counterclaims. Full jurisdiction is presumed. The court should not entertain any motion to strike or dismiss. There is no statute of limitations. No summary judgment, no discovery, no interrogatories. Based on the papers filed, the court should draw up a list of some ten to thirty contentious issues and hold a hearing with the parties as to the sufficiency of the list. The shorter the list, the better the public will be able to keep track of the proceedings.
(14) What will the trial be like? The trial will follow the format of the average civil-law case, but with no jury. The biggest difference is that the case will be divided into the issues on the judges’ list. Each issue will be a mini-trial, with witnesses and arguments. Except for questions they may ask, the judges will not indicate their views on the issues. Witnesses may be called, including experts. Hearsay evidence will be allowed and no objections permitted, but the judges will not base any part of their final decision on hearsay evidence. Each side will be given at least a day for their opening statement and their summing-up. If the trial is well-managed it should not take longer than six months.
(15) Why should the Obama administration support this idea? The basic interest of the United States in the Mideast, as consistently expressed by Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama, is the stability of the region. The specific issues dividing Israel and Palestine are not as important as a stable peace. Thus the United States would appear to have more of a stake in the legal process of the proposed Moot Court than in the specific conclusions the Court may reach. And since the Court’s final judgment is not binding, it’s hard to see that any harm would come out of implementing this proposal.
Anthony D. Amato is Leighton Professor of Law at Northwestern University, where he teaches international law and human rights.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will comply with the demands of the Goldstone Commission into the recent Gaza war by proposing a full investigation into purported war crimes committed during the conflict, which ran from mid-December of last year until the middle of January.
Netanyahu is expected to present his parameters for the commission of inquiry at a cabinet meeting on Thursday. But officials cited by Ha'aretz said the Israeli investigation is likely to spend the bulk of its time determining how Judge Richard Goldstone and his team reached such outlandish conclusions regarding Israeli behavior during the war, and may end up being an indictment of the UN Human Rights Council that commissioned the report.
If Israel commissions its own report, it is sure to make note of Goldstone's shaky history of differentiating between actual war crimes and fictional accounts.
Israel's Makor Rishon newspaper in its weekend highlighted one such incident, recalling how Goldstone, while heading the international tribunal tasked with indicting Serbian war criminals in 1995, ended up indicting a fictional Serbian character based on the false claims of an unidentified eyewitness.
Goldstone's indictment of a man known only as "Gruban" for allegedly raping and torturing Muslim prisoners made international headlines when it turned out Gruban is a fictional character from a famous Serbian novel about World War II.
It was later revealed that the eyewitness was a Serbian war correspondent who made an off-hand comment about the terrible war criminal "Gruban" to an American colleague. Based on nothing more, Goldstone issued an indictment and launched an manhunt for the criminal.
In related news, a war crimes suit filed by a British Muslim lawyer against Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak was thrown out by a London court on Tuesday. The court ruled that Barak enjoys diplomatic immunity, and so cannot be prosecuted. The lawyer and his colleagues vowed to continue seeking the arrest and prosecution of any Israeli officials who visit the UK.
The Healthcare Bait And Switch Freedom Socialist Party Candidate Obama's promise to reform healthcare lit a torch of hope for millions of people. No more postponing doctor visits or feeling helpless before ...See all stories on this topic
