Air base expansion plans reflect long-term occupation of Afghanistan

The Washington Post reported that despite promises by the Obama Administration that the war in Afghanistan will end, U.S. investment in base expansion signal the opposite intention: a long-term military presence. This is similar to the reports of the 50,000 troops left behind in Iraq along with the thousands of mercenaries hired to provide security there. Ending “combat operations” does not mean that the wars or occupations are ending.

>><<

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/22/AR2010082201670.html?hpid=topnews

Air base expansion plans reflect long-term investment in Afghanistan

By Walter Pincus

Washington Post Staff Writer

Monday, August 23, 2010

Three $100 million air base expansions in southern and northern Afghanistan illustrate Pentagon plans to continue building multimillion-dollar facilities in that country to support increased U.S. military operations well into the future.

READ THE FULL ARTICLE

August 17, 2010

Court says US-Colombia base deal unconstitutional

http://ph.news.yahoo.com/afp/20100818/twl-colombia-us-military-court-7e07afd.html

Court says US-Colombia base deal unconstitutional

AFP

BOGOTA (AFP) – – Colombia’s constitutional court Tuesday declared a US-Colombian accord that gave the US military access to at least seven Colombian bases to be unconstitutional.

The court ordered the government to submit the agreement to the Colombian Congress, arguing that it should be executed in the form of an international treaty that would be subject to congressional approval in order to comply with constitutional norms.

The court did not address whether the agreement itself was appropriate.

The agreement “is an arrangement which requires the state to take on new obligations as well as an extension of previous ones and as such should be handled as an international treaty, that is, subject to congressional approval,” said the court’s chief justice Mauricio Gonzalez.

The court decided in March to review the agreement after a group of lawyers filed a complaint arguing it was unconstitutional.

The lawsuit claimed the October 2009 military accord was invalid because it was signed by the government of President Alvaro Uribe without prior discussion in Congress, as mandated by the constitution.

The military pact, part of a joint effort to counter drug trafficking and insurgencies, has been denounced by neighboring Venezuela as US interference in the region, raising tensions between Bogota and Caracas.

Opponents also accuse Uribe of ignoring the advice of the State Council — the highest court on administrative matters — which also urged that the congress take up the agreement before it was signed.

The Uribe administration deemed the State Council’s opinion non binding, and said the accord was not new but merely an extension of a 1974 military pact with the United States, and as such required no legislative oversight, government officials said.

Bogota and Washington last October signed a military pact that allows US troops to use Colombian bases, drawing fierce criticism from many Latin American governments who called it an affront to Colombian and Latin American sovereignty.

In a region in which the United States historically has been the power player, its partners still are keen to stress that they are not being dominated.

The United States since 2000 has channeled more than six billion dollars to Colombia through its Plan Colombia initiative to fight drug trafficking and insurgencies.

August 15, 2010

Hundreds of PTSD soldiers likely misdiagnosed

http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/breaking/100722849.html

Hundreds of PTSD soldiers likely misdiagnosed

By ANNE FLAHERTY

Associated Press

POSTED: 06:41 a.m. HST, Aug 15, 2010

WASHINGTON — At the height of the Iraq war, the Army routinely fired hundreds of soldiers for having a personality disorder when they were more likely suffering from the traumatic stresses of war, discharge data suggests.

Under pressure from Congress and the public, the Army later acknowledged the problem and drastically cut the number of soldiers given the designation. But advocates for veterans say an unknown number of troops still unfairly bear the stigma of a personality disorder, making them ineligible for military health care and other benefits.

August 13, 2010

Trauma of war haunts families in Hawai’i

Thanks to Cory Harden for sharing this information:

From Mental Health America of Hawaii —

On June 28, 2010, MHA-Hawai`i presented a Brown Bag Mental Health Seminar called “Understanding the Effects of War.”

Judge Michael Broderick, Lead Judge of the Special Division of the Family Court, which includes domestic abuse cases, explained that the most common theme among military families experiencing domestic violence is, “Where has he gone?” They are wondering why the soldier they love has come back, seemingly a different person.

“I do not hear this about any other category of person in my court.” He quoted:

* “He was one type of man before he was deployed, and he is another type of man after he has returned.”

* “I don’t recognize my husband.”

* “He never acted that way before he went to war.”

* “Ever since he came back from Iraq, he has not been himself.”

* “I want my husband back.”

* “He is an angry, depressed, suicidal person; he was never any of those things before he went to war.”

It is the Judge’s observation that war has significantly damaged the vast majority of men who appear on his domestic abuse calendar.

He explained that 5% -10% of the domestic abuse cases in his court involve soldiers; that equals to 15 a week, or about 720 a year on Oahu alone.

His is a civil, not a criminal calendar, which means the cases involve physical abuse, malicious property damage or extreme psychological abuse. These range from relatively mild (“shoved me in the shoulder”) to very severe (“threw me down the stairs, kicked me in the ribs, put a knife to my throat, and said, ‘If you ever leave me I will kill you.’”)

“Unfortunately,” said Judge Broderick, “most of the allegations involving soldiers are on the severe end of the spectrum.”

These severe cases involve choking, punching, threatening to kill the spouse/girlfriend, breaking down a locked bedroom door, calling 50 times a day, and sending 100 text messages over 48 hours. Many involve romantic jealousy – the accurate, or inaccurate, belief by the man that his wife/girlfriend is involved with someone else – and this often involves the period while the soldier was at war.

Children are often part of the restraining orders Judge Broderick issues, because, he said, “It has become crystal clear that children who are exposed to domestic violence, who hear it or see it, are damaged.”

Timing of when the military domestic violence cases come to his court is important. “These cases,” continued Judge Broderick, “come to court almost always within days or weeks of the soldier returning from the war.”

“And the more deployments, the more severe the abuse,” he reported.

One piece of good news: the Judiciary has recently convened a committee to look into the development of a Veterans Court, which would divert soldiers who are accused of certain crimes into treatment rather than sending them to jail.

August 11, 2010August 12, 2010

Partial transcript of First Friday show with guest Annelle Amaral, Native Hawaiian liaison

On Friday, August 6, 2010, Annelle Amaral was the guest on the “First Friday” live call-in program on ‘Olelo Community Television, Channel 53. The taped program will run on subsequent Fridays for the month of August. The program is also available online on-demand: http://olelo.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=30&clip_id=15103

Annelle Amaral is the Native Hawaiian liaison for the Army Garrison Hawai’i. In 2008, she was awarded a contract (W912CN-08-C-0051) to perform the duties of the Army’s Native Hawaiian liaison in Hawai’i. The original contract and its eight modifications are worth $742,392 until August 15, 2010. Below is a partial transcript fo the First Friday program.

>><<

First Friday 8/6/2010 – Guest: Annelle Amaral

Mililani Trask:

. . . Tonight we are going to be talking a look at a topic that has become controversial in the community because some people feel that there shouldn’t be a native Hawaiian covenant with the US Army. In part it is controversial because there’s not much known about what the covenant is, how it came about, and who the people are who are involved, and what the goal of this covenant really is. Tonight we’ll be taking a look at that . . .

Mililani:

. . . Joining us tonight to take a look at our main show which is focusing on the native Hawaiian covenant with the Army. Joining us tonight is Annelle Amaral someone who I have worked with for many years, someone who has been involved in many ways with the Hawaiian community. She was among the first women to become a fully vested police officer in the state of Hawaii. When she was a police officer she created the rape prevention education program which eventually covered all islands and reached 40,000 citizens. She was appointed to head up the affirmative action office by ex-governor George Ariyoshi she did a lot of grievances and mediation during that time. She went to the legislature in 1988 she served there until 1996 in the house of reps and was the majority floor leader when she left in 1996. She is a Hawaiian and in recent years she also had acted as a facilitator for some real difficult issues involving US government agencies private sector as well as the military. These issues such as the Superferry, Mauna Kea, and of course the Makua valley problems, and a number of other things. But let’s welcome to the show Annelle Amaral. And ask you Annelle to start by telling us a little bit about yourself and your background here in Hawaii.

Annelle Amaral:

Aloha and thank you for having me here, I appreciate it. Let’s see, what can I tell you about myself? I was born on the island of Hawaii raised here on Oahu. I’m a graduate of Star of the Sea High School, that’s a nice Catholic all girls school, not KS by the way. I also graduated from the University of Dayton. I have a BA in journalism, though I never worked in the field of journalism. You’ve given my background of work and what I found after sitting through far too many hearings at the legislature, and finding very little resolution there, I found myself drawn to the field of facilitation. Feeling as if, if people could just hear one another if they could just quiet the voices in their heads and listen to one another we actually would find ourselves agreeing more often than not, and though I after the leg became more and more involved with facilitation as a private business. It is to that end by the way that I end up here now as a contractor with the US Army. It was Peter Adler who was putting together a team of facilitators when the Stryker hearings first began back in I think was 2001. And he asked if I would join his team and I did.

There were about 7 of us then. It turned out I ended up being the last facilitator standing and ended up facilitating almost all the Stryker hearings and facilitating almost all of the Makua meetings. The last facilitation I did for Stryker was at Kawananakoa School and at the end of the day when everyone was headed home it turned into sort of a bad scene with one young lady screaming at me and with a group gathered around me and sort of shoving and pushing and a camera in my face to try to provoke me and I ended up being escorted to my car by the police. So I went to the then colonel, the garrison commander, the day after and told him it was time for him to look for another facilitator. That clearly I was no longer perceived as neutral and I could no longer function in this capacity. At that point, Col Margotta asked if I would consider another job, another task, and we talked about how hard the situation was becoming between Hawaiians and the Army and that clearly there had to be another way, another path. So he said to me, would you be willing to help us write a native Hawaiian community plan for the Army? And my response was I am not crazy. There is no way I’m going to write a native Hawaiian plan I said what I will do is I will help bring together Hawaiian leaders that could advise you and I would be happy to staff that effort and together we would write the plan, and if he was interested in that. And so that, actually, was the beginning of what ended up being the Native Hawaiian Advisory Council which is a group of people that come with either some substantive experience in broad subject matter areas like education, or economic development, or business, or people that come with a large constituency that have worked on Hawaiian issues like membership org like the Association of Hawaiian Civic Clubs and there’s another group, whose name slips my mind, but they represent cultural practitioners, Aha Kiole, and so we invited them to come and to work together to draft up a plan. The end result of what essentially is about a year and a half of work is the signing of a covenant that essentially sort of mirrors the family covenant with the Army . . . we recognize, we are committed to, that’s sort of the way the family covenant goes.

Mililani:

You know Annelle, back in March, KITV news had done coverage of this and they had quoted you saying the relationship between native Hawaiians and the Army has become increasingly hostile as the years have progressed and I think that that’s probably a good place to begin because as you had pointed out, the Stryker hearings were terrible and you know that from coming up to Hilo. There was strong opposition to Stryker and I’m not surprised that you had to be escorted to your car because the issues that Hawaiians have with the military have gone on for years starting from the overthrow and they really haven’t ever been addressed. I’d like to ask you Manu if you’d maybe look at some of these issues and then we can come back, because some of these issues such as the situation with Pohakuloa, Stryker, Makua we can then focus in on but there’s a background of history that really is a terrible history.

Manu Kaiama:

Yeah I would assume that that’s something that you looked at within your group because unfortunately the American military truly has a less than glorious history in the islands. We have to begin with the military’s involvement in the illegal overthrow of our queen . . . with the excuse of protecting American interests . . . theft of crown and government land . . . not looking back at 1893, let’s roll it forward . . .161 military installations in Hawaii . . . 7 superfund sites . . . military makes up top polluters . . . Kahoʻolawe . . . Stryker Brigade . . . most recent EIS seriously flawed . . . Makua . . . Schofield Barracks . . . Depleted Uranium . . .

Mililani:

I think Depleted Uranium is also a big one, I think we’ve talked about it for the Big Island, but you can see that a lot of the history and a lot of the problems relate specifically to military use and toxicity . . . I wanted to go back Annelle to the community plan of action, you had brought some people together. When I looked at the plan of action, it seemed that there was a framework to actually address some of these horrible things that Manu has raised I mean the actual language, the preambular section, here it says the military is recognizing here, “our training programs require access to lands for the purpose of conducting activities that we realize may impact the environment, social and cultural conditions. It is our responsibility to prevent pollution, minimize adverse impacts to land, and to conserve protect and preserve our natural and cultural resources. So in this action plan there actually is this recognition and there is this commitment and there is also a statement that we are going to be sensitive to the relationship with native Hawaiian peoples. Now this is strong words in a community plan of action how are the Native Hawaiian Adv council people who were working on this and who are working on this now. What is their actual role in ensuring that these commitments come about? We have some Hawaiians, actually we have a list that’s going to be showing provided to us by Annelle, some folks on the list are Hawaiian and they are members of the NHAC other signatories actually are folks signing for the military. But those Hawaiians that are the Native Hawaiian Advisory group worked on this plan and are aware of this commitment, what is their role? What are they doing?

Annelle:

The first thing that we’ve accomplished is that we have come to agreement on this language that we are talking about right now, this preamble, this one goal, this covenant, this promise, this sacred promise that we’ve made to one another. The next thing that we will do is start to work on steps to begin to address that. Now I will tell you that we have not yet come up with specific steps as it relates to this language that you just read out. We meet on a quarterly basis, the signing was in March, the meeting after that was in May, and actually that was a short meeting because our garrison commander left and we were being introduced to the new garrison commander. So the next meeting we’ll have in August. Our commitment is now that we’ve finished the business of putting together this broad language together we will begin to work on specific issues and identify the steps forward. Actually, the first meeting that we’re going to have in August what is on the table is a discussion first about economic opportunities. So that is in that meeting in august. But the work ahead is in these three documents that we were discussing.

Mililani:

You know Annelle, one of the things that you just bring up now, is looking for economic opportunities, and one of the big criticisms that has come out is that when this group came together, it was flawed because many of them were actually subcontractors from the military and that they were actually there they were receiving money from the military and the example was of course the Danners, Jade and Robin Danner who have military contracts for digitizing military data but the point was that are these really, these members of the NHAC, are they really independent can they really be honest if they in fact are receiving contracts from the US military and one of the purposes in the preamble is to create opportunities for mutual enrichment. That can have a cultural interpretation but clearly that has an interpretation in terms of the contract money that they’re getting from the US government.

Annelle:

I think you have to admit that the Council on Native Hawaiian Advancement does a little more than just digitizing some documents with department of defense some more than that. They are not entirely supported with that one contract. And it is true that also on our council sits Bruce Kepler, who is an attorney with an organization that gets department of defense money. My hope is, quite frankly, that we will be able to create an educational program to help more native Hawaiians who own their own businesses to be able to compete for these contracts and other contracts that are available right now for NHOs (Native Hawaiian Organizations). Right now we only have 15 native Hawaiian organizations, we get millions of dollars of contracts that go unclaimed by native Hawaiians because we’re not qualified, and instead, those contracts are picked up by native Alaskans and Native Americans.

Mililani:

Well the thing is what is really the purpose of the effort? Is the purpose of the effort to address the commitments . . . in the covenant or is it really just a cover so people who are getting these contracts can say that they are going to be a part of the advisory council, but to the extent that they are, what are they doing outside of that to address some of these environmental, social and cultural conditions . . . the long litany of which Manu just read?

Annelle:

Well Jade Danner is a member of our council and helped to craft this language as did all the other members of the council. So it would seem to me that all of us are part of producing a larger effort than simply economic development. Economic development is one piece of it, and as I said, we’re going to be discussing that in August. We haven’t started the discussion yet, but we will start and this is not an economic development council it is a council that deals with all facets of our life – employment and enrichment and sustainability of us as individuals is I think one good goal to go towards, but there are other aspects that we’ll be working on.

Manu:

Do the council members paid for their membership, for participating?

Annelle:

No, they’re all volunteers.

Mililani:

I don’t know if you took a look at who the members of the council are – they are Peter Apo, Jade Danner, Chris Dawson, Neil Hannahs, Alan Hoe, Rev. Bill Kaina, Charles William Kapua, Jalna Keala, Bruss Kepler, Leimomi Kahn, Deejay Mailer, Kaleo Patterson and William Richards those are the Hawaiians that signed the covenant, but they also together comprise what we are calling the Native Hawaiian Advisory Council. Annelle, are these people here representing Hawaiian organizations? Are they representing the Bishop Estate? In what capacity are these people serving?

Annelle:

These people, Mililani, were invited because of the whole body of work that they as individuals have done in the Hawaiian community. The wisdom, the knowledge of all of their work when it’s brought to the table is amazingly powerful. But they do not come to the table representing their businesses or where they work, they come to the table as Hawaiians who love things Hawaiian and who want to help create some positive solutions. No, they don’t come representing their organizations.

Mililani:

When I looked at the materials you had sent me, it seemed that they were clearly identified because they were people who were high profile and because they would be viewed as Hawaiian leadership. Also when I look at some of the press releases that are coming out from the military itself they’re identified in this way. Here’s a press release: ʻNative Hawaiians and Army talk about ʻIwi Kupuna.ʻ This was the recent July NAGPRA event that you had . . . and this was released by the US Army Garrison Hawaii Public Affairs Department, it says, “among those attending were reps of native Hawaiian organizations, later it goes through identifying Bishop Estate, Kamehameha Schools, but the military itself is saying reps of NHOs, and you’re saying they really are not . . .

Annelle:

This is the workshop that we had though. So, the workshop we had on NAGPRA at the end of July, what we intended there was to invite individuals from different native Hawaiian organizations to hear what NAGPRA defines as claimants, to understand the law, and to make informed choices as to whether or not they or their organizations qualifies as claimants for the ʻiwi kupuna found at Schofield BAX. So in that press release, when we talk about organizations, those people were invited to that training were invited because of the organizations they belong to that’s different from the NHAC.

Mililani:

Do these organizations provide funding, did the Bishop Estate or Kamehameha Schools ever provide funding for this effort.

Annelle:

No. The work that we do, the work that I do is funded by the Army

Manu:

You know there are so many things for me . . . when I look at this sheet for the NHAC and they are characterized as native Hawaiian leaders, I think that’s a loose interpretation because when I look at the names, and I know many of these people, I have aloha for many of them, but I don’t know what group of n Hawaiians they have led so I guess ʻleadersʻ meaning not that they lead native Hawaiians but they are native Hawaiians and maybe in a leadership position in their job or in their community.

Annelle:

These people have not led native Hawaiians? Rev. Kaina has not led native Hawaiians?

Manu:

I’m not saying all of them, but I wouldn’t consider all of them for example Peter Apo as a native Hawaiian leader.

Annelle:

Ok, he’s a former legislator, he’s led somebody.

Manu:

So that’s my point, the use of the term ʻNative Hawaiian leaderʻ is a little bit misleading or confusing. Because . . . when you have something like a huge media blast: US Army Hawaii Covenant with Native Hawaiiansʻ not with ʻsome Hawaiians in leadership positionsʻ but with ʻnative Hawaiians’ . . . it’s putting out to the general public that look, we are on this road, and native Hawaiians are on that waʻa also. It almost marginalizes those of us who have legitimate claims against the military for some of the wrongs that have been committed. So, my point is this kind of looks to me like an illusion of inclusion type deal . . . we are going to put this forward, we are going to have a big celebration, have a covenant signing and have a bunch of people willing to sign it, because I noticed that there were many people who could have tried to be involved in this, but the invitation wasn’t extended to them. And what we’re doing is we are making an illusion to the general public that things are going in a positive direction with the military and the Hawaiians and you read the covenant and I just don’t understand what the native Hawaiians are getting out of this. The Army is going to consider our culture and historical experience. I see the Army as being the recipient of everything here, and us, nothing that can even be quantified. And that goes even further for the things that you’ve been sponsoring. Like teaching the military wives hula or moʻolelo or oli …

Mililani:

It’s not things that get to the issue I think. But you know Manu, if I could just ask you, you’re a lineal descendent of Makua. I think maybe if we looked at an actual problem, the situation at Makua, the situation with Depleted Uranium on the Big Island, where there’s great concern. Initially Army said that there was no DU, but now we have the testing, we know there is. There was hope that when this covenant would be signed, there would then be a follow up and a way to address it. And I think that some of the folks in Makua were hoping that would come about as well, because there was an event in Makua. (To Manu) But yourself, as a lineal descendant, what issues do you raise, and how can these issues be addressed by either the military or yourself (Annelle), or possibly this Native Hawaiian community leaders group.

Manu:

Well, they do not speak for me so I can’t even answer that question.

Mililani:

No I mean as a lineal descendent at Makua.

Manu:

No, but you’re saying how can we work with them. So I don’t want them speaking for me. I find it very mahaʻoi that they went and signed this as native Hawaiians and they’re talking about many sensitive issues that Hawaiians do not want to be delegated to the sidelines on this because they are really, really important issues. So I don’t really have an answer for that . . . maybe in your plan Annelle, you guys have an answer of rolling it out to the people who have really been affected by the military and their misuse of the land, and maybe reaching out to lineal descendants, I don’t know. So is that a plan?

Annelle:

We don’t deal specifically with those issues, with any specific issue, quite frankly. The intention of the work of the council is to deal with the large issues that impact the lives of native Hawaiians and in a way that the Army may have some influence. So when it comes to Makua, I think that the division, the cultural resources deals directly with the issues around Makua, as does natural resources. The people in training, and so there are specific people who deal with the Makua issue. The council does not deal with that, neither do we deal with Depleted Uranium . . .

Mililani:

I think that’s the point.

Annelle:

It’s not within our skill range to deal with those specific issues.

Mililani:

But I think that’s the point, when you have a community plan of action, a preamble, and it says here . . . we realize that these things may impact the environment, social and cultural conditions. It’s our responsibility to prevent pollution, to minimize these adverse impacts. So, when we begin the native community plan of action, then we have this covenant, you would expect that there would be some responsible action on the part of the military to address this. When I went back and did the research for Makua, the military released these statements that say: ʻthe native Hawaiian community leaders day at the Makua Military Reserve was a Key part of releasing the military reserve EIS record of decision. This was done quote to counter negative media and native Hawaiian opposition when the record of decision was released. The strategic communications plan called for a community leader and media day consisting of noted native Hawaiian businesses, education and community leaders and all newspaper and TV stations. Native Hawaiian leaders were solicited from throughout the community. So what really happened was Native Hawaiian Community Leaders Day was sponsored but it was a cover for bringing out this EIS and the record of decision, and at the end, what happened was that the Army announced that they were planning to resume training with live ammunition at Makua on August 31^st. I think that the point that Manu is making is a good one. In that we have issues, we have a covenant, we have a plan, we say we’re going to address it, but what actually happens is there’s a native community leadership day to cover a military announcement that they we’re going to resume bombing, and it comes up looking like Hawaiians are endorsing it because these leaders are there. So how is that actually addressing the concerns of lineal descendents and others in Makua who are saying that they don’t want any more live fire and actually you were informing us that everything had fallen apart after this and it was back in court.

Well, alright, so, back the truck up . . . the article that you are reading is 2009; the signing of the covenant is 2010. The leadership day is a day to announce the record of decision, and what the garrison commander does in that meeting where certain Hawaiians were invited, not all Hawaiians, but some Hawaiians were brought, was for the purpose of the garrison commander to make an announcement about the use of Makua for training. Live fire training has in fact, till now, till August 6^th not taken place at Makua . . .

Mililani:

Why? Why hasn’t it taken place?

Annelle:

Well, as I’ve later read is there are different types of training strategies I think that are being planned for Makua, as well as for Pohakuloa. And that’s the bringing out with these commanders, bringing out their strategies for training. In part, the use of live fire has, I think, not taken place because there are still a couple of issues still pending in the court. One of them had to do with a shellfish study, and another had to do with cultural sites, so those are the two issues that I think are still pending in the courts, and that’s I think why live fire has not resumed live fire training. But when they are talking about the live fire training, they really are talking about a different kind of training in Makua than what you’ve seen in the past. That was the purpose of this prolonged explanation by the garrison commander in 2009. Given the situation in Afghanistan, the different way they would be using the land for training. Let me be real clear, the Army only has only one mission, and the only mission of the Army is to protect and defend this nation. And those that work for the Army only have one purpose, and that one purpose is to assure that the mission of the Army is carried out and that soldiers are trained properly to be able to carry it out. I mean, it’s that simple.

Mililani:

I think that puts things down pretty clearly, in that this is Hawaii, this is our land. We know that the mission of the military is basically for the making of war, and to defend a country, but it may not be ours. It’s the US and they are an occupying force. The thing is that if you’re . . .

Annelle (interrupting):

Well, you and I disagree there because I see myself as American

Mililani:

…We still haven’t had reparations for the overthrow, we’ve had an apology. The US has admitted to the illegality of the overthrow. The US admitted to the illegality of the military occupation, but we’ve never seen the reparations, we’ve never seen the restitution. We have military bombing at Makua, it hasn’t been cleaned up. We have DU up on Pohakuloa, and that’s a problem . . .

Annelle (interrupting):

And isn’t the Akaka Bill one of those steps toward getting reconciliation and reparations?

Mililani: The Akaka Bill? The Akaka Bill is not on this show, what’s on this show is the covenant and how it’s supposed to be addressing these issues.

*Questions

Mililani: . . . You know we’re obviously . . . were coming to the end of our program now, we didn’t get to half of our questions . . . we may have to revisit this. In fact, the American Friends Service Committee has called in saying that their research shows that this contract is worth $742.000 is that correct and will they have a chance to make some response . . .

Yes AFSC, we will bring you on to respond to this show. And Annelle is it true that you have a contract for 3 years worth $750,000?

Annelle:

I . . . if they say it’s true it must be true . . .

August 4, 2010August 23, 2010

Navy to hear comments on proposed sonar and explosives testing in Hawaii waters

From the Hawaii Independent:

http://thehawaiiindependent.com/story/sonar-eis/

Navy to hear comments on proposed sonar and explosives testing in Hawaii waters

Aug 04, 2010 – 02:26 PM | by The Hawaii Independent Staff

HONOLULU—The U.S. Navy announced its intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and Overseas EIS (OEIS) relating to military training and research, including sonar and detonating explosives, within the Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing (HSTT) study area. Six public scoping meetings throughout Hawaii have been scheduled to hear comments.

Last year, the federal government issued authorization to the U.S. Navy to impact whales and dolphins while conducting sonar training exercises around the main Hawaiian Islands for five years, Environmental News reported. The letter of authorization and accompanying rules allow for injury or death of up to 10 animals of each of 11 species over the five years covered by the regulations. The Navy requested authorization under the Marine Mammal Protection Act because the mid-frequency sound generated by tactical active sonar, and the sound and pressure generated by detonating explosives, may affect the behavior of some marine mammals or cause what the Navy calls “a temporary loss of their hearing.”

Mid-frequency sonar can emit continuous sound well above 235 decibels, an intensity roughly comparable to a rocket at blastoff, according to Environmental News. The sonar blasts travel across hundreds of miles of ocean to reveal objects, such as submarines, underwater.

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) will be a cooperating agency in preparation of this EIS and OEIS.

In January 2009, the NMFS’s ruling stated: “After reviewing the current status of the endangered blue whale, fin whale, humpback whale, sei whale, sperm whale, Hawaiian monk seal, green sea turtle, leatherback sea turtle, loggerhead sea turtle, and Pacific ridley sea turtle, … [Navy training activity in the Hawaii Range Complex] each year for a five-year period beginning in January, 2009, are likely to adversely affect but are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of these threatened and endangered species under NMFS’s jurisdiction.”

While Earth Justice wants the Navy to stop using sonar until it can avoid serious injury to marine mammals, the environmental group recommends several things the Navy can do to minimize the harm to marine life: Impose seasonal and geographical limitations, avoid nursing areas, ramp sonar up slowly, avoid areas that were created specifically to protect endangered marine life, create a 25-mile safe haven distance from shorelines, avoid steep-sloping seamounts that provide important habitat for many marine species, prohibit testing at night or other times of low visibility, and adopt protocols similar to those of other naval forces to minimize the impact on marine wildlife.

The Navy’s latest proposed action is to conduct training and testing activities within the at-sea portions of existing Navy training range complexes around the Hawaiian Islands and off the coast of Southern California. Training activities, such as sonar maintenance, explosives, and gunnery exercises, may occur outside of Navy operating and warning areas.

In 2009, the Navy instituted mitigation measures relating to sonar that include stationing lookouts, adjusting sonar decibel levels when marine animals are detected within 200 to 1,000 yards, and increased visual and aerial surveillance for marine life.

The HSTT study area combines the at-sea portions of the following range complexes: Hawaii Range Complex, Southern California Range Complex, and Silver Strand Training Complex. The existing western boundary of the Hawaii Range Complex is being expanded 60 miles to the west to the International Dateline. The HSTT study area also includes the transit route between Hawaii and Southern California as well as Navy and commercial piers at Pearl Harbor and in San Diego, CA where sonar may also be tested.

The alternatives to be addressed in the HSTT EIS and OEIS are:

No Action—The No Action Alternative continues baseline training and testing activities and force structure requirements as defined by existing DON environmental planning documents. This documentation includes the Records of Decision for the Hawaii and Southern California range complexes and the Preferred Alternative for the Silver Strand Training Complex Draft EIS and OEIS.

Alternative 1—This alternative consists of the No Action alternative, plus expansion of the overall study area boundaries, and updates and/or adjustments to locations and tempo of training and testing activities. This alternative also includes changes to training and testing requirements necessary to accommodate force structure changes, and the development and introduction of new vessels, aircraft, and weapons systems.

Alternative 2—Alternative 2 consists of Alternative 1 with an increased tempo of training and testing activities. This alternative also allows for additional range enhancements and infrastructure requirements.

Resource areas that will be addressed because of the potential effects from the proposed action include, but are not limited to: Ocean and biological resources (including marine mammals and threatened and endangered species); air quality; airborne soundscape; cultural resources; transportation; regional economy; recreation; and public health and safety.

Six public scoping meetings will be held between 4:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m., unless otherwise stated on:

1. Wednesday, August 4, 2010, 3:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m., Point Loma/Hervey Branch Library, Community Room, 3701 Voltaire Street, San Diego, CA.

2. Thursday, August 5, 2010, Lakewood High School, Room 922/924, 4400 Briercrest Avenue, Lakewood, CA.

3. Tuesday, August 24, 2010, Kauai Community College Cafeteria, 3-1901 Kaumualii Highway, Lihue, HI.

4. Wednesday, August 25, 2010, Disabled American Veterans Hall, Weinberg Hall, 2685 North Nimitz Highway, Honolulu, HI.

5. Thursday, August 26, 2010, Hilo High School Cafeteria, 556 Waianuenue Avenue, Hilo, HI.

6. Friday, August 27, 2010, Maui Waena Intermediate School Cafeteria, 795 Onehee Avenue, Kahului, HI.

Each of the six scoping meetings will consist of an informal, open house session with informational stations staffed by Navy representatives. Additional information concerning meeting times is available on the EIS and OEIS website at http://www.HawaiiSOCALEIS.com.

The scoping process will be used to identify community concerns and local issues to be addressed in the EIS and OEIS. All comments provided orally or in writing at the scoping meetings, will receive the same consideration during EIS and OEIS preparation. Written comments must be postmarked no later than September 14 and should be mailed to: Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, 2730 McKean Street, Building 291, San Diego, CA 92136-5198, Attention: Mr. Kent Randall—HSTT EIS/OEIS.

August 4, 2010August 4, 2010

Targeting Children: U.S. uses comics to promote U.S.-Japan military alliance

The U.S. is using manga, a Japanese comic book form to promote its tattered military alliance with Japan. Psyops targeting children?

And the racial and sexual politics of the characters are just a little creepy. The blond blue-eyed boy “Usa-kun” protects the house of the girl “Arai Anzu”. When asked why he says “Because we have an alliance…We are ‘Important Friends’.”

Meanwhile, a U.S. marine was arrested as the suspect in another rape of a woman in Okinawa. I guess ‘Important Friends’ expect special privileges from the ones they protect.

>><<

3 August 2010 Last updated at 05:36 ET

Manga to promote US-Japan military alliance

Front cover of the first of the four manga comics

The manga is the first of four explaining the half-century alliance

The US military is to use manga-style comics to teach Japanese children about the two countries’ security alliance.

Four comics featuring a Japanese girl and a visiting US boy will be posted online, each exploring how US and Japanese troops work together.

…

In it the young girl, Arai Anzu – which sounds like alliance when pronounced by a Japanese person – asks the boy, Usa-kun – a play on USA – why he is protecting her house.

“Because we have an alliance,” he says. “We are ‘Important Friends’.”

“It’s good to have a friend you can rely on to go with you,” the little girl concludes.

READ THE FULL ARTICLE

August 1, 2010

Okinawa problem could boil over

According to Asia analyst Peter Ennis, the August and November deadlines for finalizing plans for the realignment of U.S. bases in Okinawa and Guam will not be met. In a Pan Orient Op Ed piece, Peter Ennis wrote:

Indeed, the political underpinnings of the 2006 bilateral “Roadmap” for realignment of US forces in Japan, of which the relocation of some 8,500 US Marines from Okinawa to Guam and the construction of a Futenma replacement facility are cornerstones, are coming undone in both countries.

It has been reported that the Japanese government will “defer decisions until after the Okinawa gubernatorial election, scheduled for late November.” According to Ennis:

The Okinawa election is likely to institutionalize widespread opposition to construction of the Futenma replacement facility. Prime Minister Kan has already said he will not forcibly begin construction. To do so could easily spark broader opposition to US bases in Japan, which neither Washington nor Tokyo wants to see happen. So the stage is increasingly set for Tokyo, while ceaselessly voicing support for the replacement facility, to shrug its post-election shoulders and say it needs more (undefined) time to bring Okinawan opinion along.

Ennis poses the crucial question for the U.S.:

The big question now is how the Obama administration will respond to a situation over which it is rapidly losing even the pretense of control.

July 28, 2010

Statehood Hawai’i reviews The Value of Hawai’i

Arnie Saiki of the Statehood Hawai’i blog has written a review of the new book The Value of Hawai’i. The book is a collection of articles by scholars on various aspects of life in Hawai’i, including the military. Saiki writes:

Tom Coffman opens this dialogue by addressing the value of statehood. In this chapter, the image that Coffman describes as representing 50 years of statehood is of an injured Kekuni Blaisdell participating in the 50th anniversary statehood protest. Coffman remarks how over 50 years ago, Dr. Blaisdell was interviewed by Lawrence Fuchs for his book Hawaii Pono. Coffman writes that when he discussed this interview with Kekuni, he remarked, “at the time of the interview I was still brainwashed by American propaganda.” Like bookends to the 50 years of statehood, Kekuni’s injuries were emblematic of the social, economic and political wounds statehood continues to inflict upon the people.

This metaphor is particularly resonant for me in that I was put in charge of caring for Kekuni while inside the Convention Center where the celebration was taking place. While there, I personally witnessed streams of Hawai’i’s professional elites come by and offer him acknowledgment and support.

Saiki then compares the discourse of the book with tbat of Hollywood’s narrative as embodied in the remake of Hawaii Five-O.

The title “The Value of Hawai’i” is charged with the unspoken questions: “to whom?” and “for what?”

July 28, 2010

Hawaii Superferry failed to pay the state monthly fees

The Associated Press reported that the troubled Hawaii Superferry, a military prototype fast transport ship, had failed to pay the state its monthly fees nine months before the Hawaii Supreme Court ruling that overturned a state law retroactively exempting the Hawaii Superferry from state environmental review laws. AP reporter Mark Niesse reported:

The Hawaii Superferry was sailing under a facade of success in the summer of 2008 — boasting of record ridership — but it had already begun to shortchange the state on its monthly fees, according to an Associated Press review of Department of Transportation records.

The article went further to report:

During the first month the Superferry shorted the state, company President Tom Fargo went so far as to proclaim “business is good,” with July showing a 40 percent increase in passenger traffic on the vessel compared to the previous month.