Tag: Movements and Resistance

Posted on

Superferrry builder lands a big military contract

The Austal corporation, builder of the two Hawaii Superferry ships has just won a $1.6 billion Joint High Speed Vessel contract from the U.S. Department of Defense to build up to ten similarly designed transport ships.  Joan Conrow has several interesting posts on this on her blog.  The nasty comments from some indicate that the analysis of the military-corporate interests behind the Superferry are hitting a nerve.   Several months ago she did an excellent series on the Superferry’s military connections.  Here’s an article from Australia about Austal’s new military contract:

Source: http://www.thewest.com.au/default.aspx?MenuID=3&ContentID=108252

Austal soars as US beds down lucrative contract

15th November 2008, 6:00 WST

Perth-based shipbuilder Austal is on top of the world after yesterday winning a landmark deal potentially worth $US1.6 billion ($2.5 billion) that will see it build up to 10 highspeed transport vessels for the US Department of Defence.

The group confirmed it had won an $US185 million contract to design and build the first 103-metre vessel under the Joint High Speed Vessel program with options to build as many as nine more.

The coup caps years of lobbying and investment by Austal, including the establishment of a shipyard in Mobile, Alabama, to undertake the sensitive US military work.

Austal shares surged 22.5 per cent on the announcement, leaping 36.5¢ to $1.98. The award is the company’s first as a prime contractor in the US.

The high-speed, shallow-draft vessels will be capable of transporting troops and equipment, including tanks, over 1200 nautical miles at speeds of more than 35 knots, for the US Navy, Army and Marine Corps.

They will be built in Mobile, where Austal chief executive Bob Browning is based, but much of the design work will be done in Perth.

Austal chairman and founder John Rothwell said yesterday it was “extremely unlikely” that 10 ships would not be built as a minimum under the contract despite the grim economic outlook.

“The concern that I think investors in Austal have had has been the stability of the earnings, the potential lumpiness of the business and I think what this does is it puts another product line into the mix, and I think it will probably give them great confidence,” he said. Mr Rothwell said the deal demonstrated that Austal could bid for programs in the US as a prime contractor and win them against very stiff competition.

“We are a foreign-owned company in the United States competing with US companies, and for us to win a contract of that size in our own right with what has to be the world’s most powerful navy certainly means a big tick for us,” he said.

Mr Rothwell said the current expansion of Austal’s facilities in the US along with its past experience with the country’s navy had counted in the company’s favour. The first vessel is due by November 2011.

Austal is completing work also on a 127m aluminium Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) for the US Navy as well as building a 113m high-speed catamaran for Hawaii Superferry. The shipbuilder rated its chances of winning a second LCS contract early next year as strong. Mr Rothwell said Austal’s 1000-strong workforce in the US would swell by an extra 500 employees as a result of the JHSV contract, potentially rising to more than 3000 workers in the near future.

His predictions follow Austal’s decision to cut 109 employees last month in response to falling global demand for its ships and ferries.

Mr Rothwell reassured investors there were no thoughts of “pulling up stumps” and moving the company’s headquarters to the US.

DALE MILLER

Posted on

Women Building Genuine Security

This is an excellent description of the International Women’s Network Against Militarism by Gwyn Kirk, one of the founding members.

http://www.feministafrica.org/uploads/File/Issue%2010/profile.pdf

Building Genuine Security: The International Women’s Network Against Militarism

Gwyn Kirk

We are very pleased to have the following description of our Network included in this issue of Feminist Africa because of our concern about the implementation of AFRICOM. We are especially alarmed because Network members have observed and experienced first-hand similar developments and their impacts in Asia, the Pacific, and the US. We also want our African sisters, who face the possibility of new, and perhaps long-term, US military presence on the continent, to know we stand in solidarity with you.

Currently, worldwide, the US military maintains over 700 bases and installations, with facilities and operations on every continent. In addition, there are numerous secret sites, such as those in Israel, or other sites not yet considered official, such as newly established bases in Iraq. The most recent effort at military expansion, the proposed development of AFRICOM or the US Africa Command, is the newest of six regional structures designed to cover particular geographic areas. The other five are the Pacific, Middle East, Europe, South American, and North American commands, each led by a commanding officer responsible for the entire region. The goal is to maintain an integrated network of personnel, equipment, and weapons that can respond at a moment’s notice “to protect US interests,” that is, the interests of capital and ruling elites.

About Us

This Network started in 1997 when 40 women activists, policy-makers, researchers, teachers, and university students from South Korea, Okinawa, mainland Japan, the Philippines and the United States gathered to share information and to strategize about the negative effects of US military operations in all our countries. These included military violence against women and girls, the plight of mixed-race Amerasian children abandoned by US military fathers, environmental contamination, and the distortion of local economies. More recently, women from Puerto Rico, Hawaii, and Guam have joined. We have developed a common analysis and understanding of how the US military, directly and indirectly, destroys lives, jeopardizes the physical environment, undermines local economies and cultures, and destroys opportunities to live in sustainable ways. We focus on military institutions, as well as military values, policies, and operations, and their impacts on our communities, especially on women.

The work of the network is significant in several key ways. First, it has brought together women across national, regional, class, race, and linguisticboundaries in a sustained way. Although some of us have met each other at activist and academic conferences, international gatherings such as Beijing Women’s Conference (1995), Hague Appeal for Peace (1999), Tokyo Women’s Military Tribunal (2000), and the World Social Forum (2004), the Network has provided a loose organizational structure and has combined resources to enable participants to meet regularly to exchange information, strategize together, to identify research needs, and to get to know each other personally and politically.

Another importance of the Network is our developing understanding of what is involved in transnational feminist praxis. We are a multi-national, multi-lingual group who subscribe to a range of feminist perspectives. This has both enriched our work and challenged us to think and re-think our collective and individual theoretical understandings of militarism, militarization, military occupation, and armed conflict. Most significant has been examining our relationships to each other while we struggle to resist US militarism and its impacts. Through the decade of our existence, we have faced and addressed, in a variety of ways, issues related to the following questions:

• What does it mean to work across, and in spite of, the asymmetrical structural power relations among us? These include intra-regional inequalities such as among Japanese, Korean and Filipino members, as well as interregional disparities between the US and all other country members.

• How do we address the contradictions and tensions raised by the nature
of these relationships?

• How do we deal with linguistic differences, related to class, ethnicity, culture, so we can communicate effectively as we discuss issues that are intellectual and emotional, and sometimes traumatic?

• What are our collective responsibilities for our respective country’s polices and practices that have impacted others in our Network? This is especially true for US and Japanese participants, whose countries have heavily shaped geopolitical relations historically and contemporarily.

• What do we actually mean by “transnational feminist praxis”?

Key Lessons Learned

We have learned many common-sense and profound lessons during our ten years together. Perhaps the most important is working multilingually. At the first meeting in 1997, we recognized the need for more adequate interpretation and translation among English, Japanese, Korean and Tagalog. This difficulty, and the tensions it generated, still persist. A group of volunteer translators have created a Feminist Activist Dictionary to be used by our interpreters and members, so that we can share common meanings and definitions of words that often cannot be translated directly from one language to another. These include terms such as rape and gender in English, han in Korean, and giri in Japanese. We realise that interpretation and translation take time. Talks and presentations should be finished before a meeting so translators can work on them, for example. Also, we must schedule meeting sessions to allow for interpretation, and identify women who are willing to act as interpreters. As we are not able to pay them for their time, we greatly appreciate the significant, and essential, contribution they make to our work.

One of the most profound lessons deals with privilege and access to resources – both assumed and real-based on race/ethnicity, class, nation, history, and language. One way this has manifested is in relation to money and funding, for example. Sometimes, women outside the US have assumed that US-based women and, to a lesser extent, Japanese women, have easy access to financial resources. Relative to poorer countries, this may be true, but it has not been easy for women living in the US to secure funding for the Network. The nature of work – opposing US military and economic policies and working outside the US – makes it difficult to secure sustained funding from most donors. Occasionally, we have been fortunate enough to secure grants from groups such as the Global Fund for Women. Another problem has been the assumption, by those outside the United States, that US women are a monolithic group. In reality, the US is characterized by serious inequalities based on region, language, race, class, and immigration status. As women living in the US, we have sought to raise awareness about these issues during international Network meetings, including trying to ensure adequate representation of a range of US participants.

Our Vision and Mission

We envision a world of genuine security based on justice, respect for others across national boundaries, and economic planning based on local people’s needs, especially the needs of women and children. Our shared mission is to build and sustain a network of women to promote, model, and protect genuine security in the face of militarism.

Our goals

• To contribute to the creation of societies free of militarism, violence, and all forms of sexual exploitation in order to guarantee the rights of marginalized people, particularly women and children, and to ensure the safety, well-being, and long-term sustainability of all our communities.

• To strengthen our common consciousness and voice by sharing experiences and making connections among militarism, imperialism, and systems of oppression and exploitation based on gender, race, class and nation.

What is Genuine Security?

Security is often thought of as “national security” or “military security”. We believe that militarism undermines everyday security for many people and for the environment. Following the United Nations Development Program report of 1994, we argue that genuine security arises from the following principles:

1. The physical environment must be able to sustain human and natural life;

2. People’s basic needs for food, clothing, shelter, health care, and education must be guaranteed;

3. People’s fundamental human dignity should be honored and cultural identities respected;

4. People and the natural environment should be protected from avoidable harm.

Working for genuine security means:

• Valuing people and having confidence in their potential to live in life-affirming ways;

• Building a strong personal core that enables us to work with “others” across lines of significant difference through honest and open dialogue;

• Respecting differences based on gender, race, and culture, rather than using these attributes to objectify “others” as inferior;

• Relying on spiritual values to make connections with others;

• Creating relationships of care so that children and young people feel needed and gain respect for themselves and each other through meaningful participation in community projects, decision-making, and work;

• Redefining manhood to include nurturing and caring for others. Men’s sense of wellbeing, pride, belonging, competence, and security should come from activities and institutions that are life affirming;

• Valuing cooperation over competition;

• Eliminating gross inequalities of wealth between nations and between people within nations;

• Eliminating oppressions based on gender, race, class, heterosexuality, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, able body-ism, and other significant differences;

• Building genuine democracy – locally, nationally, regionally, and internationally – with local control of resources and appropriate education to participate fully in decision-making processes;

• Valuing the complex ecological web that sustains human beings and of which we are all a part;

• Ending all forms of colonialism and occupation.

Issues

In our diverse communities we are working on: military violence against women/trafficking, problems arising from the expansion of US military operations, health effects of environmental contamination by preparations for war, and the everyday militarization of all our societies. In the US, low-income communities face aggressive military recruiting and inadequate services due to inflated military budgets at the expense of socially-useful programs. Part of our work is to redefine security, as described above, especially for women, children, and the environment.

Alongside our anti-military critiques, we are working on creating sustainable communities and putting forth our visions of alternatives, sustainable ways to live.

Network Activities vary from country to country and include the provision of services and support to victims/survivors, public education and protest, research, lobbying, litigation, promoting alternative economic development, and networking.

We seek to:

• promote solidarity and healing among the diversity of women affected by militarism and violence;

• integrate our common understandings into our relationships in the Network and in our daily lives;

• promote leadership and self-determination among all the sisters of the Network;

• initiate and support local and international efforts against militarism;

• strengthen our work by exploring our diverse historical, social, political, and economic experiences in each nation/country.

Together, we address the challenge of how to link these separate efforts, each focusing on small parts of the military system. We do it in the following ways:

• International meetings

• Facilitating links among country groups

• Coordinated activities

• Supporting each others’ individual activities and campaigns through letters, donations, selling goods

• Educating people in our communities about how US militarism impacts women, children, and the environment in other countries of the Network

• Writing, talks and presentations

Network participants have organised 6 international meetings in:

Okinawa (1997 and 2000)

South Korea (2002)

Philippines (2004)

United States (1998 and 2007)

These meetings include site visits to US bases and women’s projects, public sessions to share information and perspectives, internal discussions of the issues women are working on in each nation, art-related and cultural activity, and media work.

Network members have also participated in other international efforts:

Hague Appeal for Peace (1999)

Grassroots Summit for Bases Cleanup (1999)

World Social Forum (2004)

Our expertise

• Knowledge. We know how US militarism impacts communities in the Asia/Pacific region and the Caribbean as well as in the United States.

• Analysis. We see important connections and continuities between US domestic and foreign policy that link communities impacted by military decisions, budgets, and operations in the US and abroad. We use the lenses of gender, race, class and nation to analyze the issues.

• Solidarity. Our Network comprises veteran organizers and relative newcomers. We have sustained this Network for 10 years across geographical distances, differences of language and culture, and complex histories among our nations.

• Languages. At the Network level we decided not to work only in English. This would limit participation to women with college education, whereas many activists who are doing cutting edge work are not fluent in English. Currently, the Network works in 5 languages: English, Japanese, Korean, Spanish and Pilipino. We have dedicated interpreters/translators who facilitate clear communication. They have compiled a dictionary of over 400 terms that need precise, systematic translation.

• Organizing and Leadership Development. The country groups all involve skilled and experienced organizers working in their communities on these issues. The international meetings have been extremely effective in supporting this local organizing and creating opportunities for younger activists to develop leadership skills and experience.

• Public education. Many Network participants give talks and workshops, and publish popular articles, op ed pieces, and more scholarly papers.

• Art and social change. Network participants include visual artists, poets, writers, dancers, and performers. We see a crucial connection between the arts and action for social change.

Future growth involves:

• Better communication among our country groups;

• Deeper understanding of the issues and how to address them;

• More country-country connections and activities;

• More Network-wide activities;

• Expanding the Network by adding more country groups and linking with other women’s anti-military networks;

• Being able to support a Network secretariat, possibly with paid staff time.

International partners include women active with:

Asia Peace Alliance, Tokyo.

Japan Coalition on the US Military Bases, Yufuin, Oita.

Okinawa Women Act Against Military Violence, Naha, Okinawa.

Du Rae Bang (My Sister’s Place), Uijongbu, South Korea.

National Campaign to Eradicate Crime by US Troops in Korea, Seoul.

SAFE Korea, Seoul.

BUKLOD Center, Olongapo City, Philippines.

Philippines Women’s Network for Peace and Security, Manila.

WEDPRO (Women’s Education, Development, Productivity and Research

Organization) Quezon City, Philippines.

Institute for Latino Empowerment, Caguas, Puerto Rico.

Alianza de Mujeres Viequenses, Vieques, Puerto Rico.

DMZ-Aloha A’ina, Hawaii.

Nasion Chamoru, Guam

Women for Genuine Security is the US-based Network group with members in the San Francisco Bay Area, Los Angeles, and Seattle. US partners include women active with Bay Area groups: AFSC, babae, FACES, KAWAN, PANA Institute, Women of Color Resource Center, and Women’s International League for Peace & Freedom.

We are among the Network founders and have several distinct roles within it:

• Transnational collaborative work with women outside the United States – e.g. educating US audiences about the US military presence in the Asia-Pacific region and the Caribbean, and writing letters to officials (in the US and outside) in support of local activism in Network nations.

• Working with US groups concerning the effects of militarism in the United States and bringing this perspective to the international Network.

• Fundraising to support travel and accommodation at international meetings for women from poorer countries.

• Providing informal co-ordination for the Network.

As women living in the United States, our model of transnational organizing means taking into account the unequal power relationships between the US and the countries where US bases are located. Taking our national privilege seriously, we strive to create working relationships that are equal, mutually respectful and democratic, between women across nations. We seek to avoid recreating the same power hierarchy among us as exists between our nations.

We want to work with women who are doing grassroots organizing, which means that translation and interpretation are key components of our work. This international network includes strong friendships that have been sustained for over a decade. We believe that working together is possible despite language difference, cultural differences, and geographic distance because we have forged strong personal relationships, not just based on the issues we care about, but by really hearing and sharing each others’ passions, life stories, and commitments.

Our international meetings last from 4-7 days to allow time for translation, and the cultural sharing that grounds our relationships and commitments to one another’s struggles and to our work together. We also build our connections through country-to-country exchanges of women activists visiting each other for consultation, study, speaking tours, research, and shared inspiration.

For more details see www.genuinesecurity.org

This website started out with a focus on Women for Genuine Security. We plan to expand it to become more international in scope.

Contact us at info@genuinesecurity.org

Posted on

Chagos exiles cannot return to Diego Garcia

This from the BBC.  A terrible outcome from the House of Lords for Chagos islanders seeking to return to their island Diego Garcia.  The U.S. uses Diego Garcia as a strategic military base from which to launch attacks in the Middle East and as a secret prison for special renditions.

***

Chagos exiles ‘cannot return’

Lawyer Richard Gifford says islanders are in shock

Exiles of the Chagos Islands will not be able to return to their homeland, the House of Lords has ruled.

The government won its appeal against a previous court decision that had ruled in favour of 2,000 former residents of the British Indian Ocean territory.

They were evicted in the 1960s when the colony was leased to the US to build an airbase on the atoll of Diego Garcia.

Their solicitor Richard Gifford said they were in a “state of shock” at the “disappointing outcome”.

Mr Gifford said: “It has been the misfortune of the Chagos islanders that their passionate desire to return to their homeland has been caught up in the power politics of foreign policy for the past 40 years.”

He added that the islanders were “really shocked” at the Law Lords’ decision, following as it did the unanimous opinion of seven other judges that their right of abode was “so fundamental” the government could not take it away.

Lord Hoffmann said the case’s subtext was funding – the UK may have had to pay for rebuilding their community.

He said the Chagossians had understandably “shown no inclination to return to live Crusoe-like in poor and barren conditions of life”.

And in light of this, he said Foreign Secretary David Miliband was “entitled to take into account” the possibility the Chagossians would call on the UK to support “the economic, social and educational advancement’ of the residents”.

The campaigning journalist John Pilger said the judgment was polit ical and upheld an “immoral and illegal” act.

He added: “How could it be otherwise when the highest court in this country has found in favour of the most flagrant injustice, certainly in my lifetime?”

The Law Lords decision is the final judgement in the long-running case.

In a statement, Mr Miliband said: “It is appropriate on this day that I should repeat the government’s regret at the way the resettlement of the Chagossians was carried out in the 1960s and 1970s and at the hardship that followed for some of them.

“We do not seek to justify those actions and do not seek to excuse the conduct of an earlier generation.”

However, Mr Miliband said that the courts had previously ruled that fair compensation had been paid to the Chargossians and that “the UK has no legal obligation to pay any further compensation”.

He added: “Our appeal to the House of Lords was not about what happened in the 1960s and 1970s. It was about decisions taken in the international context of 2004.”

BBC world affairs correspondent Mike Wooldridge said the high hopes of the Chagossians would now be dashed by the ruling. He said it was likely they would take their case to the European Court of Human Rights.

In 2000, High Court judges ruled that Chagossians could return to 65 of the islands, but not to Diego Garcia.

In 2004, the government used the royal prerogative – exercised by ministers in the Queen’s name – to effectively nullify the decision.

Last year, the court overturned that order and rejected the government argument that the royal prerogative was immun e from scrutiny. The government had asked the Lords to rule on the issue.

A spokesman for the Chagos Islanders said in a statement before the three-to-two majority ruling: “Forty years ago, in December 1966, the Harold Wilson Labour government gave away our homeland, including Diego Garcia, which has been given to the US government to use as a military base.

“The whole Chagossian population was forcibly removed from our homes, our animals were killed and we were dumped, mainly in the slums of Mauritius. We have been treated like slaves.”

The exiled residents had hoped that if the Law Lords ruling had gone in their favour, their heritage could be rebuilt around a new tourist industry.

The Chagossians will require immigration consent to visit the islands for purposes such as tending graves, but the government has made it clear that consent would be no more than a formality.
EXILE’S BATTLE TO RETURN
1967 – 1971: Chagossians evicted from Indian Ocean homeland
2000: High Court rules they can return to 65 islands, but not Diego Garcia
2004: Government uses royal prerogative to nullify decision
2007: Court overturns that order
June 2008: Government asks the Lords to rule on the issue
October 2008: Government wins appeal against the return

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/uk_news/7683726.stm

Published: 2008/10/22 13:40:06 GMT

Posted on

Big win for war resisters – Lt. Watada can’t be retried

HonoluluAdvertiser.com

October 22, 2008

Army can’t retry Watada for refusal to serve in Iraq war

Judge blocks Army from retrying war objector on three main allegations

Advertiser Staff and News Services

SEATTLE – A federal judge ruled late yesterday that the Army cannot retry 1st Lt. Ehren Watada, the Kalani High graduate who was the first commissioned officer to publicly refuse deployment to the war in Iraq, on the main charges against him.

Watada was charged with missing his Fort Lewis, Wash., Stryker brigade’s deployment and with conduct unbecoming an officer after he refused to board a flight to the Middle East in June 2006.

The 30-year-old soldier contended that the war is illegal and that he would be a party to war crimes if he served in Iraq. His first court-martial ended in a mistrial in February 2007.

Watada’s father, Bob, last night said, “It’s obviously good news. It’s very good news.”

Bob Watada added that “we kind of expected this” because U.S. District Judge Benjamin H. Settle of Tacoma ruled in November 2007 that a second trial would violate Ehren’s constitutional rights involving double jeopardy, or being tried twice for the same crime.

Settle at the time put in place a preliminary injunction temporarily halting a new court-martial.

Settle yesterday ruled that the government could not retry Watada on three of the charges because doing so would violate Watada’s double jeopardy rights.

Settle barred the military from retrying Watada on charges of missing his deployment to Iraq, taking part in a news conference and participating in a Veterans for Peace national convention.

But the court did not rule out the possibility that the Army, after considering legal issues, could retry Watada on two counts of conduct unbecoming an officer resulting from his media interviews.

“He dismissed the heart of their case,” Watada lawyer Jim Lobsenz said. “We’re very pleased. It’s taken a long time.”

Honolulu attorney Eric Seitz, who previously represented Watada and was the first to raise the double jeopardy issue, said those two charges were dismissed in the first court-martial and that the Army believes that they “theoretically, hypothetically can be brought back, but I think there’s going to be lots of problems.”

“I don’t think they can bring those back, either,” Seitz said.

In a statement late yesterday, a Fort Lewis spokesman said the base’s commanding general, Lt. Gen. Charles H. Jacoby Jr., had not yet had a chance to review the ruling in depth.

“Once that review is complete, he will be able to make a decision on the way forward with this case,” the spokesman said.

The 1996 Kalani High graduate, stripped of his security clearance, still reports to a meaningless desk job at Fort Lewis, according to family. “He said he’s counting paper clips,” his father, Bob Watada, said in an interview last week.

“We talk every once in awhile. He lets me know that he’s OK,” said the father, who lives in Oregon. Bob Watada said his son’s term of service in the Army ended in December 2006, but that the legal proceedings have prevented his discharge.

Bob Watada, a former Hawai’i Campaign Spending Commission executive director, said that even if the charges are dismissed, he’s worried the Army might appeal the case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

“The Defense Department has a lot of money (to pursue legal action),” Bob Watada said.

Many military members opined that Watada violated his oath as an officer, and that he had no right to decide whether the Iraq War was just or unjust.

Posted on

Don’t choke – here comes more Stryker pork

October 20, 2008

Stryker project will create jobs in Hawaii

1,000 or more will be employed, officials say, for massive project

By William Cole
Advertiser Military Writer

SCHOFIELD BARRACKS – The massive Stryker brigade project, one of the biggest Army efforts in
Hawai’i since World War II, is getting back on track after four years of litigation.

Approximately six construction projects related to the Stryker brigade are expected to begin in coming months, employing 1,000 or more workers, officials said.

“The timing is really good,” said Paul Brewbaker, chief economist for the Bank of Hawai’i, who noted the Stryker projects come as the state’s economy is slowing.

The number of construction jobs in Hawai’i, which stood at about 39,600 in August, is projected to drop to about 37,000 in 2010. Even that outlook may be too optimistic, and Brewbaker said the Stryker work, which wasn’t included in the job total, is a welcome addition to a struggling economy.

“A project that’s worth an extra 1,000 jobs for a year, or two or three, is a significant offset to what may be the risk that’s unfolded,” he said.

$1.5 billion effort

The Stryker is an eight-wheeled troop carrier. The Schofield-based Stryker brigade, which consists of 328 Stryker vehicles and 4,000 soldiers, is deployed in Iraq and is expected back in Hawai’i around March.

As part of the overall $1.5 billion effort to base the brigade here, the Army plans to build 71 miles of private trails on O’ahu and the Big Island for Stryker vehicles, as well as new firing ranges.

Land purchases included $21 million for 1,402 acres south of Schofield for a firing range and motor pool, and $30 million for 24,000 acres of Parker Ranch land next to the 109,000-acre Pohakuloa Training Area for Stryker maneuvers on the Big Island.

The Army plans to also conduct Stryker training at Kahuku and Kawailoa training areas and Dillingham Military Reservation on O’ahu.

Additional projects, some still unfunded by Congress, are expected to continue as far into the future as 2017, officials said.

Among the projects coming up is construction of a Battle Area Complex in the back reaches of Schofield for Stryker vehicle maneuver and live fire.

MASSIVE RANGE

The nearly 1-by-2-mile range will have roads and pop-up targets for Strykers firing big 105 mm guns as well as .50-caliber machine guns and Mk 19 grenade launchers.

Soldiers in as many as 30 Strykers will maneuver and disperse from the back of the 19-ton troop
carriers and also practice firing at targets.

The $32 million contract for the job, held by Parsons Inc., is expected to employ 50 to 60 people on the site at any given time for up to the two years the project is expected to take, officials said.

The Army Corps of Engineers, which manages the Stryker brigade projects, said it and Parsons are still in the process of negotiating an “equitable adjustment” for the work stoppage caused by the past court injunction.

The Schofield Stryker brigade has been gone since late 2007, when the unit deployed to the Taji and Tarmiya areas of Iraq, just north of Baghdad.

In April, the Army decided Hawai’i was still the best place to station one of its seven Stryker brigades after legal action forced a review of the stationing.

“Hawai’i is the right place for the 2/25 Stryker brigade – strategically, economically and environmentally,” said Col. Wayne Shanks, a spokesman for U.S. Army Pacific at Fort Shafter.

“Completing these projects, which will allow our soldiers to train here in Hawai’i, is vital to our ability to meet our national security requirements in the Pacific.”

HAWAIIAN GROUPS SUED

The Army in 2001 decided to base a Stryker unit in Hawai’i, and started about $700 million in
construction projects, including upgrades that were also needed for non-Stryker troop training.
Three Native Hawaiian groups filed a lawsuit in 2004 against the Stryker brigade, claiming it would harm the environment.

In 2006, a federal appeals court ruled that the service had not adequately examined alternative
locations outside Hawai’i for the unit, and ordered the Army to do so.

Bases in Alaska and Colorado were considered before the Army again chose Hawai’i, saying it was
selected primarily because of the ability to meet strategic defense and national security needs in the Pacific.

Some of the Stryker construction projects already had been completed, but some others, like the Battle Area Complex at Schofield, weren’t allowed to go forward.

LOCAL IMPACT CITED

David Henkin, an Earthjustice attorney who represented the three Hawaiian groups in their lawsuit, said an additional infantry brigade of about 3,500 soldiers, which Schofield would have received if the Stryker unit had been moved elsewhere, would have had less of an impact in Hawai’i.

“No question, even based upon the Army’s own analysis, that the potential destruction of critical sites, the likely destruction of endangered species, the noise, the impacts on neighboring communities, all of that is substantially greater with the Stryker brigade than an infantry brigade,” Henkin said.

The state Office of Hawaiian Affairs filed a separate lawsuit against the Army in 2006 over the cultural impacts of the Stryker brigade at Schofield. That suit still is pending. Shanks, the U.S. Army Pacific spokesman, said the parties are in negotiation over the suit.

Qualification Training Range 2 at Schofield, a rifle and pistol marksmanship range, was about 80 percent complete when the injunction halted the project, said Ron Borne, the director of transformation for the Army in Hawai’i.

Workers for the Niking Corp., one of the subcontractors at the range, are now finishing the job. Carpenter Dave Cavanaugh, who has worked for Niking for almost 25 years, last week said the work stoppage didn’t affect him much.

“We do a lot of military work, so when this job shut down, fortunately, we were able to go to another project that our company had already started,” he said. “It was an inconvenience, but we’re glad to be back and completing the job.”

Source: HonoluluAdvertiser.com

Posted on

Schofield soldier who broke into UH dorms now linked to Waikiki rape

HonoluluAdvertiser.com

August 26, 2008

Schofield soldier who broke into UH dorms now linked to Waikiki rape

By Jim Dooley
Advertiser Staff Writer

The soldier convicted in a series of dorm-room invasions at the University of Hawai’i-Manoa has been linked by DNA to an unsolved Waikïkï rape, according to an indictment returned this morning.

Mark Heath, 21, a Schofield Barracks soldier awaiting sentencing in the UH cases, faces a new charge of raping a woman during a burglary of her Ala Wai Boulevard apartment April 7, 2007.

The prosecutor’s office said the new charge was brought after a DNA sample taken from Heath following his guilty plea in the UH case in May was matched with biological evidence collected by Honolulu police in the Waikïkï case.

Heath is scheduled to appear in court tomorrow for a request that he be released on bail pending sentencing next month in the UH cases.

But bail in the new case was set by Circuit Judge Derrick Chan at $1 million.

Prosecuting Attorney Peter Carlisle said the new charge will be used tomorrow to oppose release before sentencing.

In May, Heath admitted burglarizing female students’ dorm rooms and sexually assaulting one student.

He told police that he entered a Hale Mokihana dorm room on Aug. 19, 2007, and used a pair of
scissors to cut off the underwear worn by a sleeping 18-year-old female student.

The victim woke up and screamed and Heath told police he pushed the woman away and escaped through a fire escape door.

He also admitted breaking into two rooms at Lokelani dormitory on Nov. 25, 2007, and stealing items while the students in the rooms slept.

The crimes created “a climate of fear” on the campus, according to Deputy Prosecutor Thalia Murphy.

Heath faces a maximum of 40 years in prison for the UH cases.

Heath is a father of two children. He was divorced in June.

Heath’s lawyer, Dean Young, could not be reached for comment on the new charge this morning.

The 25th Infantry Division said today that Heath was “administratively separated” from the Army in April of this year.

Posted on

Drill sergeant injures Wai’anae recruit

Article URL: http://archives.starbulletin.com/2008/07/29/news/story02.html

No answers yet for mom

An Army drill sergeant allegedly hits a Waianae recruit in the head

STORY SUMMARY

A Fort Sill basic-training drill sergeant in Oklahoma has been suspended from his duties while the Army investigates allegations that he injured a 19-year-old Hawaii Army National Guard soldier by striking him with a bed.

Pvt. Ja Van Yiu Lin last week called his mother Lisa Moniz in Waianae, saying he had trouble hearing out of his left ear and seeing out of his left eye. After several days of failing to get answers on her son’s condition from Fort Sill and Hawaii Army National Guard recruiters, Moniz turned to U.S. Sen. Daniel Akaka.

Yiu Lin graduated from Waianae High School in May and left for basic and advance artillery training at Fort Sill, about 85 miles southwest of Oklahoma City, on July 10.

FULL STORY

By Gregg K. Kakesako
gkakesako@starbulletin.com

The Army is investigating a complaint that a drill sergeant in Oklahoma threw a bed at a 19-year-old Hawaii Army National Guard soldier, hitting him in the head and impairing his vision and hearing.

Lisa Moniz told the Star-Bulletin that her son — Hawaii Army National Guard Pvt. Ja Van Yiu Lin — was injured July 19 by his drill sergeant.

Yesterday, Moniz said she hasn’t heard from him for nearly a week and no one from the Army has given her any details as to the extent of his injuries.

Moniz said her son told her in a phone call July 19 that he was standing at attention when his drill sergeant, who was “yelling at the recruits,” picked up a bunk bed and threw it, hitting Yiu Lin in the head.

“My son doesn’t remember anything after until he was in the hospital,” Moniz said.

U.S. Sen. Daniel Akaka, whom Moniz called for help last week, and the Hawaii Army National Guard confirmed that Yiu Lin has returned to his basic-training unit at Fort Sill and that the incident is being investigated.

Jon Long, a Fort Sill spokesman, said yesterday that a report of the incident is being reviewed by the brigade commander.

In an e-mail, Long said that while the investigation is being conducted, the “drill sergeant has been temporarily prohibited from taking part” in training soldiers.

He said Yiu Lin was returned to duty last Tuesday after two follow-up visits to Bleak Troop Medical Clinic “to perform training with the exception of running or marching” for one day. He said Yiu Lin had been treated July 19 and 20 at the emergency room at Reynolds Community Hospital and released.

Long did not release any other details.

Yiu Lin graduated from Waianae High School in May and left July 10 for basic and advance artillery training at Fort Sill, located near Lawton about 85 miles southwest of Oklahoma City. He was assigned to Battery B, 1st Battalion, 355th Regiment.

During the July 19 phone call, Moniz said, her son complained that the vision in his left eye was impaired and hearing in his left ear was limited.

“The pain in his head was unbearable, but the doctor told him that his CT scan was normal and to go back to training,” Moniz said.

Because Army and Hawaii Army National Guard officials did not notify her about her son’s accident, Moniz said she tried unsuccessfully on July 20 to call them. Finally, a Red Cross representative said Army officials at Fort Sill would call her.

Moniz said her son called her again while at the hospital on July 20 using a cell phone belonging to another recruit.

Moniz said her son had to return to the hospital on July 20 because of “intense pain” and bleeding from his nose. This time, he was told that he might have a concussion and was given a painkiller and released.

In that call, Moniz said, her son pleaded for help “because the pain was unbearable.” He said he was told by the drill sergeant that he was at fault and then the connection was lost, she said.

On July 21, Moniz said, Sgt. Brooks Akana of the Hawaii Army National Guard told her that “there was an investigation going on and that on completion of the investigation, he would let me know.”

On that same day, Moniz said, because she still didn’t know the extent of her son’s injuries, she also tried to contact him at Fort Sill. “I was assured by a sergeant who said, ‘Your son is fine. He’s out on duty.'”

Moniz wasn’t satisfied with that answer and called Akaka’s Honolulu office on July 21 and asked the senator to look into the matter.

Later that day, Yiu Lin called his mother saying he was in sick bay and that he couldn’t see out of his left eye, his hearing was muffled in his left ear and there was still intense pain. A Fort Sill spokesman said that from July 21 to 22, Yiu Lin was placed “on quarters (bed rest in his barracks).”

On the afternoon of last Tuesday, Moniz said an Army lieutenant colonel called her from Fort Sill and said, “I assure you … that your soldier is fine.”

Yiu Lin was in the room, Moniz said, and was allowed to talk to her. However, because there were other people in the room, Yiu Lin felt that he couldn’t talk, she said.

“OK, just say yes or no,” Moniz told her son. “Are you OK?” she asked her son. His reply was no.

“Healthwise, are you feeling better?” His reply again was no.

“Do you want me to continue to ask for help?”

Yiu Lin’s response was: “Please, Mom.”

At that point, the soldier was told to say his goodbyes.

On Wednesday, Yiu Lin’s wife, Angela, was told by Hawaii Army National Guard recruiters that an investigation was under way and that they wanted Moniz to stop calling Fort Sill.
CORRECTION

Wednesday, August 6, 2008

An Army drill sergeant allegedly hit a National Guard recruit from Waianae in the head with a bed at Army basic training at Fort Sill, Okla. Originally, the sub-headline on this article incorrectly said the drill sergeant was with the Guard. Also, a photo caption incorrectly said the training was conducted by the Army National Guard.

Posted on

”Guam Remains Functionally a US Colony”

http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=43244

Q&A

”Guam Remains Functionally a US Colony”

Interview with Julian Aguon, Chamoru activist

MELBOURNE, Jul 21, 2008 (IPS) – The tiny island of Guam – officially an unincorporated territory of the United States – is soon to be inundated with thousands more U.S. military personnel as the world’s superpower realigns its forces. In this first of a two-part interview, indigenous Guamanian activist Julian Aguon spoke with IPS on issues surrounding the build-up.

Located in the western Pacific Ocean, Guam has a long history of being invaded. Spain first claimed the island in 1565, but it was not until a century later that colonisation began. During this time the indigenous Chamoru were decimated, declining from an estimated 150,000 to 3,000 people, 100 years after settlement.

The U.S. wrested control of Guam from Spain in the 1898 Spanish-American War. After being occupied by Japan during the Second World War – the U.S. re-took the island in 1944 – Guam became an unincorporated territory of the U.S in 1950.

Now, with military bases already taking up one-third of the island – currently around 14,000 defence personnel, including dependents, call Guam home – 8,000 U.S. marines are to be transferred from the Japanese island of Okinawa to Guam as the island becomes a rapid response platform.

The U.S. also intends to add to its air surveillance capabilities and set-up a ballistic missile defence taskforce on Guam, as well as upgrade its docking facilities so that the island is able to host nuclear aircraft carriers.

While some among Guam’s population of 170,000 are excited about the economic opportunities they hope will accompany the build-up – it is anticipated that some 20,000 extra construction workers will also be required – others, such as Julian Aguon, are actively campaigning against it.

Aguon spoke with IPS writer, Stephen de Tarczynski, when he visited Australia on a month-long speaking tour.

IPS: What is the current situation with the military build-up on Guam?

Julian Aguon: In 2005 the governments of the United States and Japan made a bilateral agreement to relocate some 8,000 U.S. marines from Okinawa to Guam, as well as their dependents, and support staff and their dependents. And it’s more recently been announced that the true outside population being relocated to Guam from elsewhere in Asia, most notably from Okinawa, is actually 55,000 people. That, of course, has lots of human rights considerations, given the fact that Guam remains one of only 16 non-self governing territories – that’s a fancy way of saying internationally recognised colonies – in the world.

We have an inherent and still-unexercised human right to self-determination. We remain functionally a colony of the United States, and that’s highlighted by the way the military build-up of Guam right now is actually happening. It’s unilateral and for all intents and purposes, non-transparent. The U.S. government basically decided to flood our ancient homeland with this many people, this many nuclear submarines, all of this destruction basically, without one bona fide public meeting, without any semblance of true consultation of the entire indigenous population of Guam. And the fact that there is an internationally recognised resistance movement among the indigenous Chamoru people [means the lack of consultation] is just so insulting, so vulgar, so depraved and so illegal under basic human rights tenets.

IPS: But Guamanians have representation in the U.S. congress, right?

JA: Kind of correct. Just to be precise, the people of Guam are considered U.S. citizens, but we’re second-class U.S. citizens, if not third-class U.S. citizens, because we actually cannot vote for the U.S. president. In addition, we have representation in the U.S. congress. However, that representation is misleading because we only get one non-voting representative to congress. So, even our congressional representative is without a meaningful vote.

IPS: How does that make you feel?

JA: More important than that, because of course it makes us feel wronged and violated, it also helps. Especially [we] activists always remain clear that what is happening – I mean that whole system – is nothing more than an illusion of inclusion because we don’t much matter to the United States, and that much is very clear.

IPS: What is it that you want? Do you want independence for Guam?

JA: We want to exercise the supposedly most fundamental of all human freedoms, and that is self-determination. We’re not even saying ‘we want to be independent’. Of course, a lot of us want independence, not everybody, but independence is actually only one of the internationally recognised options for decolonisation. We can choose even U.S. statehood if we wanted to, but we could also choose a sort of interim status known as free association.

But that’s the key. The Chamoru people of Guam, our people, are non-entities. So, of course, we can’t even be at the table. We’re non-persons at that table. The military build-up has at least done a wonderful job of making that point very clear, that we aren’t people to even be negotiated with.

We want accountability, we want transparency. We want the U.S. military – the same military now expanding its presence in Guam exponentially – to clean up the widespread contamination of our island.

IPS: Why is Guam contaminated?

JA: We actually are still reeling from radiation exposure from the U.S. nuclear testing program in the Marshall Islands. Between 1946 and 1958, the US dropped 67 hydrogen and nuclear weapons on the people of the Marshall Islands, and Guam, being 1200 miles from the Marshall Islands chain, is directly in the downwind patterns. We have been exposed to radiation there and that’s already proven.

We actually have proof that the U.S. aircraft and ships that were used to clean up the radiation contaminants in the Marshall Islands were actually re-routed to Guam and flushed out. It’s a depraved situation because the U.S. military is still convinced that it can convince the people of Guam that it has our best interests at heart. And I think that’s a sobering reality and it’s so lamentably far from the truth.

IPS: Can you tell me how you regard such terms as “the tip of the spear” and “the unsinkable aircraft carrier”, which some people in the U.S. military are using to describe Guam?

JA: I think that phraseology is very important because it demonstrates the lack of visibility of people. An unsinkable aircraft carrier, the tip of the spear [are] wonderful phrases because they don’t bring to human consciousness that there are people on that landmass, and that’s the problem.

In my personal opinion, the situation on Guam perhaps serves one of the greatest indictments to U.S. democratic legitimacy. It in fact mocks the idea of U.S. democratic legitimacy. And yet, it hasn’t made the radar. It hasn’t even really become a blip in the radar because people don’t conceive that there are people on Guam – let alone an indigenous people that are heirs to a civilisation born two thousand years before Jesus – and that we’ve been actively struggling at the UN decolonisation level to exercise self-determination. And of course, that’s by design. Dominant media, even in the U.S., are participators in this. The politics of distraction [are] alive and well in the United States. Even American citizens, of course, don’t know much about Guam. Guam is actually conceived of as nothing but a military base or military outpost.

Posted on

Schofield Soldier’s Family Questions Military PTSD Treatment

KITV.com

Schofield Soldier’s Family Questions Military PTSD Treatment

Tripler Officials Defend Patient Policy

Brent Suyama, Managing Editor TheHawaiiChannel.com

POSTED: 8:39 pm HST July 11, 2008

TRIPLER ARMY MEDICAL CENTER, Hawaii — An Alabama woman says her son, a Schofield Barracks soldier, is slipping through the cracks after a stand-off with Honolulu police last month.

The Army responded on Friday by saying it requires soldiers to undergo Post Traumatic Stress Disorder screenings throughout the deployment cycle. After the mandatory screenings it falls on the soldier and the community to reach out to the Army for help.

Last month, Sgt. Jesse Kerry barricaded himself in his Royal Kunia townhouse. After an 18-hour standoff with Honolulu police, the 23-year-old surrendered.

During the ordeal Kerry’s mother, Stephanie, was home in Alabama.

“Anybody with PTSD is tormented. It is something they can’t get out, they can’t drink it out, they can’t drug it out, and they feel ultimately, many of them, the only way get rid of this pain and this torment is to kill themselves,” Stephanie Kerry said.

Jesse Kerry was admitted to Triple Army Medical Center, where he underwent treatment.

Stephanie Kerry is questioning the Army after she was informed her son would be discharged this week.

“You’re going to release this soldier after a 16-hour standoff brought him to your hospital and you are going to release him 10 days later after studying his personality traits,” Stephanie Kerry said.

The Army can not comment on Sgt. Kerry’s case.

“A rather large treatment team will assess the patient and the patient is an active member of developing their treatment plan,” Col. CJ Diebold said about PTSD patients in general.

The Army defended its procedures for admitting and releasing patients.

“The purpose of inpatient treatment is to stabilize, is to assess and stabilize. The work of therapy and treatment goes on in an outpatient basis,” Diebold said.

Dr. Kenneth Hirsch of Veterans Affairs at Tripler said it is the individual’s choice to maintain outpatient treatment. The major obstacle the military faces in treating patients with PTSD is the stigma surrounding mental illness.

“We have to reduce stigma. We have to make it easy not only for people to access the care, but easy to make the decision that I will get care,” Hirsch said.

Symptoms of PTSD include problems with eating, concentrating and becoming easily irritable.

The Army hopes is to help soldiers understand the disorder so they can get the proper care they deserve.

Source: http://www.kitv.com/print/16860884/detail.html

Posted on

Tripler plans to release soldier who held off Hawaii police in standoff

Posted on: Wednesday, July 9, 2008

SOLDIER’S FAMILY

Tripler plans to release soldier who held off Hawaii police in standoff

By Rob Perez
Advertiser Staff Writer

A Schofield Barracks soldier who was hospitalized last week after threatening suicide during an 18-hour standoff with police is scheduled to be released as soon as tomorrow despite concerns from his family that he is not ready.

Stephanie Kerry, the mother of Sgt. Jesse Kerry, said her son still is having trouble dealing with the traumatic effects from deployments to Afghanistan and Iraq and questioned whether the military has provided adequate treatment for him and many other soldiers in similar situations.

“I think Jesse and other soldiers like him are battling things that require more time,” she said. “This is extremely serious, and people need to realize that.”

A spokeswoman for Tripler Army Medical Center, where Kerry was taken for psychiatric evaluation after the June 30 standoff in Waipahu, said federal law prohibited her from commenting on individual cases. But the hospital issued a general statement: “Every patient is assessed individually. Based upon clinical evaluation, a personalized treatment plan is given, which works toward a discharge date.”

In a phone interview from her Valley, Ala., home yesterday, Stephanie Kerry said she was told by her son’s physician Monday that the soldier probably would be released tomorrow.

She said that when she expressed concern that her son wasn’t ready to be released, the doctor told her the military can’t hold someone for an involuntary psychiatric evaluation for more than 72 hours.

Stephanie Kerry said her son told her previously that he is suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, and that the effects are so serious that she believes he needs more treatment. She wasn’t sure whether he would be able to stay at Tripler beyond tomorrow, even if he asked to do so.

Since Jesse Kerry’s 2004-05 tour in Afghanistan and a 2006-07 deployment to Iraq, where he witnessed two friends in his convoy killed by a roadside bomb, the 23-year-old married man and father of a son has been drinking more and battling depression and nightmares, his mother said.

APPARENT SUICIDE TRY

About two weeks before the standoff, which forced the evacuation of nearby homes in a Royal Kunia townhouse complex, police were called to Kerry’s home because of a domestic dispute, several neighbors said as the standoff unfolded. His wife was escorted away, and the woman and son later left for the Mainland, the neighbors said.

When Kerry surrendered to police and the standoff ended, he had cuts on both wrists.

Stephanie Kerry said her son started having psychological problems after his deployment to Afghanistan and had a serious incident in May 2006 that prompted his command to “red flag” his file.

Yet he was deployed to Iraq a few months later, she said.

An Army spokeswoman said she could not comment on Kerry’s case because of privacy laws. But the spokeswoman said that, speaking generally, a soldier’s file can be flagged for many reasons ranging from obesity to misconduct.

Stephanie Kerry said she didn’t know whether her son was formally diagnosed with PTSD, but he told her he had the disorder and was prescribed sleep medication and an anti-depressant. She said her son didn’t seem to be getting the care he needed, and his current treatment didn’t appear to reflect the seriousness of PTSD and what happened last week.

“It seems as though he’s just being fast-tracked” out of the hospital, she said.

When Kerry’s father, Freelon, asked his son in a phone conversation Monday night whether he was doing OK, the soldier replied, “Not really,” Stephanie Kerry said. After a short pause, she said, her son added, “Yeah, I’m OK.”

INVISIBLE WOUNDS

About 20 percent of military service members who have returned from Iraq and Afghanistan report symptoms of PTSD or major depression, according to a study released in April by the RAND Corp., a nonprofit research organization.

Returning soldiers who have trouble dealing with the stresses of war have access to a variety of services, ranging from outpatient programs to intensive in-patient treatment. But critics nationally say the military’s mental health network falls far short of what is needed, partly because of a shortage of personnel. Also, many troops simply don’t seek treatment.

A specialist with the nonprofit Helping Hands Hawai’i said the symptoms Kerry’s mother described were similar to what many other soldiers have described.

“The battle does not end on the battlefield,” said William “Clay” Park, a Helping Hands case manager and Vietnam war veteran. “It comes home with you. A lot of these guys self-medicate themselves with alcohol or drugs.”

Reach Rob Perez at rperez@honoluluadvertiser.com.

Source: http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2008/Jul/09/ln/hawaii807090406.html

Proudly powered by WordPress