Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Stop the War! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: PROLIFE who wrote (16389)	5/1/2003 12:05:55 PM
From: 49thMIMOMander	Respond to of 21614

The USA domestic "Coulters" as well as the USA definition of "liberals" is something well known and funny internationally. Seems to come for free with a dysfunctional 2-party system and as a result, media. One reason not one nation has even attempted to copy that, and why even USA do not want any other nation to copy that.

To: PROLIFE who wrote (16389)	5/1/2003 12:46:27 PM
From: jackhach	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21614

Donald Rumsfeld Has Some Explaining To Do Why Is The Pentagon Sidestepping A Law That Protects Our Soldiers? Public Law 105-85 requires the Pentagon to collect health data on troops before and after deployment to a war zone. But troops headed to Iraq were not examined as the law specifically requires -- through physical exams and blood tests -- as The Kansas City Star first reported in March. Pentagon officials admit they haven’t followed the law. They say a short questionnaire suffices in place of a medical exam. They say there’s no sense testing a generally healthy population of soldiers. They say there wasn’t time for exams in the rush to war, and troops returning home won’t sit still long enough for an exam. These excuses haven’t impressed Rep. Chris Shays (R-Conn.). He convened a hearing on March 25. "From my standpoint, you’re not meeting the letter of the law, clearly, and I don’t think you’re meeting the spirit of the law," Shays told a Pentagon representative who testified. Doctors who advised the military on protecting soldiers’ health also registered concern at the hearing. The law is an "important mandate," said Dr. Manning Feinleib, but "implementation has been fragmented." Dr. John Moxley, III, said Pentagon practices did not incorporate recommendations made by his and other advisory panels. Those suggestions shaped the law, passed in 1997 after the sad experience of Gulf War veterans. Tens of thousands of them waited years before getting the government-provided health care they earned as soldiers. Why? A lack of basic health data delayed a Pentagon decision that their maladies -- now known collectively as "Gulf War Syndrome" -- were related to their service. "Laws designed to protect soldiers on the battlefield are being ignored," testified Steven Robinson, a former Army Ranger who now runs the National Gulf War Resource Center. "Service members are being set up to face another round of delay, denial and obfuscation regarding possible service-connected medical conditions or disabilities." Several members of Congress have asked the General Accounting Office to investigate. While we await its report, due this summer, perhaps Mr. Rumsfeld would tell us: Can the Pentagon ignore ANY law it thinks is mistaken? Editor's Note: There was a late development in the story reported below. At 6:20 pm EDT on Tuesday, April 29 -- hours after the story was posted and long since an ad based on it was submitted to The New York Times for publication on April 30 -- the Pentagon abruptly switched its position on medical testing of troops, the subject of this story. While the Pentagon’s announcement is a step forward -- and we are pleased that they have felt the heat -- it's no great victory for the troops. The Pentagon is still not admitting culpability: it clearly violated the law at the expense of soldiers’ health. It has not promised to undertake the legally mandated medical exams for troops still being deployed. And, as doctors have testified, the post-deployment exams will be of questionable value because the pre-deployment data is not comprehensive.