Author: Ozymandias

  • Chapter 19: Working Behind the Scenes

    Executive Order 13139, which implements 10 U.S.C. § 1107, clearly states that the requirements it incorporated from the statute are for internal management only and confer no right enforceable by any party against the United States. E.O. 13139, §6(b).  Additionally, Secretary of the Navy Instruction 6230.4 of 29 April 1998, which implements the Department’s anthrax vaccination implementation program states that the anthrax vaccine is a FDA-licensed product and not an IND requiring informed consent for its administration.[1]

    “Someone from the editorial board will be down to get you and bring you up to the Boardroom in a minute,” the secretary smiled politely and then went back to answering the telephone, no longer concerned with my presence. I looked around the foyer of the Army Times Publishing Company.  It was a large, open-air affair. Just past the circular receptionist’s desk there was a staircase leading to the upper floors. Beyond that the ceiling opened up all the way to the top of the building and I could see people moving on the upper catwalks, worker-bees in the hive. Off to my left was a hallway that disappeared out of view, with an elevator at the beginning where it opened into the foyer.  To the right looked like a glass-enclosed company store with the usual assortment of sweatshirts, tee-shirts, and coffee mugs with the company logo on them. Army Times published a newspaper dedicated to each service, with the imprint Marine Corps Times, Navy Times, etc. The papers were widely read and respected in each service. I didn’t know how it had happened, but my friends had gotten us a meeting with the Editorial Board of the parent company.

    The door behind me came open and I could feel the cold December air blow in. I played with the zipper on my flight jacket, trying not to fidget. A Marine officer in uniform should not appear nervous. An older gentleman walking by with a long-sleeve tee-shirt with the company logo smiled at me.

    “How are you today, Captain?” He was looking at the leather patch with the wings on it on the front of my jacket.

    “Fine, sir. Thank you.” I flipped my fore and aft cap around in my hand and then looked at my watch. I was forty-five minutes late but the receptionist told me when I asked that the meeting had gotten a late start. I hoped my part hadn’t come up yet. I started thinking that maybe I should have brought my briefcase in with me. Right then a young black woman appeared from the stairs and looked at me for confirmation.

    “Captain Saran?” I nodded. “Come with me, please.”

    “Thank you,” I responded and followed her up the stairs. As we turned for the second flight I saw a familiar face. Colonel John Richardson, United States Air Force Reserve, was coming down the stairs in a light blue power-suit. He smiled and stuck out his hand.

    “Great to see you, Dale, traffic was terrible, huh?” We shook hands as he reached my step.

    “Meh, just sick as a dog. I would have stayed home had my boss not made me go in this morning.” I tried not to whine but I felt like crap. My wife and four girls were all sick at home with some kind of stomach virus that had everyone throwing up, including me. I had gotten back from the hospital with my wife the night before at 2:00 am and I still felt weak and achy.

    “Well, go on up,” he said. “Lou is on right now, then Russ, then you. Are you sure you’re still okay doing this? You know you don’t have to?”

    “No, JR, I’m fine. I just don’t care anymore. Lou and I talked about my status and the relevant instructions. This is a freely made decision. Sometimes a man’s gotta stand up and be counted.” Though he was quite senior to me, I had come to know and think of him by his nickname from our many e-mail chats.

    “Okay,” he nodded reassuringly. “I’ll be up in a minute.” JR turned and continued down the stairs.

    “Great,” I answered with more enthusiasm then my body had in it.

    It wasn’t bravado, nor some inflated sense of honor; I felt comfortable talking to John Richardson about such matters as personal honor and integrity. All of the members of our small band had incurred significant professional risks and opprobrium already in order to bring the flaws and illegality of the anthrax program to light. I couldn’t very well be a part of their group and not be willing to stick out my neck. They had all done a lot more.

    My guide and I reached the top of the stairs, turned left, and I could see a set of large oak wooden doors. As we got closer, I could see a little placard that read “Main Boardroom.”

    “Here you are,” the young lady said and turned away as I reached for the door. I could hear voices. I wanted to make as unobtrusive an entrance as possible so I turned the doorknob slowly and tried to slip in.

    I took in the room with a glance. There were two groups of people – ours and theirs. About seven or eight reporters and editors on the far side of a long meeting table, none of whom I knew or recognized. Everyone had a placard identifying them, but I didn’t have time to read each one. Behind “them” was a bright light with an umbrella behind it and a photographer taking pictures. On “our” side of the table there were five men, three I knew, two I guessed at their identities by our email correspondence. ‘Lou’ Michels – actually J.J. Michels, Lieutenant Colonel, USAFR, attorney-at-law, as well as partner at McGuire, Battle, and Woods, whom I had met at David Ponder’s Congressional testimony – was speaking intently.

    “Hey, Dale! Come on in,” he waved me in without breaking stride. “Hey, Lou” I replied and started to take off my coat, heading for the seat on his left, farthest from the door.  “So again,” he went on, “the informed consent issue is completely separate from the issue about whether or not the vaccine is safe and effective.” As I reached the seat beside him and slid into it, I could feel people on the other side of the table watching me. The photographer started snapping pictures of me.

    I am not impressive in uniform, but I had a few “been there” ribbons from when the squadron I was with rescued Air Force Captain Scott O’Grady from inside Bosnia-Herzegovinia in 1995. Atop the few ribbons I had was a set of gold Naval Aviator’s wings. I could tell the reporters on the other side of the table were curious about where I fit into all of this. Not wanting to appear self-conscious, I swiveled my chair to face Lou as he spoke. I could hear the shutter of the camera clicking. I could only imagine what my boss was going to think if a color photo of me showed up in the next issue of Marine Corps Times. I began to wonder if I should have agreed to do this after all. I was just snapping into my new job as a prosecutor and here I was (still) playing defense attorney – to the media, no less, against the entire U.S. military.

    I listened attentively, even though I had heard Lou make this argument before Congress and I had made a more detailed version of the same one to a judge on several occasions myself. Lou Michels is a seasoned attorney at a prestigious law firm and a former active duty Air Force officer. He is articulate and confident when he speaks, particularly on the legality of the anthrax vaccine. Although I was a Captain and he was a Lieutenant Colonel in the Reserves, I had come to think of Lou, and all the members of our group as a kind of Robin Hood and His Merry Men-like affair. There was JR who was the most senior of all, a full bird Colonel; Tom “Buzz” Rempfer, a Major, Air Force Academy graduate, F-16 and A-10 pilot; Russ Dingle, also a Major and A-10 pilot, and Redmond Handy, another Colonel. Despite the fact that I was by far the junior member of the group, it all felt quite easy and natural. I was conscious of my place in the hierarchy, but certainly not anything like a chain-of-command. Perhaps it was because more than a few of us were former pilots and pilots have a long history of being somewhat less conscious of rank and more conscious of ability, a byproduct of the nature of aviation.

    “It’s like Rogaine,” Lou continued on, “which has some particular relevance to my own situation,” he added parenthetically, looking upward with his eyes toward his own hairline. I noticed for the first time that he had a small patch of thinning hair on the back of his head. “It was originally licensed by the Food and Drug Administration as a blood pressure medication. Now, during some of the trials they determined that it would grow hair on a billiard ball. Notwithstanding the fact that it was already licensed, they had to go back and get a change in the license because of the change in the purpose for which it was going to be used.” He paused for that to sink in. He looked around the table at each of the editors and reporters, the shutter of the camera clicked away. “That’s the law for getting medications legally approved. It is even more imperative when it involves biologics like vaccines.”

    Lou went on for a while longer, hitting the high points of his brief and then excusing himself. I knew he had another meeting to attend at his law firm. We had talked on the phone the day before and everyone knew what their role was in this presentation.

    Russ Dingle, Major, USAFR, went next. He gave a presentation of how the vaccine was, by the definition in the FDA regulations, an “adulterated product” and thus should not be allowed to be shipped in interstate commerce. I had not heard his presentation and I had not met Russ before, except to exchange a few emails over the previous nine months. His knowledge of the company that makes the anthrax vaccine, BioPort, Inc., was unmatched. The reporters asked questions and Russ always had an answer and could cite to the document from which he got it. I was known among my colleagues for being able to pull legal case cites out of my ass on demand, but Russ made me envious.

    I had read all of the FDA inspection reports, but he obviously had access to information that I had never even guessed at. John Richardson had told me that he and Russ had been going through twenty-six boxes of information that they had gotten access to from the House Committee on Government Reform. Russ appeared to have memorized all twenty-six boxes. When he started describing how BioPort’s predecessor in interest, Michigan Biologic Products Institute had added two fermenters to its production line without FDA approval, then added two more and removed the original fermenter from the production line, I felt like my defense of David Ponder and Jason Stonewall had been inadequate.

    As I listened to Russ detail the failed inspections – the dripping paint into production vats, contaminated product lots containing other medicines like penicillin in them, and a list of other egregious quality control violations – the anger and frustration of nine months of defending David ponder and Jason Stonewall welled-up in me. Even worse, the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals had denied our writ-appeal of the judge’s ruling on our motions. I had until today to submit an appeal of the NMCCA decision to the highest military appellate court, the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, one step below the Supreme Court of the United States. My turn was approaching, so I tried to focus and make sure I maintained the momentum in our joint presentation. I  also knew I had to control my mouth; the Judge Advocate General (JAG) Instruction that controls the conduct of Navy and Marine Corps attorneys had strict limits on what attorneys could say to the press and I still technically had pending cases on this issue.

    As a practical matter, most Judge Advocates (myself included) avoided the press completely and referred any questions to the Public Affairs Office (PAO). I was cognizant of the Code of Professional Responsibility for lawyers that also prohibits using the press to influence the outcome of a court. I had just moved to Quantico, Virginia, and, due to my daughter’s health problems, I was now working as a prosecutor in the Office of the Staff Judge Advocate, Marine Corps Base Quantico, Virginia. I didn’t think my new boss, a long-time Colonel, would be particularly enthused to see my name popping up in the Marine Corps Times bashing the government’s anthrax program.

    An Air Force doctor, Captain John Buck in Biloxi, Mississippi, had requested me to be his Individual Military Counsel (IMC) and that request had been denied by my bosses – they had good legal reasons, but in my heart I had hoped that they would carve an exception and let me do it. It dawned on me that perhaps I had become too personally involved with the anthrax issue and that it might be affecting my judgment as a lawyer, but I had been over that ground both in my own mind and with my clients many times.

    “And that’s the vaccine that the Department of Defense is making your service members take, under threat of imprisonment,” I heard Buzz saying. He and Russ had been thrown out of their Connecticut Guard unit over the Anthrax Vaccine Immunization Program (AVIP). Tom looked nothing like what I had imagined. He was young, lean, and a poster-boy for an Air Force pilot. I had pictured him much older from my conversations on e-mail with him.

    “And now,” he went on, “Captain Dale Saran, U.S. Marine Corps, will brief you on some of the current anthrax cases and their status. Dale,” Tom turned to me and winked.

    “Thanks, Buzz,” I answered and turned to my section in the briefing book that John Richardson and some of the others had put together the previous few days. I looked up at the reporters across from me. I tried to ignore the photographer snapping pictures. I could handle my portion of the brief any number of ways. Cool, dispassionate, the quintessential picture of a lawyer. A bit of an act for me, as I am a much more direct and blunt naturally, but I was trying to gauge my audience. What would be most convincing to a group of reporters? I could be more intense, somewhat exasperated at the situation my clients find themselves in. I decided against that – the last thing I wanted to do was come across as histrionic. I had thought a lot about this moment and had never been able to arrive at a decision. I decided to just start speaking and see where it took me.

    I cannot remember exactly what I said, but at one point I recall answering some questions about the status of our appeal.

    “This is nothing new,” I blurted out. There was silence from the other side of the table. “I invite any of you to look at the history behind the current version of Title Ten, section eleven-oh-seven.” And then I launched into my argument. I could feel myself heating-up as I recounted the use of the investigational and experimental drugs on troops prior to and during the Gulf War. I explained how the Food and Drug Administration had struck a deal with the Department of Defense to grant a waiver to allow these drugs to be used on service members without telling them what was being used on them. I recounted the withdrawal of this waiver and the reports of Gulf War Illness. I spoke forcefully, passionately, without consideration for what the ramifications might be to me. I spoke The Truth as I had come to know it in the past year defending my clients.

    I took a breath and looked around. Tom Rempfer and my cohorts were looking at me, waiting for more. I gathered myself, the calm after the storm.

    “That is exactly why this statute was passed, to prevent these types of things from happening again, to prevent another Gulf War-type Illness.” There were some questions. I answered and eventually Tom or someone else picked up a thread and my turn was done. I had so much more I wanted to say. I wanted them to know The Truth, The Whole Truth, as I had come to know it down to the marrow in my bones.

    I looked at my watch. Shit! I thought. I still had to get to CAAF in downtown D.C. and turn in Petty Officer Ponder’s writ-appeal of the NMCCA decision rejecting our request for extraordinary relief. I had to go.

    I listened for a while and slipped out at an appropriate time, saying my goodbyes by touching each man’s shoulder briefly as I passed on the way out. I was proud to have been invited to be a part of their panel.

    Outside the snow was beginning to fall more heavily. I started our family minivan and quickly got into the flow of traffic inbound on I-395 for the District. I had a writ-appeal to finish typing on my laptop and I didn’t have much time to get it into the Court.  With the NMCCA decision, the stay on our court-martial had been lifted. Although David Ponder had come home to Mississippi and his wife and son, Jason Stonewall and Vitolino Arroyo were still in Okinawa, six months after their unit had left and returned to Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, and all three were facing the brig unless I got a higher court to listen to me and overturn the lower appellate court. I looked at my watch again.  Suddenly that stay – and the nail in Kolomjec’s door on Okinawa – seemed a very hollow victory.

    [1] Ponder v. Stone, 56 M.J. 613 (NMCCA, 2000)

  • On the Composition of the US Military and Being a World Power

    In the comments on Pie’s article about the Internet (Thursday, 5 Dec Noon Post), I saw some comments in a subthread about the size and composition of the military that sparked some thoughts I decided to share because I find it a fascinating discussion topic for libertarians. I hope it hasn’t already been covered before, but even if it does, I hope I can offer something new on the subject for the Glibertariat.

    I first must ‘confess’ that I subscribe to agreeing (generally) with George Nash’s configuration of where libertarians fall in the political taxonomy in his seminal work “The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America since 1945.” First published in 1976 as a graduate thesis, it’s been reprinted and I’ve read a more recent, updated edition. Some of you may disagree and that’s fair enough, but in any serious consideration of the size and scope of the military, undergirding has to be some coherent theory of valid political action of the government in the area of foreign affairs, trade, and immigration, all of which impact what specie of military you think is valid to have. As a concrete example, do you think the US military should protect US commercial shipping the world over? The Founding Fathers themselves certainly did, and since I consider myself a ‘constitutional libertarian,’ I note that even President ‘Mr. Yeoman Farmer’ Jefferson was willing to “send in the Marines!” to “the Shores of Tripoli” to stop the Barbary pirates from playing around with US shipping. It was an issue that Jefferson explicitly ran on against John Adams – the payment of US tribute of to the “petty tyrant of Algiers.” This dated to the Founding of the republic, by the way, and so it can’t be claimed this didn’t inform the creation of the Constitution itself. From the wiki:

    The United States had signed treaties with all of the Barbary states after its independence was recognized between 1786-1794 to pay tribute in exchange for leaving American merchantmen alone, and by 1797, the United States had paid out $1.25 million or a fifth of the government’s annual budget then in tribute.[12] These demands for tribute had imposed a heavy financial drain and by 1799 the U.S. was in arrears of $140,000 to Algiers and some $150,000 to Tripoli.[13] Many Americans resented these payments, arguing that the money would be better spent on a navy that would protect American ships from the attacks of the Barbary pirates, and in the 1800 Presidential Election, Thomas Jefferson won against incumbent second President John Adams, in part by noting that the United States was “subjected to the spoliations of foreign cruisers” and was humiliated by paying “an enormous tribute to the petty tyrant of Algiers”.[14]

    Washington himself as the very first President asked Congress in 1794 – at the urging of the people – to appropriate money for a Navy to deal with the problem as the US tried to grow its economy by participating in international commerce.

    Which brings us back again to a serious question about the size and scope of the military and what capabilities should the US military have. Should the US have some capability to do Non-Combatant Evacuation Operations (NEOs, in military acronymese) from places like US Embassies around the globe? If so, what does that imply about the capability required to operate in the environments where embassies are found: from mountains, to jungles, to deserts, to large cities, to coastlines, in all weather conditions, in extremis, day or night? What about places from which one must be able to launch those operations if you don’t have bases around the world? Should this capability be expanded enough to cover the ability to pull out a large US expat population living abroad in a country that suddenly turns shitty in a short time? Or is your foreign policy one that includes the ability to tell the American people: “Meh. Tough shit. Shouldn’t live in those kinds of places.” Or does your foreign policy include only an economic response to such provocations? How about if someone shoots down/blows up a US commercial passenger jet in foreign airspace, for example, like the one over Locherbie, Scotland. As an interesting footnote, a high school classmate and friend of mine, Rob “Shaggy” Schlageter (with a pair of burgundy corduroys and green shirt, he would was a dead ringer for Sccoby’s partner!) was killed aboard that plane.

    Which brings us to a much more interesting question, I think, about the size and scope of the US military and its capability. Most of us have grown up for most, if not all, of our lives with the US as an (or THE) unquestioned military superpower. It isn’t just the nukes, either. We can put a missile in your bedroom window or men with guns over your bed while you sleep anywhere in the world on relatively short notice. It is a truly awesome capability and I give you my solemn vow it is true as someone who has seen and been a part of what we can do at the very, very pointy tip of that spear. But it has always been an article of faith for me that the most powerful military in the world should be commanded, led by, and serve the most moral/ethical people. And I can’t envision any sane theory of morals or ethics in which it is any other way. That is to say, I would like to hear Sam Harris, or Zombie Hitchens, or any moral relativist defend the notion that it makes no difference whether the US had the stronger military or Imperial Japan did. Or Nazi Germany. Now if this all seems a bit farfetched or Ivory Tower, let me offer up the thought experiment that really has formed the basis for this entire piece:

    Close your eyes and try imagine that the United States is NOT the world’s pre-eminent military. Imagine instead that Jane’s and all of the other publications that track such things consider the U.S. to be the 6th strongest/most capable military in the world. Once you have really got that in your head, the first thing that pops into my mind is ‘who are numbers 1 through 5?’ And if you can’t imagine five countries above you that make your blood run cold, I hope you will take my word and know it comes from a place of love when I say that you haven’t traveled enough to have an informed opinion on the debate about the size and scope of the U.S. military. Because I can sure imagine 5 countries I wouldn’t want to see above us on that list; and I can also imagine what it might mean if the list ever looked like that in some dystopian future, and what that would mean for human suffering the world over, much less right in our own backyards.

    I am staunchly against military adventurism the world over because it costs lives and for over two decades a good chunk of those were my friends. Or at least it sure does seem like it because I have and know of a fair number of dead guys and gals, including some by their own hand. I have also seen the horrors of what people are capable of doing to each other the world over and I know that the US military acts as some kind of brake on those horrors, even if it’s just in an ancillary way by protecting sea lanes of commerce, for example. Piracy still claims a measurable chunk of the world’s commerce every year. I believe I’ve read that rust destroys 10% of the world’s (steel) infrastructure every year in a book called, boringly, “Rust.” It’s the bane of any salt-water Navy. For perspective, in the mid-1980’s Ronald Reagan’s Secretary of the Navy James Webb – yes, later Senator Webb (D. Va) and Dem. Presidential-candidate – quit in protest over the refusal of Congress to fund a 600-ship Navy. We are currently at 430 ships.

    I want to add one final coda to this piece and that is to state that even in the principle of self-defense you can’t escape the costs necessary to engage in it. Thus, I believe any discussion about the Nation’s military should also include a discussion of how much GDP (as a percentage) one is willing to spend on it. The budget need not be anywhere near as complicated as it is if we simply allocated as a percentage of prior year’s GDP. It’s how NATO allocates its member funding requirements. Trump has made the point recently that we spend “4.2% GDP in real numbers” for our military. Google claims it is 3.145%. Whatever the number is, we could likely agree that some % is sufficient for our needs, set it there as a matter of statute or even Amendment,  and allow for additional spending only in the event of a Congressional Declaration of War or contingency for 60 days or less (tie the Amendment to the War Powers Act for all I care). I will also set aside for the moment the notion that these kinds of discussions

    The point is that if there is a justification for having a military then we, as a Nation, should have a conception of what that is in both a philosophical and a practical sense, which informs its missions and capabilities, as well as its costs. Clausewitz said famously: “We see, therefore, that War is not merely a political act, but also a real political instrument, a continuation of political commerce, a carrying out of the same by other means. War is the continuation of politics by other means.” While one can argue about definitions enough to perhaps find some kinds of violence between people that doesn’t quite fit the definitions, for my purposes and those of this article it suffices to describe the relationship between a military and the political institutions of a modern nation-state. The Founding Fathers found out quite early on that the world would not simply let us ply our trade and mind our own isolationist business. The realities of modern shipping and aviation, along with the number of Americans living abroad, suggest that we must have some kind of military with some kind and level of capability, which implies training, equipment, etc. (It also implies a certain level of economy to produce material in peacetime sufficient to support those military capabilities, a place for them to be stationed, places to train, etc.)

    Could it and should it cost less? Absolutely. I could tell stories to make you blush from my friends at the Pentagon in procurement. My own experiences in the military validate the notion of September splurging in order to maintain at least last year’s funding, as just one example. But I think sweeping statements about wiping out entire branches of the military need to be considered in light of both the needs and the capabilities of a military and what that really means. In my opinion, too many libertarians (at least that I’ve seen) simply wave this all away or argue for absolutes with nary a word turned toward what I see as essential considerations that any serious person would at least mention in broad discussion of these subjects.

    Wanting to end the military adventurism abroad is a laudable goal, towards which we should all be working, but we undermine its cause with simplistic screeds. The people who wrote the Constitution were rightfully leery about standing armies, having just expelled one. They also conceived of – and led – a nation of independent-minded citizens who could and would defend themselves by force of arms on their own account and believed, as a people of commerce, that they would rather pay for a military than pay tributes to warlords attacking and kidnapping US citizens abroad.

    I’ll let the Glibertariat hash out the details and point out the flaws in my thinking in the comments.

    Ozy

  • Chapter 18: The Walking Wounded

    One year ago today, I was stationed in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. I received my fourth anthrax vaccine. That’s when my problems began. Until that point, I weighed 175 pounds, 5’9″, excellent physical condition. That night, I had a raging fever and my physical condition continued to deteriorate over the next couple of weeks. During that time, I lost facial hair, my testicles shrank to the size of a peanut – the right one that I could find. I had rapid weight gain, mainly in the form of subcutaneous fat, suffered mood swings, had severe groin pain, and I lost muscular strength. I went from a normal workout bench press of 280 pounds to less than 100, and that was in the space of less than two weeks . . .

    As I got ready to leave Saudi Arabia in May, I visited with a new flight surgeon. He reviewed my records and he noted the strong link between a shot on one day and being ill the next. He also directed that I put in a VAERS report at an Air Force medical company co-located on that same compound. I wrote up the report, I walked over and an Air Force – a senior Air Force doctor came out and blocked the report. He scrawled across the back of the page that he did not think they were related, that I needed to see a urologist, and if the urologist concurred then he’d go ahead and file the report. Had he asked, or had he looked at my records, he’d see that I’d been under medical care, specialist care, for over six months.[i]

    “Sir, they’re saying that they’re not going to let me come there to testify.” David Ponder’s voice echoed over the phone. I waited to answer.

    “Listen, don’t worry. Jen’s calling Beth Clay on the staff of the House Government Reform Committee. I’ll get hold of someone there. Believe me, your command isn’t going to take on a Congressional committee.” David Ponder had been invited to testify before the House Committee on Government Reform. He was calling from Okinawa.

    “I hope not, sir.” Although we had gotten the stay, David was still worried that he would be left in Okinawa. This was because members of his command had told him that he would be left in Okinawa until the stay dissolved and/or the case was resolved, even though his unit was preparing to return from its seven-month deployment in the first week of October 2000.

    Coincidentally, in the first week of October 2000, the House Committee on Government Reform was holding another hearing on the anthrax vaccine program. The Committee had already issued an extraordinarily condemning report in April of 2000, after some eight or nine hearings. Specifically, the report was critical of DoD’s media campaign against members who refused to accept the vaccine and it called for a moratorium on the entire program. In an interesting comment on the state of military-civil affairs, Marine Major General Randall West, a Cobra pilot of some repute and point man for the AVIP, immediately held a press conference rebutting the Committee’s report. It was surprising, and disturbing, to hear a senior military officer criticizing a committee of Congress because of its disagreement with a DoD program.

    “Don’t worry, David. We’ll get you here.” I said it with more conviction than I felt. I was in my house in Quantico, Virginia. I had to leave Okinawa early because of medical needs for one of my daughters. The Marine Corps had been fairly accommodating in sending me to Quantico to be near appropriate medical care, but it meant I had been removed from defense. I was now a prosecutor, while retaining my anthrax cases that were subject to the stay.

    “It’s hard not to, sir.”

    “We’ll get you here.” If David’s command didn’t send him, I wasn’t sure what I would do. David’s wife, Jennifer, was very active in lobbying for David with Congressional members. I hoped she would be able to put some pressure on a representative who would in turn put the heat on David’s command. I was already way over my head. An appellate stay was above my paygrade as a Captain, but General Officers giving press rebuttals to Congressional reports was way, way out of my depth.

                                                                                                                                                                                                               

    When I was detailed David Ponder’s case in Okinawa, my first thought was to deal it out quickly and move on. As I learned more about 10 U.S.C. §1107, I was shocked, but excited, as a defense attorney. I never really focused on, nor was it particularly fruitful for me to argue in court about the safety of the anthrax vaccine. I myself was skeptical of people reporting adverse reactions. Sitting in the Rayburn Building on October 5, 2000, in a chair right behind David Ponder, I had a change of heart. I watched and listened to human tragedies. One woman, the wife of BioPort worker Richard Dunn, explained how her husband died from a systemic reaction to the vaccine.  The coroner for Ionia County, Michigan, announced that Richard Dunn had inflammation throughout his body as a reaction to the vaccine. Mr. Dunn had taken his eleventh shot of the anthrax vaccine in May. He died on July 13, 2000. Richard Dunn was required to take the same shots as service members, as well as annual boosters, because he cared for some of the animals at BioPort.

    Immediately after the coroner’s statement, BioPort issued a general denial, including a claim that they had never heard anything about such reactions at the plant.  This statement was hard to square with the testimony of Mr. Dunn’s wife, who claimed that BioPort actually called several times to see how Richard Dunn was doing and called doctors for him. Either way, her testimony and the coroner’s finding was significant for me because it offered some legal hope for David Ponder, Jason Stonewall, and Vittolino Arroyo.

    Part of the basis for the judge’s ruling in our cases was that we had been unable to show any serious adverse reaction to the vaccine that would justify someone refusing the shot. As I listened to some of the stories of people on the panel, I realized that there were some seriously injured people. One young man, who had begun to have lesions that looked like burn marks all over his body immediately after he received a shot, testified about how he had lost his vision and continued to have medical problems. Incredibly, his father had served in the Army also in Vietnam and had cancer from the defoliant Agent Orange. An Army Major, John Irelan, detailed how Air Force doctors had refused to connect his illness with anthrax and blocked his filing of a VAERS form.

    This refusal of military doctors to even acknowledge adverse reactions was a common theme that I heard repeated by many servicemembers. It was disturbing because it allowed Major General West, in the panel that followed ours, to claim that “of all the people that were here today, there was only one person that has a medical diagnosis that directly links it to vaccine.”[ii] In other words, if military doctors do not diagnose it as anthrax related, then it’s not anthrax related, and therefore there really aren’t that many adverse reactions. Even responding to the coroner’s report finding a systemic reaction to the vaccine General West claimed that “[t]here are other medical experts who believe it [the death] was not [AVIP connected].”[iii] It became clear to me the military wanted it to be a battle of experts and the DoD could always trot out its own medical personnel and how could anyone gainsay them, given the classified nature of DoD vaccine research? And who would dare to question a doctor’s impartiality or medical opinion, even though they were essentially under orders and saying what their employer wanted them to say?

    This is yet another sordid aspect of the anthrax program – the compromise of military medical professionals in service to a corrupt and illegal DoD vaccine program. Report after Congressional report and inquiry after Congressional inquiry reveal that military personnel were not told required information about vaccines or medications, and worse yet, told only that they had to take it. Congressional and GAO reports detail this repeatedly, from the Gulf War’s use of investigational drugs to failed recordkeeping attempts in Bosnia with the encephalitis vaccine. The anthrax vaccine was no different, in large part because the DoD, from the program’s inception, made it a “commander’s program.”[iv] This oft-repeated phrase transformed the medical officer from an independent expert bound by his profession’s ethical rules to provide medical care to servicemembers into a Commander’s staff officer responsible solely for ensuring that the “commander’s program” is carried out, with such trivial consideration as laws or medical ethics thrown in the garbage. Medical officers were given nothing more than talking points around the AVIP, entirely from DoD briefing slides and a DoD website. When I cross-examined the Group Surgeon for Third Force Service Support Group, he acknowledged this was explicitly the case, all while still defending the program.

    During the government’s direct examination, the doctor made broad, sweeping pronouncements about the AVA’s effectiveness against aerosolized anthrax. When I questioned him about the manufacturer’s IND application filed in 1996, he was unaware of it. His answer was that there “may be some political ramifications why they filed that. I don’t know.”[v] I questioned him about the rhesus monkey studies using the AVA and his knowledge of them.

    Q:   . . . have you read the actual results of the study?

    A:  I haven’t read the actual study.

    Q:  Well how do you know then that it is what you said it is? What is your testimony based upon?

    A:  Based upon the briefing sheets that I get. I also looked at the DoD anthrax website which is information that we have –

    What was interesting to me about the exchange wasn’t just his ignorance about the most basic aspects of the vaccine or the program, but was that people refusing the vaccine, who are still patients like any other patient, were now “they” and the doctor and the DoD were “we.”

    This is what happens to those who refuse. Even doctors, who should appreciate more than anyone patient fears about taking shots, had become zealots in defense of the anthrax program. In no other medical treatment regime do we find doctors in lockstep with a military commander about the nature of a medication or treatment. The DoD and military leaders were not providing briefing slides or medical information about Hepatitis B, for example. Or Japanese encephalitis. In those cases, the commander relied upon the expert advice of the doctor to advise the commander of the need for a particular treatment or medical intervention. Somehow with the AVA, however, the entire process was reversed. The histrionic portrayal of the biological warfare threat was such that commanders were now in the position of advising doctors about the necessity of treatments and, more importantly, about the history, background, and safety of such treatments. Had the doctor at Stonewall’s trial looked in a basic microbiology textbook, he would have found that among thirty-six vaccines, the anthrax vaccine was the only one listed under the category “special immunization and experimentation.”[vi]

    Unfortunately, military doctors, non-warriors in a warrior culture, found in biological warfare a chance to be in a position heretofore unheard of for military doctors, as a kind of “biological warfare intelligence officer,” using their medical expertise to advise commanders about the “threat” from disease via biological attack. In the past, the threat from disease was no different for the military than it was for the civilian population and the military doctor’s role was much like a civilian doctor’s: treat people for illness and injury, using preventative medicine to the extent possible. In the Gulf War and post-Gulf War, doctors became special advisors, responsible for ensuring that a vaccine – now considered a part of “total force protection” – was administered to the troops, no matter what. Military doctors stepped all too willingly into this role, abandoning professional objectivity in an effort to be “part of the team.”[1]

    The media bombardment surrounding the anthrax threat allowed doctors to convince themselves of the necessity for their involvement. If it is psychologically understandable, it is still professionally inexcusable. Doctors have an ethical duty to their patients outside of their job as officers, just as lawyers do to the law. If a commander told his staff judge advocate that he was contemplating murdering innocent civilians, then the lawyer would be obligated not simply to advise the commander not to do it, but to stop him from completing such unlawful action or to turn him in for the violation if he went forward. George Annas, in his excellent article on this subject, addressed this question with respect to military doctors.

    What should physicians in the military do when asked to administer investigational agents without the informed consent of the soldiers? Even if such administration is legal . . . it is unethical and following orders is no excuse for unethical conduct, even in combat. It would seem that the only justification a physician could have for participating in the administration of experimental or investigational agents without consent is that the physician sincerely believes that the agents are therapeutic under combat conditions. This is a difficult position to defend, because war does not change the investigational nature of a drug or vaccine. Such a decision would also be contrary to military regulations, which state that although a serviceperson must accept standard medical treatment, or face court-martial, soldiers have no obligation to accept interventions that are not generally recognized by the medical profession as standard procedures.

    A related question is whether the military physician is primarily responsible for the health and well-being of the soldiers under the physician’s care (as in civilian life) or must subordinate the medical interests of the soldier-patients to the military mission. Remarkably there is no written policy or standard view on this question in the military. This issue deserves critical attention in peacetime, because it is not susceptible to rational thought during wartime. An unequivocal policy upholding traditional patient-centered ethics, although not legally required, seems the most responsible position for U.S. military physicians to take.[vii]

    Unfortunately, there still was no unequivocal policy by the respective service Surgeons General on the military doctor’s role. In the case of the anthrax vaccine program, it is important to realize that we were not at war. The rule regarding informed consent has gone from the Nuremberg Code’s absolute position, to Desert Storm’s wartime exigency, to the peacetime potentiality of terrorism. This happened with very little scholarly or public debate and notwithstanding the harms suffered by World War II, Korean, Vietnam, and now Gulf War veterans from investigational treatments administered without informed consent. Mr. Annas, who holds a law degree and a Master’s in public Health from Harvard, testified before the FDA rulemaking committee regarding the Rule 23(d) waiver.

    In December 1995, I was invited to participate in a meeting on Rule 23(d) sponsored by the Presidential Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans’ Illnesses. During the meeting, DOD representative continually referred to American soldiers as “the kids” and the responsibility of DOD to protect “the kids.” I probably waited too long to tell him that I found this offensive, but he apologized for his choice of words. Nonetheless, the words are telling. Rule 23(d) treats American soldiers like kids and applies the basic rules for research on children to them with regard to consent – someone else makes the decision for them because they are seen as too immature to make it for themselves. For an adult this is always an affront to human dignity and disrespectful of personhood. In this regard, Rule 23(d) is a mistake and an aberration.[viii]

    This reference to soldiers as “kids” has another, more subtle, persuasive use.  While Mr. Annas viewed the use as derogatory with respect to consenting adults, it also conveys to the listener that the speaker is seeking to protect children, and who could possibly argue that protecting children is not a worthy cause? Of course, as Mr. Annas pointed out, military members are hardly children.

    Mr. Annas was also troubled by the DoD’s insistence that keeping the waiver of Rule 23(d) in place was “consistent with law and ethics.” As he notes,

    Soldiers are not pieces of equipment. They have numbers, but they retain their humanity and basic human rights. DOD should have exercised a third kind of courage – the courage to admit its mistake – and asked FDA to rescind Rule 23(d) and removed this pointless blot on our military laws. Instead, when Public Citizen petitioned FDA to revoke the rule in 1996, DOD supported continuing the waiver of consent rule as “fully consistent with law and ethics.” In mid 1997, FDA asked for public comments on what should become of the rule. The answer remains simple: it should be rescinded because it violates every code and ethical principle developed since World War II to regulate research with human subjects, and it is unacceptable to permit commanders to turn soldiers into research subjects.[ix]

                                                                                                                                                                                                               

    Endnotes

    [1] This phenomenon is by no means limited to doctors. I have noticed many other non-combatant staff advisors guilty of doing the same thing, abandoning professional doctrines in an effort to please commanders and “get the job done.” Lawyers who serve as Staff Judge Advocates are known for this, frequently acting as if they are the personal attorney of the Commander. I have sat in classes given by senior judge advocates, more than one, who have stated that “the challenge is not just to tell the Commander what the law is, but to find a way to allow him to do what he wants, to fit that within the law.” I call that spin. Better to tell a commander that his actions are unlawful, defend that position if it is honestly held, and suffer the consequences than to prostitute one’s legal opinion and engage in some scholarly rationalization to justify going along with the commander.

    [i] Testimony of Major Jon Irelan, US Army, before the House Government Reform Committee, Oct. 5, 2000.

    [ii] Testimony of MGen Randy West, USMC, before the House Government Reform Committee, Oct. 5, 2000.

    [iii] Id.

    [iv] “Department of Defense Anthrax Vaccine Immunization Program AVIP: Unproven Force Protection,” Report of the House Comm. On Govt Reform, Apr. 3, 2000, p.3.

    [v] Testimony of Cdr Gregory Chin, USN, in U.S. v. Stonewall, record at p.81.

    [vi] Principles and Practice of Infectious Diseases, 4th ed., p. 2770 (1995).

    [vii] George J. Annas, “Protecting Soldiers from Friendly Fire: The Consent Requirement for Using Investigational Drugs and Vaccines in Combat,” Amer. J. of Law and Medicine, Vol. 24, Jan. 1, 1998.

    [viii] Id.

    [ix] Id.

  • Chapter 17: Science Intervenes and Project Badger Surfaces

    A study was conducted on 8,195 British Gulf War-era veterans. The British, serving alongside American forces, gave their servicemen untested vaccines as well.  There were two important findings from the study:

    • The Gulf War cohort reported symptoms and disorders significantly more frequently than those in the Bosnia Era cohorts, which were similar . . . Gulf War veterans were more likely than the Bosnia cohort to have substantial fatigue, symptoms of post-traumatic stress, and psychological distress, and were twice as likely to reach the CDC case definition [of Gulf War Illness]. …Vaccination against biological warfare and multiple routine vaccinations were associated with all outcomes.[i]
    • Service in the Gulf War was associated with various health problems over and above those associated with deployment to an unfamiliar hostile environment. Since associations of ill health with adverse events and exposures were found in all cohorts, however, they may not be unique and causally implicated in the Gulf War-related illness. A specific mechanism may link vaccination against biological warfare agents and later ill health, but the risks of illness must be considered against the protection of servicemen.[ii]

    The state of Kansas Commission of Veterans Affairs funded a study of 2,030 Kansas Gulf War era veterans. Despite over $150 million spent on Gulf War Illness research, DoD has never conducted a comparable study on US service members. The Kansas study concluded:

    Gulf War Illness . . . occurred in 34% of Persian Gulf War (PGW) veterans, 12% of non-PGW veterans who reported receiving vaccines during the war, and 4% of non-PGW veterans who did not receive vaccines . . . Among PGW veterans who served away from battlefield areas, Gulf War illness was least prevalent among those who departed the region prior to the war (9%) and most prevalent among those who departed in June or July of 1991 (41%). Observed patterns suggest that excess morbidity among Gulf War veterans is associated with characteristics of their wartime service, and that vaccines used during the war may be a contributing factor.[iii]

    Britain and Canada also conducted studies and found a possible link to vaccines given to their veterans. One of the most interesting studies is one by France that found no Gulf War Illness at all among its veterans. In September 2000, France’s Defense Minister Alain Richard created an independent commission to look into the health of the French military servicemembers who participated in the Gulf War.[iv] Interestingly, a French medical corps spokesman, said that

    “France’s belief that allied troops were victims of their own protective measures were based on a long series of meetings with U.S. medical experts . . .  ‘About 100,000 of the 600,000 Americans who served in the Gulf complain of ailments that have tentatively been lumped under the Gulf War syndrome heading. No one has yet come to definitive conclusions but we note that of 25,000 Frenchmen who served in the Gulf, only 180 have ailments whose origin could be in question. The only really major difference between the two groups is vaccinations,’ he said.” [v]

    These studies received little to no attention in the U.S., and in some cases, were immediately disclaimed by the DoD. There was also a considerable amount of anecdotal evidence regarding adverse reactions to the anthrax vaccine. Perhaps the DoD was right in one respect, the advent of email allows large numbers of people to communicate around the world quickly. It is an ideal tool for servicemembers, who are deployed the world over, to communicate with friends quickly regardless of time zones or presence at the receiving end. I personally received dozens of emails from different people detailing adverse health effects from the anthrax vaccine. One email contained a list of at least a hundred names with phone numbers and/or addresses, as well as the particular adverse effect.

    Finally, the most compelling study conducted on Gulf War Illness, and perhaps revealing the worst about the DoD, is a study conducted at Tulane University and the controversy it started. Originally, a 1999 Vanity Fair article stated that DoD had used an experimental anthrax vaccine on troops going to the Gulf War. This article explained that the vaccine was experimental because it contained a substance known as squalene.  Squalene is an experimental adjuvant. An adjuvant is a substance added to a vaccine in order to increase the body’s immune response to the vaccine itself. Squalene is produced naturally by the body in very minute quantities but it is not licensed by the FDA for injection into human beings. Squalene not only boosts the immune system’s response, it also decreases the time necessary for the body to develop immunity to the vaccine. The Vanity Fair article posited that there was squalene in the anthrax vaccine given to service members during the Gulf War.

    Questions about vaccine adjuvant formulations were raised to DOD in June 1994. At that time, an immunologist from the private sector notified the Defense Science Board that some symptoms being reported by Gulf War-era veterans were very similar to those of her patients with autoimmune diseases. These patients had a range of symptoms affecting more than one of the body systems and the immunologist believed they were associated with exposure to vaccine adjuvant formulations. In October 1995, DOD, before a meeting of the Presidential Advisory Commission on Gulf War illnesses, dismissed this hypothesis on the grounds that it had administered only vaccines with aluminum salts as adjuvants. In November 1996 and again in 1997, the immunologist notified DOD, based on independent research, that she had found antibodies to squalene in the blood of a few sick veterans who had served in the military during the Gulf War. However, DOD has not responded to these findings. According to the researcher, she continues to be willing to discuss the research with DOD.[vi]

    The Tulane scientists had developed a test, called an assay, for detecting the presence of squalene antibodies in the bloodstream. Some Gulf war veterans who were found to have squalene antibodies in their blood early on approached Congressman Jack Metcalf (R-WA). In 1997, Representative Metcalf asked the GAO to conduct an inquiry into the possibility that squalene was in vaccines given to service members. This study by the GAO took three years to complete and the timing of its release in March 1999 could not have been worse for the DoD. The report found a “pattern of deception” by the DoD with regards to the use of squalene adjuvants.[vii]

    At an initial meeting with DoD officials, GAO notes show that the DoD claimed that they “had not performed or sponsored any research on synthetic or natural squalene or squalene until after the Gulf War.”[viii] The GAO investigators, however, found articles and databases that indicated there had been squalene studies before the Gulf War. The investigators confronted DoD officials with some of these public records and some of the DoD officials began to admit that they had conducted five human trials involving squalene and that a sixth was planned. Furthermore, the GAO investigators found that the DoD “had conducted numerous animal studies, particularly to develop a modern vaccine for anthrax. In fact, in most cases they only admitted to conducting research after we had discovered it in public records. On three occasions, people attending a meeting did not report their own research on squalene adjuvants.”[ix]

    The GAO investigators also met with various officials, including the DoD’s Director of AIDS research during the Gulf War, members of the FDA, who all pointed to Colonel (Dr.) Carl Alving as the person who “was most interested in developing own adjuvants at WRAIR [Walter Reed Army Institute of Research].”[x] During meetings with DoD officials, Dr. Iving was never present nor mentioned, despite NIH and FDA officials calling him the top DoD researcher on vaccine issues. When finally interviewed by GAO investigators, Dr. Alving initially denied any participation in vaccine adjuvants. When pressed, he recalled that he had been called by someone at USAMRIID “who asked if he could develop a new, more potent anthrax vaccine on a crash basis to use in Operation Desert Shield. He worked on it and thought he could do it, but no one ever called him back. He wouldn’t say who called . . . or why he just didn’t return the call.”[xi]

    Interviews with Dr. Anna Johnson-Winegar revealed a Tri-Service Task Force operation called Project Badger. Winegar mentioned that Dr. Alving was the DoD’s in-house adjuvant expert. She also mentioned that “[s]ome in the group were willing to jump out and use everything. (She refused to say who.)”[xii]

    The GAO then interviewed General Blanck, Army Surgeon General, who disclosed that the DoD had very little botulism toxoid vaccine and so “we contracted with Porton to make them.” Porton refers to Porton Down, a British vaccine manufacturer.  According to General Blanck, “we got it, but didn’t use it.”[xiii] General Blanck also pointed the GAO investigators to a Peter Collis, who headed oversight for Project Badger and vaccine efforts. Peter Collis refused to talk to the GAO. First, he cited the classified nature of the research, which was a non-issue for the GAO. He then said he couldn’t look at some matters as a civilian without a clearance (GAO offered to get him a temporary clearance). Mr. Collis then called to say he didn’t know much, even though notes from Badger showed him at the center of all Badger discussions and running the briefings.”[xiv]

    By September of 1998, the GAO investigators were discussing the Tulane study’s assay for determining the presence of squalene antibodies. DoD officials acknowledged that they could develop their own assay inexpensively and test Gulf War veterans, which would either refute or corroborate the Tulane results. They refused to do so, even after urging by the GAO. The DoD, in an effort to try to put the issue to rest, contracted to have lots of the anthrax vaccine tested by Stanford Research Institute (SRI) International. The tests did not find any squalene in the AVA. This gave the DoD what appeared to be unimpeachable proof that no squalene laced vaccine was given to Gulf War Veterans. The Tulane study was still very compelling, however, because of the extremely high percentage of Gulf War veterans with GWS who had squalene antibodies in their system, including those who didn’t deploy to the Gulf but received vaccines. These persons all suffered some form of autoimmune disorder. This is also in keeping with laboratory studies on animals given squalene formulations. These animals had an increased incidence of autoimmune disorders.

    After the GAO report’s release in March 1999, the DoD began a concerted effort to discredit both the report and the Tulane research. The GAO encouraged the DoD to participate in the Tulane study by testing Gulf War veterans in its own studies using the Tulane assay or developing its own to validate the Tulane assay. The DoD’s response was that even though “they [DoD] could develop an assay . . . for detecting antibodies to squalene . . . [and] it would not be expensive to develop [and] . . . test it on a sample of Gulf War-era veterans that are sick” they refused to do so.[xv] The DoD medical people recited a litany of reasons why they would not and should not participate in such research.

    They [DoD scientists] believed that since DOD did not use adjuvants with squalene, DOD does not need to develop such an assay or to screen the veterans for the antibodies. Second, squalene is a substance that occurs naturally in the human body, and they doubted that an assay could be developed to differentiate antibodies to natural and manufactured squalene. Third, they noted that squalene is also found in numerous topical creams that some soldiers could have used. Finally, DOD officials do not believe that funding squalene antibodies in veterans would prove that the antibodies caused Gulf War illnesses.[xvi]

    Here is promising scientific research that shows a strong link between GWS and a potential cause, yet rather than at least encourage or aid the research, which one would think DoD would do if it were truly concerned about finding a cause and perhaps treatment for GW veterans’ illnesses, DoD responded by circling the wagons and denying that such a link could exist. And then offered that “topical creams” used by soldiers could be the source of the squalene. The DoD responded to the report by asking that it be definitively entitled “GULF WAR ILLNESSES: Gulf War Veterans Did Not Receive Vaccine Adjuvant Formulations Containing Squalene”.[xvii] Additionally, the DoD asserted that “in view of the GAO’s conclusion that Gulf War era Veterans did not receive vaccine adjuvant formulations containing squalene, the GAO proposal to test Gulf War veterans for the presence of squalene antibodies seems scientifically and fiscally irresponsible.”[xviii] The GAO responded in its report:

    DOD misstated our finding on whether Gulf War-era veterans may have received vaccine adjuvant formulations containing squalene. We did not conclude that Gulf War era veterans were not given adjuvant formulations containing squalene. Rather, we cannot say definitively whether or not Gulf War-era veterans were given these formulations. We have modified the report text to make this point clear.[xix]

    Now the DoD was caught “misstating” the GAO’s conclusions and asking the GAO to change the title of its report on the squalene issue.

    At the same time, the DoD began an attack on the Tulane research. On May 24, 1999, Dr. Carl Alving called Dr. Robert Garry, a respected scientist who was working o the Tulane study. Dr. Alving expressed a “purely scientific” interest in Dr. Garry’s research and asked for a copy of the in-progress work. Dr. Garry agreed to fax a copy, asking Dr. Alving not to circulate it as it was preliminary only. The final report differed significantly from the in-progress work. Dr. Alving not only circulated it, but subjected it to a scathing review and placed that review on the DoD’s website prior to the paper’s final publication. The review included an accusation that the Tulane researchers had an “anti-military agenda,” though there was little evidence to support this. In fact, the DoD claimed on its website that the Tulane “conclusions derived from the test have no scientific basis.”[xx] Dr. Garry later stated that this preemptive strike by the DoD might well hinder the chances for the research getting published in a peer reviewed journal. At the same time, the DoD repeatedly denounced the Tulane results by claiming that the paper had not been published in a peer-reviewed journal.

    Notwithstanding these attempts to prevent the paper’s publication, the Tulane study was published in February 2000 in a peer-reviewed journal. Despite the DoD’s refusals, Congress finally required the DoD to participate in a squalene study as part of the Defense Appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2000. The DoD claimed that “the FDA verified that none of the vaccines used during the Gulf War contained squalene as an adjuvant.” The FDA was queried by Representative Metcalf and responded in a much more qualified manner, stating that “neither the licensed vaccines known to be used in the Gulf War, nor the one investigational product known to have been used, contained squalene as an adjuvant in the formulations on file with FDA.”

    On October 3, 2000, while I sat coolly with David Ponder and his wife Jenn in the Rayburn Building waiting for his chance to testify before Congress, Representative Jack Metcalf read from a report his staff had prepared, including the shocker (or perhaps not) that retesting of the lots revealed trace amounts of squalene in the AVA. The original tests had been sensitive to detecting squalene in parts per million. The supplemental testing detected squalene in parts per billion, 1000 times more sensitive. An independent vaccinologist from Baylor University, however, offered that even in those amounts the presence of the adjuvant could boost immune response.

    The DoD then took a new position. At this point, the DoD claimed that “amounts were so minute as to be insignificant.” Additionally, the FDA came in to disclaim what its own scientists had found. What is interesting about the DoD position is that it still doesn’t explain the presence of squalene in the vaccine. It is one thing to point out that the body produces squalene naturally and that the amounts are small. The DoD, and the manufacturer, have still not come forward to state that squalene is naturally produced in the vaccine by either the bacillus anthracis or some other aspect of the manufacturing process. Until that explanation happened, and it didn’t, in addition to all of the other failed inspections and contaminated lots, the anthrax vaccine should have been considered adulterated, containing an experimental adjuvant. More startling is that on the same day that David Ponder testified before Congress, a press conference was held where DoD spokesman Ken Bacon answered questions about squalene in the anthrax vaccine.

    QUESTION: And just to be clear, and I know that this has come up many times before over the years, but squalene also is not present in vaccines used during the Gulf War, before the Gulf War, after the Gulf War and to this day; is that correct?

    BACON: I have been told – I’m not an expert on vaccines and certainly not on squalene, but I’ve been told that squalene has not been in vaccines for – or certainly in the anthrax vaccine for a considerable period of time.

    According to this statement by DoD’s own spokesman, the Anthrax Vaccine did have squalene in it at some point, but not “for a considerable period of time.”

    The history of this DoD research seems incredibly coincidental. Between 1988 and 1998, DOD sponsored 101 clinical trials on vaccines under IND protocols; this means test involving human subjects. None of these human studies involved an anthrax vaccine, although 5 studies involved squalene and two occurred before the Gulf War.  More questionable were several experiments on animals, using vaccines with adjuvant formulations containing squalene, for a wide range of diseases, including anthrax, toxic shock, and malaria. The anthrax vaccine experiments with adjuvant formulations containing squalene began in 1987, and some of the results were presented at conferences and published in several medical journals. The GAO noted that

    DOD’s animal studies are of interest for two reasons. First, because tests on animals are generally performed before human trials, they represent the first step of vaccine research and provide a more complete picture about the state of research on adjuvant formulations with squalene before the Gulf War. Second, since vaccines against biological warfare cannot be tested for efficacy in humans, animal research is considered essential by researchers.[xxi]

    In light of all of this compelling research and evidence, the question becomes why? Why would the DoD not want to find out the cause of Gulf War Illness? Even if it were the anthrax vaccine, wouldn’t the health of veterans be more important than one vaccine? The answer to that question involves a mix of politics, personal agendas, and, of course, money. Unfortunately, it also reveals something about the leadership of the U.S. Armed Forces.

     

    ENDNOTES

    [i] Catherine Unwin, et.al., “Health of UK servicemen who served in Persian Gulf War”, The Lancet, 16 Jan 1999, page 169.

    [ii] Unwin, page 169.

    [iii] Lea Steele, “Prevalence and Patterns of Gulf War Illness in Kansas Veterans: Association of Symptoms with Characteristics of Person, Place, and Time of Military Service”, American Journal of Epidemiology, Vol. 152, No. 10 : 992-1002, page 1 of 14 (online).

    See: http://aje.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/full/152/10/992

    [iv] “France Investigates Gulf War Syndrome”, The Lancet, 18 Nov 2000, page 1747.

    [v] “French to Check Liaison Officers for Gulf Syndrome”, Reuters, 14 Sep 2000.

    [vi] GAO Report 99-5, March 1999 p. 2.

    [vii] Background working documents, GAO Report 99-5, DI-23

    [viii] Background working documents, GAO Report 99-5, DI-2

    [ix] Background working documents, GAO Report 99-5, DI-23

    [x] Background working documents, GAO Report 99-5, DI-20, F-5

    [xi] Background working documents, GAO Report 99-5, DI-23

    [xii] Background working documents, GAO Report 99-5, DI-9

    [xiii] Background working documents, GAO Report 99-5, DI-8

    [xiv] Background working documents, GAO Report 99-5, DI-23

    [xv] GAO Report 99-5, p. 8.

    [xvi] Id.

    [xvii] 99-5, p.22.

    [xviii] Id.

    [xix] Id.

    [xx] Letter from Rep. Jack Metcalf to Secretary of Defense William Cohen dtd February 25, 2000, quoting from the DoD’s anthrax website in February 2000.

    [xxi] GAO Report, 99-5, p. 5.

  • Term Limits, Part III (Fin)

    Read the previous installments: Part 1, Part 2

    Reduce the Market Itself

    Donald Trump campaigned explicitly on term limits. His proposal was that Senators serve only two terms (for a total of 12 years) and that Congressmen and Congresswomen serve only 3 terms (a total of 6 years, for those of you who slept during civics class). This might be the smartest idea that Donald Trump has ever had (proving – yet again – the wisdom in the aphorisms about the blind squirrel and the broken clock).

    The surest way to drastically reduce (notice I said “reduce,” not “rid”) the political system of the vast sums of money that pour in from both Democrat and Republican PACS, SuperPACs, Unions, lobbyists, etc., is to make the “market” for politicians be so low that the amounts involved wouldn’t rise high enough to finance a political campaign. You want to discourage both buyers and sellers from even attempting the transaction by making the transaction worth as close to zero as possible.

    I have one friend who believes the answer is what I consider the “death penalty” for re-election campaigns: one term only for all politicians, effectively killing the re-election campaign market entirely. Senators would serve their single 6 year term and Congress-critters would get only 2, then it’s just like they say at the barber shop: “Next!” No one would then be able to use the cover of a re-election campaign as their primary vehicle for soliciting donations – and, more importantly, for paying off those donations by changing the legal status of either the donor or the rest of the citizenry, via legislation, or favorable tax status, or whatever form the payoff takes. I believe this is too radical an approach and undermines some of the institutional considerations that led the Founders to structure the government the way they did. My friend’s idea is too much like Congress’ approach for me. “When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail” to quote Maslow’s Law of the Instrument.

    Congress’ approach to things they don’t like, as illustrated in part II, is simply to declare it illegal and then order the King’s Men to enforce the edict. What has been repeatedly demonstrated, however, is that simply prohibiting something by declaration – even with draconian enforcement methods and penalties – is an abysmal failure in every instance, including campaign finance reform. Prohibition of alcohol didn’t stop drinking; the War on ________ hasn’t stopped ________. Feel free to fill in your pet cause: Poverty rates are the same today as they were right before Lyndon Johnson declared “War!” on it, notwithstanding the billions and perhaps trillions spent on that war. It’s even worse for Drugs.

    I think this attempt to obliterate the entire re-election market has too much downside, no matter how much it personally appeals to me. There are valid arguments for some continuity and retained “corporate knowledge” in the legislative arm of the U.S. government. I believe a middle-ground between the current system and the “no re-election” position is – and I can’t believe I’m saying this – exactly what Trump campaigned on: 12 years for Senators, though I would give 8 years (4 terms) to Congressman, because of the shorter terms. While it doesn’t completely eliminate re-election campaigns, what it would do – along with staggered elections every two years for one-third of each legislative chamber – is drastically reduce the “value” of any given legislator to near zero, because:

    1. There  is a “lag time” required for new legislators to build up their graft mechanisms er, re-election campaigns. It takes some time to find one’s way around. I would give the incoming Senators and House members the benefit of the doubt for one Senatorial term. Twelve years is plenty of time to pursue something, do some legislative “good”… and then it’s time to go back to the productive/working class. The same is true of the 8 year limit for Congressman. After that, as far as I’m concerned, you’re a government welfare recipient of the worst kind.
    2. Term limits act as a natural check on legislative overreach and ambition. Legislators know that 90% reelection stat and they all are “banking” that they won’t be in the 10% who get sacked. The law is NEVER applied to Senators and House members like it is to the rest of us, as Obamacare showed everyone. (No Senator waits in line at the DMV like you do, either). If, however, the clock is already set for a fixed term, old Congressman Know-Nothing might think twice about what he does to you and me with his pen if he knows in the not-very-distant future, someone may very well be looking at his or her cell phone records, just like yours and mine.
    3. Large donors would have to take far greater risks with the possibility of no payback for their dollars. Given the current system involves tiered rates for those higher up in the food chain, the time compression of term limits would mean that by the time someone gains the experience to become a Committee Chair, they would likely no longer be facing a re-election campaign to solicit donations, perhaps one or two in Congress. In other words, as one spent more time in the Senate or House with the clock ticking in the background, one’s “value” (measured as the ability to control a legislative agenda, pass legislation, or the like) would get lower with the passing of each day because of dwindling chances for re-election.
    There are other means to fortify this Amendment, in my opinion, but those are best left to a different post.

    More Possible than Ever?

    Term limits has been an issue many times in the past. It typically draws favorable polling from both sides of the political aisle. Republicans currently control 33 state legislatures and hold 32 governorships. It takes 34 states (2/3) to call for a Constitutional Convention. It takes 38 to ratify an Amendment. If Trump – and Republican allies – are truly the party of limited government, or want to leave a legacy that would make everything else they ever do pale in comparison, they should be activating on this issue. If the people of these United States want to begin the process of taking their Freedom back, this should be what is one everyone’s lips and on their state and federal representative’s agenda: Term Limits. The Chicago Tribune pointed this out just after the election. They – as a mouthpiece for Democrats since their inception – lament such an idea, but it’s the only form of “campaign finance reform” that will ever work. Given Democrats (and most Republicans) complete ignorance of economics and free-, gray-, and black-markets (the latter two of which are created by politicians via taxes and legislation), don’t expect a big push for this forgotten promise any time soon. Politicians know how their bread gets buttered and they aren’t anxious to see that change. It’s the one campaign promise Trump made – and got right – without sticking his foot in his mouth. We should actually hold him to this one.

  • Chapter 16: Guard Pilots Quit

    While many factors can influence an individual’s decision to leave the military, surveyed Guard and Reserve pilots and aircrew members cited the anthrax immunization as a key reason for leaving or otherwise changing their military status. Since September 1998, an estimated 25 percent of the pilots and aircrew members of the Guard and Reserve in this population transferred to another unit (primarily in a non-flying position), left the military, or moved to inactive status. While several reasons influenced their decision, when asked to rank the one most important factor, the anthrax immunization was the highest, followed by other employment opportunities, and family reasons. Further, about one in five (18 percent) left before qualifying for military retirement benefits. Additionally, 18 percent of those still participating in or assigned to a unit reported their intentions to leave within the next 6 months. These individuals also ranked the anthrax immunization as the most important factor for their decision to leave, followed by unit workload and family reasons. Each of these groups—those who have left and those who plan to do so–had accumulated an average of more than 3,000 flight hours, which symbolizes a seasoned and experienced workforce.[i]

    The impact of the anthrax program on the Armed Services was substantial. DoD representatives continued to assert that the impact was negligible and that the refusals and courts-martial were only a misinformed minority. This is because the Armed Forces have to answer to Congress for recruiting goals and retention and how money is being spent. Even if the DoD doesn’t have to answer to servicemembers, it does have to answer to Congress for end-strength and staffing. If the anthrax vaccine program was a significant cause of members leaving the service, Congress could quash the program on those grounds alone. Thus, when asking the DoD about the AVIP’s effect on retention and recruiting, the answer was always “minimal”.[ii]

    Both anecdotal and empirical evidence, however, show exactly the opposite.

    Servicemembers left both active duty and reserve forces because of the anthrax vaccine program. Those who had no other alternative were refusing the vaccine outright and suffering the consequences. Unfortunately, the DoD did not want to know how bad the statistics were and as of October 2000, they still were not tracking refusal numbers or reasons people left the service. When the GAO recommended that exit surveys include a question about whether or not the anthrax vaccine was a factor in their decision to leave, the DoD objected to the question as being “leading” and that it would result in survey bias.[iii] In the study conducted on National Guard and Reserve aircrew, the GAO found significant numbers of people who cited the anthrax vaccine as the number one reason for either transferring to a new unit or for leaving the Guard or Reserve.[iv] As the GAO noted, “[t]hese components [Reserve and Guard forces] provide essential support to critical defense operations on a worldwide basis. They provide strategic and tactical airlift, aerial refueling, aeromedical evacuation, and augment DOD’s overall fighter force.”[v] Not noted in these reports, but important to understand, is that most Reserve and Guard aircrew are made up of former active duty servicemembers. While it is not definitive, neither is it a stretch to opine that the views of this particular segment of Guard and Reserve society is closely reflective of the views of their brethren on active duty. The numbers reveal two disturbing trends.

    First, pilots and aircrew left or transferred in significant numbers because of the anthrax vaccine: to the tune of one out of every four (1/4). Of the remaining members, another 18% (about one out of five) indicated that they were leaving within the next 6 months (the survey was conducted from May to September 2000) and they listed the anthrax vaccine as the number one reason. This means that if a unit started with some baseline number of aircrew, it initially lost 25% citing the AVIP as the number one reason. Therefore, the unit is (setting aside new acquisitions for the moment) at 75% of its prior strength. At the same time, one fifth of the remainder will leave within six months. That cuts the unit down to 65% of original strength. The most disturbing aspect of this trend is that new acquisitions will not return the unit to its former functioning as the members leaving had an average experience level of 3000 flight hours, a fairly significant experience level.[1]

    Second, adverse reactions were being massively underreported. The GAO survey of 1253 Guard and Reserve aircrew found that of the forty-two (42) percent who had received one or more shots

    86 percent reported experiencing side effects or adverse reactions. About 60 percent indicated that they had not discussed any side effect to the anthrax vaccine with military health care personnel or their supervisors—some (49 percent) citing as their reasons fear of losing their flight status, adverse effects on their military or civilian careers, and ridicule. Seventy-one percent reported that they were unaware of the Food and Drug Administration’s Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System. Slightly less than 6 percent of those who had a reaction reported to this system.[vi]

    Here is proof that the VAERS system, upon which the DoD bases its .007 percent adverse reaction rate, is only being reported by 6% of those having adverse reactions. Perhaps it would be better to say that adverse reaction reports are being underreported by a factor of just under 20 (approximately 17). These numbers, as well as the anecdotal evidence, seem to correspond more closely to the AVA package insert’s serious adverse reaction rate of .2 percent.

    One related outcome of the study points to the most serious flaw and consequence of the AVIP: the loss of trust in low-level military leadership. There is perhaps nothing more tenuous, and yet necessary and essential, to a military organization than the trust that flows from those being led to their leaders. Unfortunately, in an effort to quash dissent, senior military leaders adopted a leadership style that was characteristic of the Soviet bloc armed forces we stood against for some fifty years – leadership by fear and threat of punishment. In the long run it did not work for those countries and our country is even more ill-suited for that style because of the free-flow of information within the United States. Quite simply, whenever a senior officer makes some factual assertion or claim about the AVA, or the anthrax program, or the manufacturer, or the threat of anthrax, it is a short trip to the library, internet, or other source of information for a soldier to check the veracity of that statement.

    The results of the GAO survey showed that while “[m]ost Guard and Reserve pilots and aircrew members support immunization programs in general . . . relatively few appear to support the anthrax program or future immunization programs for other biological warfare agents.”[vii] If the correlation between Reservists and active duty members is valid, servicemembers appeared to recognize what the DoD was not willing to discuss publicly; using vaccines against diseases like the public at large is entirely acceptable, but using vaccines as pretreatments for chemical-biological warfare is a different matter entirely and people are understandably hesitant to allow their bodies to become the future battleground, particularly with the DoD calling the shots. The hard data validates this conclusion.

    Almost three out of four (74 percent) of the pilots and aircrew members of the Guard and Reserve believe that immunizations in general are moderately to very effective, and 60 percent believe that immunizations are moderately to very safe. On the other hand, 65 percent, or two out of three servicemembers, reported little or no support for the anthrax immunization.[viii]

    This statistic is interesting also because it shows that the DoD’s extensive education campaign was entirely ineffective. The reason for this is, unfortunately, because as more facts were uncovered, it became increasingly clear that the program evolved from telling less than the whole truth, to spin, to (in many cases) outright fabrication. There is nothing more damaging to the trust from subordinates to seniors than for subordinates to believe that their senior leaders have lied and are continuing to lie to them. In fact, several Reserve officers filed a complaint against two senior military officers involved in the anthrax program from the very beginning.

    One of the charges in the IG complaint alleges that Colonel Arthur Friedlander, an Army doctor, lied under oath at a Canadian court-martial. A Canadian soldier was being court-martialed for refusing to take the anthrax vaccine, the same one produced by Bioport. The prosecution in that case called Dr. Friedlander as one of its witnesses. On cross-examination, Dr. Friedlander was questioned regarding his knowledge of the 1996 Investigational New Drug license amendment submitted by MDPH, along with the Department of Defense.

    Attorney: If I’m going to suggest to you, sir, that the drug was licenced for cutaneous anthrax only and that there has been a subsequent amendment for coverage for inhalation anthrax, would you agree with me or disagree with me?

    Col Friedlander:  I’m not aware of that . . .

    [Later]

    Attorney: In particular, the fifth paragraph, it says that the office, and this is referring to the Joint Program Office for Biological Defense, quote: “‘managed and funded efforts leading to the submission of a Biologic Licensure Application amendment to the FDA,’ including data to support its proposal ‘to license the vaccine to provide protection against aerosol exposure to anthrax.’” Is that something you’re familiar with, sir, or would you disagree with that statement?

    Col Friedlander: I’m not sure the details of this. I do know that there were questions that were raised, since there are no direct studies in humans with this vaccine, and that a statement was made by the FDA that the use of the vaccine in the Gulf War against the threat of aerosol use of spores was not inconsistent with the product licence. . . .

    Attorney: If I was to suggest to you, sir, that we’ve heard evidence that the vaccine was licenced for cutaneous anthrax and that there was an application placing the drug into IND status with the FDA for three reasons: one, is to change for inhalational anthrax; two, was to change the route of administration; and, three, to change the scheduling of the drugs, would you agree with that or do you know?

    Col Friedlander: I know that there have been studies dealing with trying to reduce the number of doses and to look at the route of administration.

    Atty: So are you saying, sir, that you’re not familiar with what I’ve said, or you disagree with it?

    Friedlander: No, no. I don’t know that ­­ I’d have to look back at the documents that you’re referring to.

    Atty: Okay. So you’re not saying the drug is not in an IND status for those three variations?

    Friedlander: You know, I’m not clear what you’re saying in terms of ­­ I mean, I’m not quite clear what that means, in other words. There are studies that have been done, that I’m involved with, looking at reducing the number of doses and changing the route of administration.[ix]

    Here, Colonel Friedlander repeatedly denies having knowledge about the license amendment for the anthrax vaccine or the vaccine’s investigational status. This is impossible because Colonel Friedlander was personally involved on three occasions in DoD meetings, during which he specifically briefed the three reasons for the IND application, including an FDA license amendment to add an indication for inhalation anthrax. For example, at the October 20, 1995, meeting of the Joint Program Office for Biological Defense (JPOBD) Colonel Friedlander presented a briefing “covering three topics: (1) evidence for a reduction in the number of doses of anthrax vaccine, (2) evidence for vaccine efficacy against an aerosol challenge, and (3) progress towards an in vitro correlate of immunity.” [x] At this same meeting, Dr. Friedlander acknowledged that “there was insufficient data to demonstrate protection against inhalation disease.”[xi]

    At another meeting on Feb 9, 1996, which was a follow up to the October meeting, Colonel Friedlander presented another briefing titled “Research Plan to Support Reduction in Dosage of Licensed Anthrax Vaccine (AVA) and Indication for Aerosol Exposure”.[xii] The meeting minutes show that Friedlander discussed the need for the study to show a correlation between animal and human immune response to the vaccine – a recognition that the anthrax vaccine had never demonstrated efficacy for inhalation anthrax in humans.[xiii] This shows an intimate knowledge on Colonel Friedlander’s part about the FDA’s requirements for human studies to prove efficacy of the vaccine.

    Finally, on November 10, 1997, Colonel Friedlander presented another briefing to DoD and contractor representatives entitled “Supplement to AVA License.” This was 14 months after the submission of the IND application by the manufacturer, which was submitted in September 1996. The briefing slides clearly show the three changes sought (including an indication for inhalation anthrax) and that Colonel Friedlander was responsible for the pre-clinical portions of these studies intended to obtain FDA approval for these changes.[xiv]

    There are only two possible conclusions to be reached when re-reading Colonel Friedlander’s denials at the Canadian court, and neither is particularly favorable. In the best light, he completely forgot everything he knew about the anthrax program and his participation in it. In the worst light, he intentionally lied under oath. In either case, these types of inconsistent statements by senior military officers involved with the program break down the trust between service members and their leaders. This is not even close to being the only instance of this happening.

    There was a separate complaint filed by 74 Guard and Reserve officers surrounding statements made by Major General Paul Weaver before Congress. The complaint cited testimony before the House Government Reform Committee’s Subcommittee on National Security, Veterans’ Affairs and International Relations. At a Sept. 29, 1999, hearing in front of the House, Weaver stated:

    “So, when I hear all of these other figures about these mass resignations [due to members refusing the anthrax vaccine], and what not, they’re just not there. There are challenges with explaining, with discussing, as they all are, with the members of their unit, on the anthrax issue. But when it really gets down to it, we’ve had 10,700 people inoculated for anthrax in the Air National Guard, with one known refusal.”[xv]

    The problem with this testimony is that months before his statement to that Committee, Weaver had been made aware of the resignations of pilots from both the Connecticut Air National Guard and Wisconsin ANG. In the case of the Connecticut pilots, a memo was forwarded to Weaver about the Connecticut resignations. Additionally, both the Wisconsin and Connecticut resignations received widespread media coverage, including the Connecticut resignations being referenced by former Pentagon spokesperson Kenneth Bacon on Jan. 21, 1999. While ultimately the DoD IG did not punish Major General Weaver, it did find that his statement “lacked the necessary element of ‘straightforwardness,’ and so was inconsistent with guidelines for honesty as set forth by the Joint Ethics Regulations (JER).”[xvi] Major General Weaver later qualified what he meant by a refusal, which he defined as a person who had a commitment to the ANG and could thus be subject to disciplinary action, as opposed to someone who could simply resign because their status allowed them to. There were some emails by staff members prior to the General’s testimony that confirm that this definition was being contemplated, but it is clear no such qualifiers were made in the broad statement made to Congress – only one “refusal”, period.

    The sum total of these kinds of parsings, misrepresentations, or flat-out lies, is a disintegration in the trust between those being led and those who are supposed to be doing the leading. When 74 officers are filing a complaint because of a General officer’s mis-statements before Congress, there is a serious problem. The DoD’s refusal to acknowledge in sworn testimony before Congress that such a problem even exists, rather than making it go away, only exacerbates the problem and further erodes trust in senior leaders. The final example of this is the most disturbing because at best, it illustrates a severe disconnect between senior military leaders and those they lead and have led (i.e. veterans) and at worst, it is a case of an intentional coverup of experimentation on service members.

    In testimony to the Senate Armed Service’s Committee on 13 April 2000, then-Army Surgeon General Lieutenant General Ronald Blanck misrepresented the purpose of the Investigational New Drug application prepared by the Army for the manufacturer. The Senator who queried LTG Blanck was unfamiliar with the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and accepted LTG Blanck’s testimony without question. This question goes directly to the heart of the legal status of the vaccine and the General either lied or was grossly misinformed. It is difficult to believe that the United States Army Surgeon General was not “in the know” about the DoD’s plan to amend MBPI (and then BioPort’s) license.

    SEN. ROBERTS: General Blanck, the annual Congressionally mandated chemical and biological defense program report to Congress submitted on March 15, 2000, states: “The Department submitted data to the FDA last year to license the vaccine to provide protection against aerosol exposure to anthrax.” My question is why is the Department seeking a license for the vaccine when the license for the anthrax vaccine has existed since 1970?

    GEN. BLANCK:  It is really for the facility, not for the vaccine per se.

    SEN. ROBERTS: Oh, I see, okay. All right. That clears that up.

    There is a big difference between seeking a license change for a new facility and getting a new indication for the vaccine itself. In light of emails later discovered regarding DoD’s people “on site” and the supplemental testing conducted by the DoD, even in a light most favorable to the General, if he wasn’t lying, then he was either completely misinformed by his subordinates about what was going on (which isn’t reassuring in any way) or completely misunderstood the FDA regulatory process, which doesn’t speak well for his knowledge as the Surgeon General. Furthermore, in 1994, General Blanck, when he was the Commanding General of Walter Reed Army Medical Center, briefed a Congressional committee that

    Therefore, its [AVA’s] safety, particularly when given to thousands of soldiers in conjunction with other vaccines, is not well established. Anthrax vaccine should continue to be considered as a potential cause for undiagnosed illnesses in Persian Gulf military personnel because many of the support troops received anthrax vaccine, and because the DOD believes that the incidence of undiagnosed illnesses in support troops may be higher than that in combat troops.[xvii]

    Just a few years prior, General Blanck asserts that the DoD believes that the AVA should be considered a cause of Gulf War Illness. Yet after his promotion to Surgeon General of the Army and the launch of the AVIP, he tried to disavow these statements. It would be understandable if General Blanck’s change in position were due to some scientific evidence that proves that the AVA is or was not a potential cause of Gulf War Illness. Unfortunately, the evidence continued to mount that the AVA was a possible source of Gulf War Illness. The DoD consistently opposed any study that showed a link between vaccines or other medicines that were given to soldiers and Gulf War Illness. The evidence supporting this would eventually become conclusive and the VA would acknowledge pyridostigmine bromide pills as causal of GWI for VA benefit purposes.

    The problem with the dissembling and misstatements by senior military leaders isn’t just the loss of trust from the junior servicemembers. When all of the dissembling continually concerns the anthrax vaccine, it only serves to make people more suspicious of the program. The DoD repeatedly complained that it was “internet misinformation” undermining the program, but the real culprit was the DoD’s own misinformation that served to erode all faith in this program. This pattern of deception was most evident when the issue of the anthrax vaccine and Gulf War Illness came up. The DoD showed just how far it would go to protect the AVA.

    Endnotes

    [1] In the Marine Corps, for example, someone with 3000 flight hours would most likely be a Major returning to a squadron for a second tour or already into a second tour.

    [i] GAO 01-92T p.6

    [ii] Statement of MajGen Paul Weaver, USAFR (see background brief).

    [iii] GAO T-NSIAD-00-36 p.37

    [iv] GAO 01-92T

    [v] Id. p. 1.

    [vi] GAO 01-92T p.5-6

    [vii] GAO 0192T p.4

    [viii] Id. p.4

    [ix] Canadian court-martial trial transcript, Judge G.L. Brais, 30 Mar 2000, Office of the Chief Military Judge, Canadian Forces

    [x] LTC David Danley, “Minutes of the Meeting on Changing the Food and Drug Administration License for the Michigan Department of Public Health (MDPH) Anthrax Vaccine to Meet Military Requirements”, held on 20 Oct 1995 meeting; Joint Program Office for Biological Defense memorandum, 13 Nov 1995.

    [xi] Id.

    [xii] Col (Dr.) Arthur Friedlander, Minutes of the Anthrax License Amendment Issues Meeting, briefing titled “Research Plan to Support Reduction in Dosage of Licensed Anthrax Vaccine (AVA) and Indication for Aerosol Exposure”, 9 Feb 1996.

    [xiii] Id.  Col (Dr.) Arthur Friedlander, Minutes of the Anthrax License Amendment Issues Meeting, briefing titled “Research Plan to Support Reduction in Dosage of Licensed Anthrax Vaccine (AVA) and Indication for Aerosol Exposure”, 9 Feb 1996.

    [xiv] Col (Dr.) Arthur Friedlander, briefing titled “Supplement to AVA License” (slides), meeting attended by USAMRIID and contractor representatives, 10 Nov 1997

    [xv] House Government Reform Committee’s Subcommittee on National Security, Veterans’ Affairs and International Relations.  Sept. 29, 1999

    [xvi] Reported by Dave Eberart, Stars and Stripes, May 11, 2001, quoting from March IG Report.

    [xvii] Senate Report 103-97, note 143

  • Term Limits, Part II

    Filthy Lucre
    A. Take money/donation; then 1. Gin up angst; 2. Claim “dire consequences, UNLESS;” 3. Pass law; 4. Start Over at A

    How to Justify Legislation

    Every problem, no matter how small or inconsequential, can never fail to be magnified, exaggerated, or – with a suitably agenda-driven Media – simply concocted out of whole cloth by partisan hacks and flacks, and then subsequently painted as requiring government intervention of one kind or another. This typically take the form of regulation, spearheaded by those fearsome warriors of the quill, our legislators! Boies Penrose, the PA legislator and US Senator (quoted in Part I) was famous for his “squeeze bills.” These were essentially extortion threats to businesses within a given industry that they would be strictly regulated by Congress…unless they paid a certain fee to the re-election campaign of a given politician. If you think this is some relic of the past, please understand: your Congressional representatives do this to businesses ALL. OF. THE. TIME. In other words, Virginia, not only is there not a Santa Claus, but Congress is also not very different in result from the Mafia in its shakedowns of legitimate businesses. It is nothing more or less than the same ol’ protection rackets, except the armed thugs who enforce it will not be Bent-Nose Tony or One-Eyed-Vito, instead it will be the police who, like good soldiers, will dutifully take to the streets to ensure the dictates of their legislative masters are not being ignored by the tax-donkeys citizenry.

    If this seems unduly harsh on the police, consider the underlying circumstances that instigated the encounter between Eric Garner and New York police in 2014. All of the hoopla was around choke holds, police training, and racism, but flushed down the memory-hole is the reason police had an interaction with Eric Garner in the first place: he had been picked up previously in that same area for selling “loosies,” a term for single cigarettes. “Why is selling loose cigarettes a crime in the first place?” you might ask. Well, that was made a crime by the New York legislature, which came on the heels of massive sin taxes they placed on cigarettes, which created the black market for “loosies” in the first place. In summary then, the police killed a man, Eric Garner, who wasn’t even selling cigarettes at the time, but was in the same location where he had been arrested for it previously, and when the police encountered him trying to break up a fight, the fatal encounter began. The real tragedy goes unaddressed amidst all of the hoopla over whether the encounter/actions of the police were racially motivated or not. It wasn’t racially motivated: it was economically motivated… by the legislature. Tobacco companies, demonized (justly or not) by the public because of their actions in hiding what they knew about tobacco’s addictive properties and higher statistical propensity to cause lung cancer, became easy, easy targets for legalized extortion by your elected representatives: the legislative branch. No one stood up in defense of those companies’ rights – and that is exactly how everyone’s rights are diminished. If you won’t stand up for the rights of the most odious among us, then you don’t really believe in those rights. You just like to tell yourself that you do.

    Only a rare few magazines or authors have focused on this point.

    Why were the cops so hell-bent on stamping out the sales of loosies, which typically sell for 75 cents a pop in Staten Island (and two times or more that in Manhattan)? New York City boasts the highest cost for cigarettes in the nation, with a pack ranging anywhere from $12 and up. The city lays its own taxes on top of the state’s, in an effort both to raise revenue and discourage use of tobacco.

    The result is a thriving market in sales of loosies and black-market cigarettes more generally. Since 2006, the tax on cigarettes in New York have risen 190 percent and cigarette smuggling has risen by 59 percent, writes Lawrence J. McQuillan of the Independent Institute. Whether it’s liquor, drugs, or cigarettes, when you try to stamp out something consenting adults want, you cause as many or more problems as you ameliorate.

    – Nick Gillespie (from the above-linked article).

    And if you didn’t believe these phenomenon are in any way related, note this article from the Wall Street Journal, subtitled, “The New York Police Department has made nearly 33% fewer arrests citywide so far this year for selling untaxed cigarettes.”

    The police enforce the will of the legislature. The legislature sells legislation to political donors. Political donors, both corporate and individual, become ‘constituents’ only one way… You aren’t a recognized constituent until you start donating to politicians’ campaigns. Prior to that time, the only time politicians can “hear you” is if you manage to make a big, loud, angry mess that gets picked up by the Media and either (a) they see an opportunity to leverage you/your issue, or (b) might harm their reelection chances.

    In summary thus far, we know that (a) even the previously-believed-to-be-a-saint Father of the Country, George Washington, bribed the voters in his district to win election; (b) no modern legislator comes anywhere moderately close to being even half of the gentlemen that George Washington genuinely was; (c) and Lord Acton was entirely correct.

    Devalue Politicians by Changing the Economics

    Having identified the root of the problem, the question becomes how to control the flow of money into politicians’ coffers. Every attempt has failed because even honest and well-intentioned reformers seek to attack the “money” – and not the underlying economics that are at the heart of the entire corrupt enterprise. It is unfortunately the same kind of animist thinking that sees banning guns as the only way to stop shootings, or banning drugs as the way to lower drug addiction, etc. The simplest, most effective solution is to attack the basis of the underlying economy: in this case, to make politicians not worth buying. (In the other examples, it’s to stop re-enacting Prohibition by legislative fiat over and over again, but those are separate subjects for their own space another time.)

    What does it Cost for Legislation?

    The primary method politicians use to avoid the sticky problem of being directly bribed by their political donors has been the “re-election campaign as front for political quid pro quo.” That is the current popular way to solicit money from paying customers. (i.e. political constituents who would be affected by a given piece of legislation). While it is true some politicians have found other, more ingenious variations on this theme, political campaigns continue to be the primary vehicle for buying legislation.*

    (*One could, however, set up a really bizarre shell Foundation/corporation/non-profit with subchapters in other countries, and then launder your political payoffs through said Foundation, where all of your friends, family, political lackeys, and supporters also happen to work and draw a handsome salary… some while simultaneously drawing a government salary! You might even get your disbarred spouse to give highly-paid speaking engagement in countries where you might be able to affect United States foreign policy in favor of those paying for said speaking gigs… just an idea, of course.)

    Buying legislation (i.e. making a large donation to a campaign) for your own benefit, or to the detriment of your competitors or smaller businesses, always comes with the possibility that the legislative promise can’t be kept. The best thing the Founding Fathers did was to spread the legislative power out over a wide geographical and political area, and make it procedurally difficult to gain a consensus. Congress is filled with a myriad of committees and subcommittees and byzantine rules of procedure. That reality is already priced into the market for legislation. It’s why politicians are constantly campaigning – they don’t just get big sacks of money by promising they’re going to pass a law. It’s not that simple.

    The junior Congresswoman from Nebraska, for example, is unlikely to be able to do squat legislatively for several terms. Thus, what she can expect to solicit in campaign donations is not very much. Committee Chairs, however, have power to control agendas for their committees, including what legislation gets “tabled” or considered. Consequently, those committee chairs are “worth” more on the market for legislation/campaign donations. Speakers, the Whip, and other senior party members are obviously worth even more again, and so on up the line, which is why Presidential elections are like the Super Bowl of political campaigns: the money spent is a direct reflection of the power that the “marketplace” for political control sees in the Presidency: the veto power, the right to appoint Supreme Court justices for life, foreign policy, the military, etc.

    Now that we start to understand how the legislative sausage is made, or perhaps more importantly, who actually pays to have the legislative sausage made, we’re in a better position tot understand what real “reform” would look like. It also helps explain why reform never really happens: because the people who pass the laws are in no way going to slaughter their own cash cow. In the next part I explain how to change the economics around politics.

  • Term Limits, Part I

    Freedom's just another word for...?
    Imagine being arrested and thrown in jail merely for expressing an unpopular opinion. Okay, now analyze and explain “hate speech.”

    Campaign Finance Reform – A Primer

    All attempts at Campaign Finance Reform in these United States have failed. ALL. Every single one of them.

    If that sounds like exaggeration, just consider that attempts to limit the influence of money in politics is typically taught in history or civics classes as beginning (in earnest) shortly after the presidency of Andrew Jackson, the pro-slavery founder of the Democratic party whose administration ultimately produced the political “spoils system.” That would put us back to the mid- to late- 1830’s. Good ol’ “Honest Abe” himself was bankrupted trying to personally finance his first Senatorial campaign in 1858, so he had to rely upon businessman from Philadelphia and New York to finance his Presidential campaign in 1860. According to some historians, however, money was in politics from the beginning of the Republic.

    In the United States, concerns over financing campaigns for public office have been around since before the writing of the Constitution. Candidates traded influence, power, and gifts, for constituents’ money and votes even before the dawn of the Republic. George Washington – later President, but at the time, a candidate for the Virginia House of Burgesses – bestowed upon the 391 voters in his district the “customary means” of winning votes: “28 gallons of rum, 50 gallons of rum punch, 34 gallons of wine, 46 gallons of beer, and 2 gallons of cider royal.” James Madison lost his reelection campaign to the Virginia legislature 20 years later because he refused to provide voters with the customary whiskey.

    Gardner and Charles, “Election Law in the American Political System,” p. 637.

    In 1867, just two years after the Civil War, the first legislative attempt at campaign finance reform appeared in a Naval Appropriations bill. It forbade government officials from soliciting (i.e. “shaking down”) Navy Yard workers for money to finance the ruling party’s election campaigns. This had become a routine practice in prior years. So routine was it that federal employees would have some portion of their pay directly “assessed” by the government to the Party’s re-election fund. The protections of the 1867 Navy yard workers were eventually extended to all civil service workers… (But not the rest of us, evidently.) The Presidential campaign of 1896 was so openly a case of dueling donors obtaining political promises from each Parties’ respectively well-financed candidates – William Jennings Bryan for Team Blue and William McKinley for Team Red – that the public began yelling for campaign finance reform… and here we are 120 years later. This brief timeline of attempts at reform shows just how fruitless they all have been.

    Modern, seemingly sophisticated attempts at campaign finance reform, by people from both political parties in Congress, have ultimately been set aside by Supreme Court decisions. While it may be unpalatable or politically inexpedient to say this, the Supreme Court’s rulings in these cases are very solid reads of the First Amendment… proving yet again the old adage that “sometimes even a blind squirrel finds a nut” or  that “even a broken clock is right twice a day.” Lawsuits by public interest groups have ultimately failed to produce anything even close to a good result. Now the public feels so desperate for something to happen that they’ll embrace even nonsensical calls for reform by (of all people!!) Hilary Clinton. The much-ballyhooed, and almost totally misunderstood, case of Citizens United, 558 U.S. 310 (210) was about a non-profit movie company that made a film about then Senator Clinton. The Federal Election Commission agreed that the movie would be subject to a federal campaign finance law that would have imposed criminal and civil penalties on the movie company. That is to say, the law as it was made it a crime for a collection of people – using a corporate form – from expressing their political opinions, quintessential First Amendment conduct. Hard to imagine that the words “Congress shall make NO LAW” are ambiguous, but here we are, with a mountain of laws collectively regarding each and every one of the subjects specifically listed as exempt from regulation in the First Amendment.

    Either We Are a Republic With a Charter To Be Faithfully Followed, or We Are Not.

    Understanding How the (Legislative) Sausage Gets Made

    To understand why campaign finance reform doesn’t work – and what simple fix would work – you have to understand some basic economics around how the political sausage gets made, so to speak.

    First, you must know what politicians all know: there has only been one time in the last 42 years that the rate of re-election for Congressional incumbents dipped below 90% – that was 1974, when it was only 89.7%, a rounding of tenths away from being 90%. Muse on that for minute – Congress has had historically bad approval ratings – like below 20%, for decades, by any polling company. Everyone thinks Congress sucks; yet Congressional incumbents get re-elected over 90% of the time. It’s a near-certainty. Many people have speculated or offered reasoned opinions about this phenomenon, but I don’t really care about the “why” because the mere statistical truth of it is all that matters for my argument.

    Second, we must make the rather short “hop” of faith and assume that politicians are at least as self-interested as the rest of us… one might humbly suggest that they are (perhaps) even a bit more self-interested than the rest of us, or make the claim that the job attracts the type, but I don’t need to prove that as crucial to my theory. Suffice it that my claim rests on what I believe to be a rather well-observed phenomenon about the self-interest of politicians. Lord Acton wrote an entire tract explaining this, but unfortunately no one reads it and all that we remember (if at all) is this quote: “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” My own observation from many years of government service and being an American is simply that the government does not choose its prospective employees from some magical pool of magnanimous, morally benevolent, and personally-disinterested human beings. If you think I am incorrect, you’ve obviously never been to the Department of Motor Vehicles to register your car, or change the title, or correct a typo on a Vehicle Identification Number (VIN). Try to manage that over your lunch break and let me know how it goes; and ask yourself about how good the customer service is while you’re there.

    The Currency of the Politician is Law – Legislation For Some and Against Others

    He's Lying!
    Rep. Chuck Schumer (D, NY) explains how he can’t read, doesn’t understand, and doesn’t care about the 1st Amendment.

    To the above facts we have to add some economics. In my opinion, the best way to begin to understand this is to ask a very simple question: if you were a legislator looking to raise some cash, what would you have to sell? (Think about it seriously for a moment).

    ANS: Legislation. i.e. Laws.

    Legislation is the only thing that a lawmaker can offer any prospective “buyer.” It is the medium of exchange (i.e. the currency) of the political class and a specific instance of the more general “Law of the Instrument.”* In return for a piece of favorable legislation, or a clause in the next omnibus bill – or exemption from cuts or regulation – political donors deposit sums into re-elections campaigns, or exchange different favors with lobbyists – the “middlemen” of the entire Money-for-Favor-for-Reelection Triangle.

    If this seems unduly cynical, it shouldn’t be. If you have a friend who is a cop, who hasn’t heard of, or considered, asking him or her to “look into” a ticket…? Now magnify that onto a scale where instead of your hundred-fifty bucks plus court costs being at stake, it’s someone else’s multi-million dollar, multinational business and a piece of legislation that would ensure government contracts flowing that direction for the next 10 years. Or a promise to keep government regulators out of your business for at least your friendly Senator’s next 6 years of office. If all of this seems speculative or just too much to swallow at once, consider this quote right from the horse’s mouth, as it were:

    You send us to Congress; we pass laws under which you make money…and out of your profits, you further contribute to our campaign funds to send us back again to pass more laws to enable you to make more money.

    — Senator Boies Penrose, (R, PA) 1896 (quoted in Id., Gardner and Charles, p. 638.)

    I always hear people complain about the influence of “corporate money” in politics and yet no one ever seems to consider that if their Senator wasn’t offering legislation for sale, the corporation wouldn’t be able to make a purchase. And it is in no way solely corporations buying-off politicians. Unions are at least as powerful and well-off as any corporation and billionaires with agendas sit on both the left and the right of the political spectrum. In fact, if we’re dealing in generalities, it is worth wondering: if corporations are filled with greedy, capital-obsessed Scrooges, why would any of those money-grubbers ever voluntarily give their money to a politician in the first place? To ask the question is to destroy the premise.

    When you’re starting a company in your garage you don’t start by setting aside your political lobbying budget, then make whatever widget, software, computer, or other item that is the money-making aspect of your new venture. You first have to make something that a large enough number of people are willing to voluntarily pay you such that you have a growing enterprise, be it a successful song, an iPhone, the personal computer, or a rubber tire. Legislators don’t enter your mind until well down the road in the business cycle. Thus, perhaps it is enough to agree that legislators aren’t the unfortunate victims of a “system” that is foisted upon them. What Senators and Congressman do to fill the coffers of their re-elections campaigns is a perfectly natural, foreseeable byproduct of the funding of the political system.

    Part Two explains how it works in greater detail.

  • Le roi est mort; vive le roi

     

     

    It was warm for November, at least by the standards of most of the men who had just arrived at Camp Kilmer, New Jersey, for the pending Trans-Atlantic voyage. The temperature on November 2, 1944, was in the mid-fifties throughout the day, even made it into the sixties. Two transport ships – the MS John Ericsson and the SS Santa Maria – waited at a pier not far away in New York, both bound for England and the War. The men, most of whom hailed from Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, and New Jersey, spent a comparatively idyllic twelve days in the area, using twelve and twenty-four hour passes to visit the Big City. The average age of the men was twenty-one. At least one of them came from the small town of Johnston, in the smallest state, Rhode Island. That was my grandfather. If he was unusual, it was only by his comparative age: his twenty-fifth birthday had passed a week earlier and at home waited a wife and three children.

    The 272nd Infantry Regiment officially became a part of the 69th Infantry Division on May 15, 1943, with its activation at Camp Shelby, Mississippi. The original cadre of 23 officers and 228 enlisted men came from the 96th Infantry Division at Camp Adair, Oregon. By the time the unit received its reinforcements from the Northeast and finished training in Mississippi, it was “the Fighting 272nd, the Battle Axe Regiment,” under the command of Colonel Walter Buie, United States Army.

    The men sweated under a special kind of nervous anticipation; it comes only from knowing you are headed to War. There is some of the bravado often associated with high school sports, as young men fall back on the only remotely analogous contest-of-wills they have ever known. The thoughtful ones are almost always quiet; they know that sports do not contemplate Death and Destruction as their ultimate objective. Despite this, however, optimism reigned.

    While the War in Europe was raging, it had been turning steadily in the Allies’ favor. Even the Japanese were beginning to lose ground to the U.S. in the Western Pacific: in early October, the Allies landed forces on Crete; Canadian forces crossed into the Netherlands; and the Soviet Red Army entered Hungary. By mid-October, the first battle on German soil – at Aachen – began. On October 20th, 1944, MacArthur landed in the Philippines to announce that he had returned, good to his word.

    By the time the men of the 272nd make it across the Atlantic and establish their headquarters near Salisbury, England, the war appears to be firmly in hand for the Allied powers. It is now being fought on the German homeland; the men of the 272nd are almost jovial as the word gets to them about the course of events.

     

    *     *      *      *     *     *      *      *     *     *      *      *

     

    Fraaann-cisss!” The kids yelled my middle name as a taunt. I tried to hide in the bushes, but they know I’m in there. Every day going to and coming home from school is like this. It’s a girl’s name some older kids say. Fraaann-sisss. It always came out that way. My first name – Dale – hardly made the case against me any better. The kids who do it are older, bigger, and worst of all, they come from money. Their family name is on local stores. I curse them from the bottom of my soul every day, wishing them horrible misfortune. Years later when passing through town I notice the stores have changed names. I ask around and learn the family suffered terrible tragedy and lost everything; the feeling of schadenfreude that comes over me can only be described as decadent and sinful.

    At some point I remember asking my father why my name was what it was: just why (oh why?) did you name me this, Dad?

    “You got your first name from my Staff Non-Commissioned Officer in Charge. He was a really good man when I was young Airman in the Air Force. His name was Dale. And, of course, your middle name came from my father, your grandfather, Francis Norman Saran.”

    None of that meant anything at five years young.

     

    *     *      *      *     *     *      *      *     *     *      *      *

     

    The morale in the 272nd whipsaws on December 16, 1944 when the German Army launches a massive counteroffensive into the Ardennes forest in Belgium, beginning what will come to be known as the “Battle of the Bulge.” The German military had used the exact same tactic in the exact same place three times previously – September 1870, August 1914, and May 1940. Despite this, the Allies leave the Ardennes lightly defended by two inexperienced and two battered American divisions and the Germans catch them flat-footed. Three German armies – more than 410,000 men, along with all of the supporting arms – launch the deadliest and most desperate battle of the European campaign in the heavily wooded, rugged terrain of the Ardennes. The once-quiet region is overrun with the German counter-offensive. The 1st SS Panzer Division takes the town of Malmedy on December 17, 1944, and eighty-four U.S. soldiers are executed in the Malmedy Massacre. The U.S. 106th Infantry Division will be decimated before the battle’s end, as it seeks to buy precious time for Patton’s Eighth Army to execute an impossible ninety-degree pivot from the town of Lorraine to protect the American flank at Bastogne.

    The Wehrmacht, led by Hitler’s own disciple, Sepp Dietrich along with SS Troops, penetrates the Allied lines along an eighty mile front. Only at Elsenborn Ridge do the Americans hold. The possibility exists that the German Army will run all the way to the Belgian coast at Antwerp – that is indeed Hitler’s plan – severing the line between the U.S. and British forces and leaving four entire Allied Armies trapped behind German lines. The hope for the Germans is a separate peace with the Allies and then a chance to fight their arch-nemesis Russia – alone – on the Eastern Front.

     

     

    My grandfather’s unit yearbook grimly records the events:

    Morale was high, and war seemed to be far away during the first part of December. Then came the newsflash of the German breakthrough in Belgium on 16 December 1944. War now seemed close at hand, and our attitude changed from one of the casual interest to one of serious personal regard. On Christmas Day, 700 men were taken from the Regiment for immediate shipment to Belgium to help stop the German onslaught. It was about this time that the Regiment was warned to prepare for shipment to the battlefront. During the remainder of the cold days of December and the first part of similar January days, we continued to train and readjust from the Christmas Day losses.

     

    *     *      *      *     *     *      *      *     *     *      *      *

     

    My father leaves the Air Force in 1968 while the Vietnam War rages on; we wind up near his sister and I am born in a small town in Eastern Texas. That doesn’t last during the tumult of civil rights marches and desegregation and my mother home alone with two infants. We move back home to the Northeast – back to the home my father helped build, alongside his father and brothers: my grandfather’s house.

    We don’t stay there long, but my early childhood revolves around my father’s parents and the family headquarters, as it were, on a small plot in Johnston, Rhode Island. My grandmother, the family matriarch, presides over the chaos of her six children with all of their kids, while my grandfather is the very definition of the kind, gentle Stoic in the midst of it all.  His pipe smoke – first Borkum Riff, later Captain Black Apple-flavor – are like incense in the front room, where he can be found staring out the front door into the trees beyond the driveway. He stands like that for long moments, for what seems like forever to my young eyes, and I can never figure out what he’s seeing.

    The Red Sox are always on in the background, either on the television set if we can get reception with the proper combination of rabbit ears, tin foil, and luck; or on the radio, if none of the above coalesce for visuals. On Sundays, my grandfather attends the church where he helped lay the cornerstone. When he returns, we all know we’re getting “dough-boys” – Pèpè’s special “recipe” of bread dough with a whole cut or ripped in the center, fried in some oil. Every once in a while he’ll gift us with french toast if we beg.

    He smiles, his blue eyes clear and twinkling, never looking past you, always right into yours.

    “Alright, my boy!” he says with unadulterated enthusiasm. “Here we go!” as he puts the plate of steaming fried dough on the table and we all chafe to cover ours with whatever we like: my father eats his with butter and jelly, carefully preparing each bite, while my sister and I rip the dough into pieces, lightly burning our fingers with impatience, and then slathering the bits with maple syrup.

    My grandfather always sits patiently at the table with us, or hangs around the kitchen watching us eat, a smile across his face. He listens, watches, sometimes participates in the conversation, but always smiles watching us eat. It doesn’t dawn on me until decades later that having been born in 1919, his childhood would have been right in the middle of the Great Depression. Once over some holidays one of my grandfather’s brothers comes by to visits and I hear the adults in the kitchen from where I am snooping, just outside of the threshold:

    “Remember those lard sandwiches, Frank? We used to take those to school every day.” Everyone turns to my grandfather – I can hear it by the silence.

    “Oh yeah,” he answers evenly. “Yeah. Every day…” The other adults – my father’s generation – turn to my great-uncle and urge him to explain.

    “Mom would cook the bacon in the morning,” he begins, “and then when it cooled to a solid, she’d put that right on some bread and that’s what we brought to school: lard, with some of those bits in it, on bread.” You can hear the recoil and disgust from my father and his siblings. I cringe where I’m standing.

    “Ehh, I didn’t think it was so bad…” I hear my grandfather’s voice into the silence and the room erupts in laughter and jeers. My grandfather almost sounds sheepish, but it’s so genuine I’m filled with sorrow for him, though I can’t quite articulate why in my six-year-old mind.

    Later, I realize that my grandfather is the only person who could express such simple, genuine gratitude for eating leftover lard. He doesn’t know how to be ungrateful.

     

    *     *      *      *     *     *      *      *     *     *      *      *

     

    The 272nd is rushed to the front in January of 1945, while the Allies try to hold the bulge in the lines and contain the German break. The Regiment crosses the English Channel during a blizzard. They land at Le Havre on D+189. The 3rd Bn Commander recorded their rush to the lines in his reports:

    The remark, “That truck ride,” will never refer to any but the one from Le Havre in open trucks.  “Standing room only” and “Destination unknown” are both understatements, although the application is sufficient.  If people scoff at your tale of standing on only one foot during an eight-hour ride at night in a blinding snowstorm while the convoy was lost, any doctor will admit it is possible if the near-corpse is frozen stiff.

    Leaving the Château de Vallalet, an 18th-century edifice that had seen rough usage under the Boche occupation, and the surrounding area of Romescamp and Gaillefontaine, the Battalion squeezed into boxcars that jerked along for days.  No fiendish torture device could have left the Battalion’s body in worse shape.  At last, the arrival was made at port, and the historic events of the present 3rd Battalion began with a muddy boot, a sloppy tent, and the foreign sounds of “Oui, oui” and “Cidre.”

    Those ‘foreign’ sounds would have been native to my Quebecois grandfather. I imagine him quietly speaking the pidgin French of his ancestors, and of his wife (née Messier), who used to switch to the French whenever she didn’t want the kids to know what she was saying. We were raised in an English-speaking household, but it frequently swore in French.

    By the time the 272nd reaches Belgium, the German offensive has spent itself. The Wehrmacht Army has run out of fuel, men, and momentum, in large part due to heroic losses sustained and inflicted by the Americans in thwarting the blitz. The defense at St. Vith, at Elsenborn Ridge, and famously portrayed at Bastogne, coupled with Patton’s impossible 90 degree right-wheel of his entire 8th Army, is enough to hold the Allied defenses. My grandfather’s unit now moves forward to confront Der Fuhrer’s Army as it pulls back to its defensive positions at the Siegfried Line. The 272nd, along with its sister units, will have to punch through it to finish off Hitler’s war machine.

     

    *     *      *      *     *     *      *      *     *     *      *      *

     

    After I complete Officer Candidate School, I pass by my grandfather’s house just to say hi. I visit far less than I should and rationalize it a million ways, but the truth is that it’s because they are old – like, really old, and I am young. I don’t know how to talk to them. They want to reminisce about the child I was… while I am trying desperately to prove that I no longer am. I want to talk my upcoming commissioning as an Officer of Marines, Leader of Warriors…

    “My boy, whatever you do, you don’t volunteer for nothing, okay!?” My grandfather is serious. “I am telling you. Whatever you do, you don’t volunteer for anything, okay?”

    “I promise, Pep. Not me.” I make a solemn vow.

    “The only thing I ever volunteered for in the Army…boy, they got me, I tell you.” He jabs in the air with his pipe for emphasis. He shakes his head and I can see he is looking somewhere far away, somewhere I haven’t been…

    He looks toward the television set, but it’s turned off.

    “We came back from a long march and boy, I tell you, was it hot in Mississippi!? Whew! With our packs and rifles…” He shakes his head at the memory. “The drill sergeant got up in front of us and said, ‘Okay, is anyone here tired? Does anyone want to volunteer for a different job where you won’t have to carry your pack and rifle?’ My boy, I was so tired… and I’m a little guy!”

    My grandfather turns to me with his eyebrows raised. I laugh because at 5’9″, he’s three inches taller than I am, but I know what he means. He is still healthy at 80, but he slight-framed, always has been, unlike his own sons, who are tall, broad-shouldered, and thick of chest and limb.

    “Those packs and rifles and all the stuff they made us carry… it was so heavy!” It is the infantryman’s lament and I have had a nice heaping spoonful of it over the last weeks, but I shut my mouth out of respect. I know where he has been and where I haven’t.

    “So…so I looked around and I says, ‘Sure! Sure thing Drill Sergeant. I’ll do it!’” My grandfather stops staring, turns back and looks at me, genuine surprise in his eyes, like he still can’t believe this happened.

    “I stepped forward, and the Sergeant said, ‘Okay. Now you’re now a bazookaman. You carry the bazooka.’ And I knew he got me. Boy, he sure got me good.”

    I laugh out loud so hard that it comes out as a bark, myself having just returned from a summer at the hands of Marine Corps Drill Instructors. As I look into his eyes, however, I can see, my blessed grandfather is and was genuinely hurt by that. He was, and maybe still is, that trusting. He cannot believe his Drill Sergeant pulled one over on him like that.

    “So don’t you volunteer for nothing, my boy.” He says, pointing his pipe at me. It’s the final word on the matter. I enjoy his presence for a few minutes while he puffs and stares peacefully, the clouds of smoke with apple and spices float over, and I try to be as patient as a twenty year-old can be. I want badly to ask him about what that was like, but I just can’t bring myself to do it. The gap is too wide; the chasm too deep… I don’t know how.

     

    *     *      *      *     *     *      *      *     *     *      *      *

     

    Nevertheless, a night in the woods isn’t housing, and nothing short of a steam radiator could have made the bivouac area among the Belgium firs a comfortable one. These were the most miserable of the bad nights spent. Foxholes were to be dug, but the spadework never passed the slit trench depth. The ground was frozen, and even all the ponchos and blankets that could be mustered were little help. Teeth still chattered between fits of sleep. Moreover, the puddle in the bottom of the hole got deeper and deeper. Nevertheless, it felt less damaging than the wind that blew overhead.

    One night, the darkness was so intense that men wandered away towards both the enemy and the rear. Pfc. Arnold of B Company walked 10 yards from his tent and spent the next 15 minutes trying to get back. Guard reliefs that night were unreliable, too. Even when the relief was to be called by the guard himself, there was no certainty that his tent could be located. Just before dark, S Sgt. Slaich carefully marked the path he was to walk to awaken the next guard, but two hours later, that path was invisible. After an hour’s fruitless search, with nothing to show but scratched hands and face, he returned to his post and the easiest choice – to take the next guard shift.

    “But those nights weren’t the worst,” Pfc. Nyland constantly repeats. “I remember a short jaunt of 13 miles we were to take through the woods one afternoon. Trucks were to pick us up at 2 o’clock. We were waiting beside the road long before that time rolled around. About 9 o’clock that night, the buggies finally arrived. It was raining harder than I’ve ever seen over here, and the wind blew it cold into our faces.”

    “After the duffle bags were thrown into the truck, we piled on – 25 of us with our packs on our backs. I sat on top of the cab, where I thought I could find plenty of room. But when the rain came down harder and it grew colder later that night, I regretted that move. To keep warm, I cursed everything connected with the Army, with Europe, and with winter warfare.” Those 13 miles took 12 hours to cover, and the rain never stopped as long as the ride went on. History of 1st Bn, 272nd Infantry Unit

    My grandfather carried a bazooka as a member of “King” Company in the 3rd Battalion, 272nd Infantry. I’ve stared at the picture that has his name underneath it and no matter how hard I try, I can’t tell who he is. The picture is black and white and the men are too far away to see more than dark slits for eyes. There’s a large building in the background with “Apotheke” on it – the German word, derived from the Greeks, for “Pharmacy.” The men are in neat rows, like every military picture ever taken or painted, row upon row, tallest in the back, shortest up front, and somewhere conspicuously out front or at the sides are the leaders… but this is an after picture, of that there can be no doubt. These men are different than the men who started in Le Havre…

    On moving into positions opposite the Siegfried Line, the Battalion climbed the muddiest, steepest and longest hills in our history.  The going was so rough that walking on knees was nothing unusual.  Even though there was a possibility that the shoulders were mined, everyone had to stop for occasional breaks on the way up.  The entire Battalion started off in regular formation, but within an hour each company was spread over at least 800 yards.  In another month, though, the troops were to wish that they could have gotten that much dispersion.

    At Kamberg, the Battalion received its first real baptism of fire, with no wish remaining for further communion.  The troops were told what to expect and what to look for by the group being relieved.  They gave constructive and helpful advice.  This in itself gave everyone a feeling of confidence; the men were getting first-hand information from the boys who knew.

    The first day there, a patrol of Lt’s Cox and Young, Sgt Johnson, Pfc’s Hagquist, Fulcher, and Schellman of King were pinned down by mortar and 88 fire.  Two days later, 2nd Lt Entzminger, leading his 1st Platoon patrol, was caught in the crossfire of two pillboxes.  The Lieutenant observed the enemy position 200 yards to his immediate front and, upon ordering his patrol to withdraw to safety, he remained in a forward, exposed position, calling for and adjusting artillery fire upon the enemy pillboxes.  Although subject to danger from friendly artillery as well as enemy small-arms fire, he remained in the position until after the supporting artillery barrage was lifted.  Immediately after the barrage, while shifting his position, he was mortally wounded by enemy small-arms fire.  Two others were wounded, and several men of the Platoon distinguished themselves by their efficient and courageous leadership.

    Immediately afterwards, 1st Lt Coppock was ordered to take out a Battle Patrol of four enlisted men to determine the strength of the enemy in the immediate front of his position from which artillery, Nebelwerfer and intense machine-gun fire were being received across the entire Regimental front.  Lt Coppock* pursued his task with such vigor and disregard for danger that, during the night, he succeeded in penetrating 1,200 yards from the Siegfried defenses into the enemy position.  Having collected the information he sought, he then led his patrol safely back with vital information necessary for military operations.  As a result of 1st Lt Coppock’s action and report, a decision was reached in higher headquarters that greatly accelerated the advance of our troops through this sector. –History of the 3rd Bn, 272nd Infantry Unit

    (*) Lt Coppock won the Silver Star for his actions, the 3rd highest award for valor in the U.S. military

     

    *     *      *      *     *     *      *      *     *     *      *      *

     

    Life in the military takes me away, as it does to everyone who makes it a career. We move our own young family all around the country and the world at the whims of the Marine Corps and my career. Holidays are a chance to reconnect, but with not a lot of leave on the books and a passel of kids to bring along, we rarely see my grandparents. I spend some time off of the Bosnian coast in 1995 during that unpleasantness. We hear the war, read it intel reports, study it, study the geography, plan routes, even rescue an Air Force pilot, but we don’t see the war… We don’t live it. At the time, the notoriety of the rescue and the relative dearth of conflict gives us what we think is “cred.” People chase “red ink” – combat time in pilot logbooks is logged in red ink – because we are fools.

    I talk to my grandmother about that 6 month deployment aboard ship. She’s lamenting the time away from my kids and then she makes a backhanded comment that pulls me up short.

    “I remember when your grandfather was away at the war…” She begins.

    “Oh? Really? What was it like?”

    “Ohh, he used to write me all the time… Such letters! Oh. Your pèpè, he would send me such romantic letters…” She exaggerates the word to the point of absurdity. I laugh.

    “How long was he gone for?” I ask.

    “Ohhh…psshh… I think about three years or something like that…?”

    Gulp. Holy shit.

    “Saving Private Ryan” comes out in July of 1998. I am in law school at the time with four children. By the time the Bar is over, and Naval Justice School completed, we have orders for Okinawa, Japan and are gone the day after I swear into the Bar. I finally see the movie at Marine Corps Air Station Iawakuni, Japan, while working on a case with a colleague and friend. I am as awed by it as every other American seems to be. It is an amazing movie and I vow to talk to my grandfather about his service after seeing it.

    When we return from Okinawa for Christmas of 2000, we visit my grandparents. I want them to meet our daughters, so we trek the whole carload up those same roads of my childhood. Except now the woods seem impossibly thin, the distances far shorter than I remember, the driveway and the big spruce in the front yard… are not very big.

    At some point my grandfather is standing by the door, talking to the parakeets in their cages, whistling to them while they chirp back. They know his voice and always respond when he talks to them. Outside the wind whips at the screen door.

    “Hey, Pep?” I am sitting in his chair.

    “Yes, m’boy?” He looks up from the birds and smiles.

    “You hear about that movie – ‘Saving Private Ryan?’” He squints at me and then seems to finally have heard my question.

    “Oh. Yeah… yeah, I did.” He stands up and puts his hands in his pockets, fumbling with some change and walks to the door.

    “Would you like to go see it… together… uh, with me?” He never turns around, and he talks at the door, but I can still hear his voice today, like he’s in my room right now.

    “Naaaahhh, my boy… I don’t wanna go see that… I… I seen all that already.” He turns back to me and smiles, but his eyes are pinched at the corners.

    The shame washes over me. What an arrogant thing to ask, to assume… I regret asking that question to this day.

     

    *     *      *      *     *     *      *      *     *     *      *      *
     

    Third night at Kamberg was the busiest for the outpost.  At about 2130, the King (K) Patrol returned, bearing two casualties.  About midnight, the demolitions patrol of T Sgt Farley came by the OP (Operations Post) for last-minute instructions before jumping off on their attempt to blow up the pillboxes.  The patrol soon left and returned about 0300 with their mission accomplished.  The outpost had front-row seats for this exhibition, and can testify that those boys did a good job.

    In addition, Item Company is justly proud of its Aid Men.  Their deeds shine brightly through the darkness as memories take the place of battle life.  One day, as mortar shells were coming in pretty thick, Jenkins of Item was wounded.  Out there could be seen the figure of a man running swiftly and without hesitation – Mike DiCubellis.  A medic was needed, and mortar fire or not, Mike was going to where he was needed.  In just a moment he had reached the fallen Doughboy.  Working feverishly in a field where individual movement meant danger, the Medic never flinched, seemingly not realizing that death flew through the air with each burst.  After the engagement, he remarked, “Didn’t have time to dig in.  The guy was hurt bad; had to work fast.”

    The Communications Section must be praised especially for its fine job at Kamberg.  Although harried by mortar fire day and night, the lines between the rear and forward CPs and each line company were in service at all times.  The whole week at Kamberg was, as one man put it, a thin solution of night.  We were like owls, having eyes only for darkness.

    Leapfrogging nimbly over the last perimeter of the Siegfried line, the Battalion took Dahlem, our first town, in a walk – literally – and what a walk.  The troops were loaded down like a convoy of one-man bands. Mind you, at that time, it was mostly GI equipment, not boodle!

    Leaving Waldorf, the Battalion went on First Army Security Guard al the way to Stolberg and Aachen, big cities wrecked by American bombing.  This meant working with engineer guards with white SGs on their helmets.  This was the Battalion’s chance to get in on some of the luxuries of rear echelon – beer, movies, showers.  That good deal was over in five days, and the Battalion crossed the Rhine in trucks on the 28th of March.

    Arriving in the ancient town of Arzbach near the Lahn River late at night, the Battalion settled down for a few days with little action except intensive patrolling of the area.  For the next week, the Battalion moved by vehicle or foot from town to town, trying to catch up with the Krauts.  Leaving the town of Dehrn, which is memorable for the 100 slave workers who were living in a lice-infested seven-room house, the troops rode the TDs (Tank Destroyers) and other vehicles 100 miles to Lohne without incident.  The second day at Lohne, the order came for a march to Altenstadt and surrounding villages, a 10-mile jaunt with full field and boodle. Everyone soon swore off, “No more loot.”

    An early call the following morning started the Battalion on its unforgettable 28-mile march to Kassel, even though aching and blistered feet characterized the day.  The men made it, however, and pulled into Bettenhausen on the outskirts of Kassel.  Nevertheless, boodling that night took sheer guts.  The troops had not been so exhausted since the aftermath of forced marches at Camp Shelby.  –History 3rd Bn, 272nd Infantry Unit

     

    *     *      *      *     *     *      *      *     *     *      *      *

     

    My grandmother and grandfather’s wedding picture hangs on their wall, as it always has. When I was young, I once looked at the picture and asked my mother, “Who are those people?” I could not reconcile the young woman in the picture – blonde-haired, blue-eyed, and statuesque – 5’10” anyway, with the woman in the kitchen smoking Virginia Slims – imagine Ursula from “The Little Mermaid” with a flower print dress … but my grandfather is unmistakable in the picture. I know the look on his face – I recognize it instantly – because I’ve seen it reflected back at me in the mirror before; he is crazy in love with that woman next to him…my grandmother.

    Sixty-four years later they’re still together, but now the dementia or Alzheimer’s has left my Mèmè, the powerful matriarch, a shade of her former self. She has been in and out of the hospital and ultimately is back in the house at my grandfather’s insistence. The last time I was there, she had about 10 minutes where she recognized me and we were able to communicate, but now… now she has only one word. She rocks back and forth and calls my grandfather’s name: “Franny. Franny. Franny.”

    “I’m right here.” He pats her hand and smiles. She only stops when he touches her, or talks to her, or coos at her, like the birds. I realize in that moment it’s not what he says, it’s how soothing his voice is, how much love he outs into the sounds. It’s like baby-talk, but this isn’t cute or funny, or self-aware at all; it’s a man trying to convey over 60 years of love while he watches his wife dissipate before his eyes. Fifteen minutes is almost more than I can take, but it’s not her calling “Franny” that affects me: it’s being present. I feel like a voyeur. This is theirs and theirs alone.

    My grandfather and I talk about the Red Sox, our family history – his family history – and he mentions that he is the only one left. I’m not sure what he means.

    “Of my brothers and sisters… I’m the last one,” he says.

    “How many brothers and sisters did you have, Pep?”

    “There were twelve of us.”

    I can’t fathom any of that; not eleven siblings, not growing up in the Depression, not carrying a bazooka in World War 2, and not outliving all of my family at age 82.

    I just stand next to him and put my hand on his shoulder while he looks outside.

    My grandmother passes while I am in training to go to Afghanistan.

     

    *     *      *      *     *     *      *      *     *     *      *      *

     

    The 272nd Infantry Regiment’s history is a surreal walk through war, told by the men who lived it. There is the time the 3rd Battalion gets shelled by German artillery after crossing the Werra River and takes shelter in the basement of a building… that turns out to hold cases and cases of wine and French champagne. Two men are killed and three wounded, but the 272nd pushes on to Eichenberg. “Love” Company takes the town and King mops up.

    They push on toward a town called Nieder-Gandern, but receive Tiger tank fire beginning in a town called Hebenhausen all the way to their objective. Even after they take Nieder-Gandern, the Tigers never stop their fire and four men are killed during the night and morning. A German night counter-attack is repulsed at close quarters.

    Early the next morning, the Battalion bypassed all the dead Krauts who had counterattacked during the night. King Company led over a circuitous route, through the woods and onto the road. One sniper was flushed out by the lead squad under S Sgt Smith, Sgt Jonassen and Pfc Tarkington, and in the second town, 21 men were captured and 10 wounded or killed. The light machine gun section of the 4th Platoon of King accounted for one man. Along the way, M Company caught a group of the Boches running up a hill. The HMGs (Heavy Machine Guns) gave ‘em the hot foot, and the Company proceeded unmolested, leaving behind over a dozen dead Krauts. That night was spent in almost forgotten comfort, complete with soft beds and electric lights in Heiligenstadt.

    Bad Kösen. Naumburg. Kottochau. The names of towns tick of as a checklist of objectives. The Regiment continues to pursue the Wehrmacht ever deeper into German territory. At Thiessen, the Regiment narrowly avoids walking into an ambush when a patrol discovers some wounded Germans from a nearby village, who explain that Thiessen is going to be a “last stand” for that unit. The Regiment hastily forms up and attacks the German 88mm dual purpose machine guns emplaced in the town. There are 36 of the anti-aircraft/anti-tank guns, which are considered among the best guns ever made, given their ability to take down allied aircraft or destroy allied tanks. The 272nd catches the German gunners by surprise and, along with some excellent gunnery from supporting artillery, it takes 249 enemy prisoners.

    Germany’s 5th largest city, Leipzig, is the next target on the Regiment’s checklist. It takes hand-to-hand combat, but the 272nd captures a German barracks, and over the course of a day and night of fighting, another 234 enemy soldiers are captured.

    The activities were climaxed the next morning when a feminine voice was heard rendering some smooth English. The voice belonged to a gal from Boston named the Countess de Maduit, the former Roberta Lorrie of Boston.  She could not believe the Yanks were there until a few cuss words cinched the fact.  The perfect portrait of an overjoyed woman, even though she bore the scars of an unforgettable past, she showed Love Company the concentration camp.  Tears rolled down the cheeks of the men as they were shown the sea of people subjected to the barbarous treatment.  The worst came when they saw what remained of a building the SS had burned to the ground.  To keep the record of the Krauts straight, they had crowded some 200 patients into it before igniting the fireworks.  The sight was not a pleasant one.  The troops realized that the enemy was all and more than anyone had ever imagined.

    It is not long after that the 272nd makes contact with the Soviets coming from the east. The German Army is vanquished.

     

    *     *      *      *     *     *      *      *     *     *      *      *

     

    When the Red Sox come back from three games down against the Yankees and win the American League Pennant, I have to choke back tears. I am in Afghanistan at the time. The tears are not for me; baseball has never been my love the way it is for my grandfather. I break protocol and sneak a phone call; I can dial the number to my grandfather’s from memory. His 85th birthday is just weeks away and now, one year removed from another Yankees heartbreak that I thought might kill him. I know the Sox will beat the Cardinals. They have to.
    I hear his voice over the scratchy connection.

    “Hello?”

    “Pèpè? Hello? It’s me, Dale.”

    “Yes?” We step on each other’s voices because of the delay, but finally I can hear his recognition that it’s me. I start shouting like a fool.

    “They did it, Pep! They did the impossible!”

    “I KNOW IT, MY BOY!! I THINK THEY’RE GONNA DO IT THIS YEAR!” I can hear the joy in his voice. I look around to see that no one is there and I let the tears run freely down my face.

    He was born the year after they won their last World Series (1918) and he has watched eighty years or more of Red Sox tragedies, one piled upon another. He has borne it all with a patience that would make Job nod in approval. I’ve endured a good deal of it with him and never, not once, have I ever heard him swear. Not a single curse word. We watch Bucky Dent rip our hearts out in ’78 and all he does is throw his hands up, look at me in complete disbelief, and turn off the little black and white television set. He walks to the door and stares while he puffs away. I come to hate the Red Sox for the pain they inflict upon him…

    When they sweep the Cardinals in ’04, I almost don’t care if I die in Afghanistan. He finally got to see them win it all. Finally.

     

    *     *      *      *     *     *      *      *     *     *      *      *

     

    By the time my wars have ended, the Red Sox win their second World Series and when I visit my grandfather, we discuss Mike Lowell for governor of Massachusetts, the ’04 win… we relive our favorite parts in glorious detail. His sad-sack Patriots are now officially a dynasty and even the Celtics are looking good. Neither of us can believe this new world we inhabit.

    He’s switched from a pipe to cigars, much to the chagrin of his children.

    “I’m worried about these cigars he’s smoking,” says a relative about my grandfather’s new habit, to which I riposte that he is now in his late 80’s, and entitled to pick up a heroin habit, as far as I’m concerned… it’s no one’s business.

    I happily indulge my Pepe with illicit Cohibas I’ve managed to get my hands on from a friend who is a ship’s captain in a country that doesn’t have an embargo on Cuban rum or cigars. I hate cigars, but we smoke them together in celebration. It’s the best smoke of my life.

     

    *     *      *      *     *     *      *      *     *     *      *      *

     

    Under the experienced command of Lt Col Edward J. Thompson, the 3rd Battalion of the “Battle Axe Regiment” had proven itself well in combat.  Over hill, trails, and to the magnificent woods that spelled digging, smoky fires, makeshift shelters and excitement, the 3rd Battalion has caught in its wake of fire, memories that surround themselves with flesh and blood, with hope and sorrow, and with laughs and experience.  During that time, a Battalion changed from a carefree, bivouac-inured herd to a confident, battle-tried team of fighting men.  Only one medium can effect the change; only one process can bring about the metamorphosis.  That one process is war.  The actual struggle of meat and bone remains, as through the centuries, the unique method of shaping troops from the whims and idiosyncrasies of rear echelon to the positive qualities need to fight a battle.  The way has been hard; it could have been harder.  A spirited Battalion now exists that will function well under any conditions.

     

    *     *      *      *     *     *      *      *     *     *      *      *

     

    A little while after my grandfather’s return from Germany, he and Meme conceive their fourth child – my father. A true “Baby Boomer,” he is born in the shadow of that terrible war. Twenty-two years after his birth, I am born in the shadow of the Vietnam War.

    My grandfather lived quietly and simply, occasionally growing peppers and tomatoes in the garden out back. He loved purely, his blue eyes windows into the soul of a godly man. He helped build the nearby church, never missed a Mass while I was growing up, and yet I never heard him preach, judge, nor condemn a single person. I never heard him swear, nor lie, either.

    He was an exceptional man from what feels like a bygone era, when decency, and good manners, were considered essential traits of all citizens. It’s hard to fathom the changes he saw in his ninety-eight years, but no matter what the fashions or trends, from the Flappers to the Hippies, from Disco to Heavy Metal, his brand of kindness never went out of style. It was never old-fashioned and neither was he – just the purest font of light, with a whistle for the birds and a smile for your troubles.

    On Thursday, July 26, 2018, Francis Norman Saran, 98, passed away peacefully in his home, the one he built with his own hands. No palace of Versailles or manse for a Lord, it nevertheless sheltered generations of my family – his family – through stormy summers, hurricane season, and the bitter cold New England winters.

    He will be remembered and missed.

     

    _____________

    Liked it? Visit www.theabjectlesson.com and take a moment to support The Abject Lesson on Patreon.
  • Chapter 15 – The Stay

    “Well, if they’re going to issue the stay at all, now would be a good time! I mean, if no stay today, by tomorrow night my guy is eating with the big metal spoon, if you know what I mean.” I’m on the phone to appellate defense in Washington, D.C. I look at my watch. The digital face reads 00:31. Ten-thirty in the morning east coast time.

    “Alright, bye.” I hang up. I’m looking at documents, but I’m not really seeing anything – David Ponder’s record book, letter from his wife, character statements, and I’m trying to imagine how I’m going to defend him tomorrow. I’ve got one last motion that I’ll bring at the close of the government’s case. One last grasp that has a sound basis in law, but the judge will deny it, at this point. It’s a technicality.

    From the beginning I’ve had the sense that they have mischarged the offense, perhaps intentionally. The prosecution has charged it as willful disobedience of a superior commissioned officer. Under the UCMJ, that has a stiffer penalty than the more general charge of violating a lawful general order, such as the order from the Secretary of Defense, to take the anthrax shot. The government has charged it as violating the specific Navy Lieutenant’s order, but there is an old case that stands for the proposition that merely repeating a higher order can not make an orders violation the more egregious willful disobedience of a superior commissioned officer. It is called the “ultimate offense doctrine,” but it probably isn’t going to work. Nothing else has.

    I’m tired. I haven’t slept much, I need a shave, and my back is killing me from my tiny desk chair at home and my broken desk chair at work. I need to get David’s sentencing case together, review my opening statement and closing argument, and make sure all of the documents are in my case file, with necessary copies for each of the jurors…

    My head nods and I realize I’ve drifted off at my desk. I look at my watch and see it’s 2:33 am. I rub my face and decide to take a walk.

    The building is dark and empty, except for me and the feisty Okinawan cockroaches. I stroll the dark corridors, my sneakers making a light tread on the tile. I stretch my arms over my head as I walk to the entrance. Out the window, the open field beside our building is dark. I can barely see the slope that I know rises up to a road that runs next to the next set of office buildings and the barracks.

    I hear the phone in the clerk’s office ring, but there’s nothing particularly unusual about that at this hour because of the time difference; people frequently fax documents from the States during our nighttime in Okinawa. The fax ticks away, a counterpoint to the flying bugs banging into the glass on the door and the light just outside of it. Tick-tick-tick. In seven hours, David Ponder is going to be facing a jury, and likely going to jail. Unless that fax. . .

    I walk hurriedly to the defense clerk’s office and go to the fax machine behind the clerk’s desk. Letter-sized sheets are spitting out, face down. I grab one and flip it over to see if it has anything to do with me. The cover sheet is from the Washington Navy Yard. I grab the whole stack while more keep sliding out.

    My eyes flick over the words.

    “YEAHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!” I let out a guttural yell that echoes throughout the empty building. “Can you feel that, huh!?! Baby, can ya’!?” My best Ace Ventura, hips thrusting, fist pumping. I want to cry with relief. We beat the clock by seven hours. I’ve kept my promise to David and his wife, to Jason Stonewall, and Vittolino Arroyo. We have a stay from the Navy Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals. No one’s going to jail tomorrow.

                                                                                                                                                                           

    I take my time packing up and make a few copies of the stay. Before I leave, somewhere near 3 am, I take a ten-penny nail and hammer the stay to the prosecution’s office door. I don’t do it right through the middle, however, because I’m still a Marine Officer and someone might bitch to the CO about a nail in the door. I hammer the nail just deep enough to look like someone was careless; but not all the way through the door, for example. I also place the nail an inch or two above the middle of the sheet, close enough to the top of the sheet that it doesn’t look like it was intentionally in the middle, but far enough down that someone will have to either rip the paper in half to get it off or pry out the nail. It’s an asshole move, to be certain, but I know it might be all the satisfaction I’m going to get in the long run, so I indulge myself. It’s the little “fuck yous” that matter in life. It won’t be the last laugh, but it’s enough to make me smile as I walk to my car for the drive back to Kadena Air Base officer housing and my wife and four daughters.