Despite the efforts of some, in 2009 it is fifteen (15) of fifty nine (59) years later without the U.S. Congress’s then known violations corrected; REFERENCES [1] thru [7]: A. In 1950 the U.S. Supreme Court Feres Docturine holds the federal government harmless for injuries to military personnel.[1] B. The 1950 DOD Secretary issued a no non-consensual military human experimentation memo.[2] C. In Sept. 1994 there was the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) Military “Human Experimentation” “Testimony” on injured military personnel.[3] D. In Oct. 1994 the Chief Judge of Congress’s 1988 established inferior U.S. Court of Veterans Appeals (COVA) stated that the, “Constitution, statutes and regulations” are “policy freely ignored” by both the Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) and “The Veterans Health Administration” (VHA). Also there is the, “The” Veterans Appeals “court may not review the schedule of ratings for disabilities or the policies underlying the schedule.”[4] That is the herein “STATE OF COURT” transcript PARAGRAPH 9 with Congress’s law of the land, no allowed Court review U.S. CODE, TITLE 38, SECTIONS (§) 511 and § 7252. Decisions of the Secretary; finality; [5] & [6]. and C. The 54 page Dec. 94 U.S. Senate’s “hundreds of thousands” of military guinea pigs acknowledgment plus its, “The Feres Doctrine should not be applied for military personnel who are harmed by inappropriate human experimentation when informed consent has not been given.”[7] The GAO and U.S. Senate established experimentation caused issues can not be addressed by COVA or by any other U.S. Court! Accordingly, do not these violations now continue?

Underlying all, the 1950 U.S. Supreme Court’s FERES DOCTRINE holds the the federal government harmless for no matter the cause, injuries to active duty personnel.[1] On 26 February 1953 was the DOD Secretary’s NO non-consensual, human experiment’s Memo.[2] Thereby an after order disobeyed dereliction of duty demonstrated by the GAO and U.S. Senate in [3] & [7]! In 1988 the U.S. Congress’s Veteran’s Judicial Review Act created COVA. This is a U.S. Congressional no teeth inferior LEGISLATIVE, NOT a Judicial Branch Court. It can not hold the DOD & DVA responsible for the underlying facts of a case. Its Chief Judge describes veterans captured within an out of control, DVA health care process. Lost is a prior to military service right to a facts of the case reviewing and precedence setting, superior Judicial Branch Court. All veterans are captured within the “freely ignored” “Constitution, statutes and regulations” Executive Branch. To date the DOD Secretary’s disobeyed order, the GAO, Veterans Court Chief Judge and U.S. Senate noted violations have not been corrected! Now gone for both active U.S. Service Personnel and U.S. Veterans are the check and balances between our branches of government, i.e., the Legislative (U.S. House and Senate), the Executive (e.g., Departments of Defense [DOD] and Veterans Affairs [DVA]) and the Judicial. In 2006 under the “Pandemic All-Hazards Preparedness Act” the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) was established.[8] Under its “national security missions” is an in the foot steps follow on to the Department of Defense (DOD) injuring biomedical research documented by the GAO and U.S. Senate.[3] & [7]!

A couple of examples of the “initial adjudicators” to date “freely ignored” are this veterans 1957 DVA Physician’s resultant USAF Physician’s, “MPerR PERMANENT” “SURGEON HQ ARRC JUN 25 ‘58 MEDICALLY DISQUALIFIED FOR MILITARY SERVICE” (1952 to 1956)! Then the layman adjudicator’s brainless 6/27/96 Supplemental Statement Of Case (SSOC) no “…competent medical evidence…”. After an ongoing 18 years in the DVA administrative process the veteran receives a 100%disability. To date there is still no recognition of their 1957 DVA physician’s resultant 1958 USAF physician “disqualified”!

REFERENCES (Emphasis added throughout) with comments:

[1] The U.S. Supreme Court decided in 1950, in Feres v. United States, 340 U.S. 135, 71 S. Ct. 153, 95 L. Ed. 152, that the federal government could not be held liable under the statute known as the Federal Tort Claims Act (28 U.S.C.A. Sections 1291, 1346(b), (c), 1402(b), 2401(b), 2402, 2671-80) for injuries to members of the armed forces arising from activities incident to military service. A doctrine that bars claims against the federal by members of the armed forces and their families for injuries arising from or in the course of activities incident to military service. Sourse:
FeresDoctrine

[2] 26 February 1953, DOD Secretary’s NO non-consensual, human experiment’s Memo. Pages 343-345 of “The Nazi Doctors and the Nuremberg Code; Human Rights in Human Experimentation” by George J. Annas and Michael A. Grodin. (Oxford University Press, 1992).

[3] September 28, 1994 U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) Military “Human Experimentation” “Testimony”. GAO/T-NSIAD-94-266

[4] “STATE OF COURT, CHIEF JUDGE FRANK Q. NEBEKER, STATE OF THE COURT, FOR PRESENTATION TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF VETERANS APPEALS THIRD JUDICIAL CONFERENCE, OCTOBER 17-18, 1994 {as it appears in Veterans Appeals Reporter}”

——————–PARAGRAPH 9 of 16 in “STATE OF COURT” TRANSCRIPT records DVA laymen ignoring medical opinion without veteran recourse.—————————–

“I believe my message is clear. There is, I suggest, no system with judicial review which has within it a component part free to function in its own way, in its own time and with one message to those it disappoints — take an appeal. That is, I am afraid, what we have today in many of the Department’s Agencies of Original Jurisdiction — that is AOJs — around the country. Neither the Court, through the Board, the Board, nor the General Counsel has direct and meaningful control over the Agencies of Original Jurisdiction. Indeed, it is also clear that the VHA — the Veterans Health Administration — ignores specific directives to provide medical opinions as directed. And this is resulting in unconscionable delays. Let us examine judicial review. Remember, the Court and the Board do not make policy, the Secretary and Congress do. The Court simply identifies error made below by a failure to adhere, in individual cases, to the Constitution, statutes, and regulations which themselves reflect policy — policy freely ignored by many initial adjudicators whose attitude is, “I haven’t been told by my boss to change. If you don’t like it — appeal it.” The complete 16 paragraph “STATE OF COURT” transcript is available on request. Previously at, and now missing from the Chief Judges and state_of_court sites: http://www.goodnet.com/~heads/nebeker & http://www.firebase.net/state_of_court_brief.htm The legal-dictionary source “http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/federal+court”>Federal Courts notes in part: “The court may not review the schedule of ratings for disabilities or the policies underlying the schedule.”

The top medically ignorant “boss” is Congress’s confirmed “Secretary” of the DVA.

AND THE CONGRESS’S “policy freely ignored” UNITED STATES CODE law of the land, take away from Veterans:

[5] UNITED STATES CODE, TITLE 38 > PART I > CHAPTER 5 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 511. Decisions of the Secretary; finality
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/usc…11—-000-.html

“(a) The Secretary shall decide all questions of law and fact necessary to a decision by the Secretary under a law that affects the provision of benefits by the Secretary to veterans or the dependents or survivors of veterans. Subject to subsection (b), THE DECISION OF THE SECRETARY AS TO ANY SUCH QUESTION SHALL BE FINAL AND CONCLUSIVE AND MAY NOT BE REVIEWED BY ANY OTHER OFFICIAL OR BY ANY COURT, whether by an action in the nature of mandamus or otherwise.”

THEREFORE, NO COURT REVIEW OF THE MEDICALLY UNTRAINED DVA laymen and “Secretary” “schedule of ratings for disabilities” decisions as proven by:

[6] UNITED STATES CODE, TITLE 38 PART V > CHAPTER 72 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 7252. Jurisdiction; finality of decisions

“(b) Review in the Court shall be on the record of proceedings before the Secretary and the Board. The extent of the review shall be limited to the scope provided in section 7261 of this title. THE COURT MAY NOT REVIEW THE SCHEDULE OF RATINGS FOR DISABILITIES adopted under section 1155 of this title or any action of the Secretary in adopting or revising that schedule.”

[7] December 8, 1994 REPORT 103-97 “Is Military Research Hazardous to Veterans’ Health? Lessons Spanning Half a Century.” Hearings Before the U.S. Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, 103rd Congress 2nd Session. With NOTES 1 to 170.

[8] 2006 – Under Public Law (P.L.) 109-417 the “Pandemic All-Hazards Preparedness Act. 42 USC 201″ established was the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA). Signed into law 16 December 2006. SOURCE: http://www.hhs.gov/aspr/omsph/nbsb/publiclaw109417.pdf

I found your blog this morning, January 23, 2009. I regret that it is too late to impeach President Bush. Whether the senate would have convicted the president or not, impeachment is an affirmation that no person is above the law.

It is necessary and proper to pursue criminal indictments, for example, against those who justified the president’s violation of his sacred oath to protect and defend the Constitution. Certainly, the first must indictment must accuse Vice-President Chaney of criminal behavior. The professional lawyers at the Department of Justice must take criminal action against high-level, political, executive branch politicians. Then, those of Cheney’s staff engaged in criminal action should defend their actions before a jury of their peers.

The populace witnesses minor players sacrificed: demoted, arrested, and imprisoned. Policy makers have, for example, punished National Guard corporals and sergeants at Abu Ghraib. Those responsible for policies supporting torture live knowing that they will not be prosecuted.

Bad policy decisions are not illegal. They denounce stupidity and incompetence. Deliberate, unconstitutional policies are illegal. They exhibit a distain for and lack of accountability to the American people.

The conflict between increasing comity among political partisans and the defense of our Constitution and the rule of law place the new administration in a conundrum. Even if the government of the people undertakes criminal action against a few high-level actors, I believe that symbolism is as great a motivator for ethical behavior as wholesale criminal prosecutions.

Vice-President Cheney permitted torture in our name. Unfortunately, Kucinich notwithstanding, few politicians will say, “The Emperor has no clothes.”

Please continue your quest for justice.

Dr. George Davidson, Retired
Butler University
Indianapolis, Indiana

gdavidso245@gmail.com

My blog, and a letter I wrote to Obama, McCain, Kucinich, and Conyers (copied on Pelosi) is at: http://impeachbushandcheney.wordpress.com/

MWM

You are among a handful of leaders in Washington that I trust with my America. THANK YOU for all that you do for us.

From this Missouri country girl……YOU ROCK!

Sincerly,

Lisa Battitori
Liberal, Missouri

Experts have been predicting that Bush would authorize a strike on Iran for years:

“I believe President Bush is going to order air strikes (on Iran) before he leaves office”
-Norman Podhoretz (Lyons, 2007).

Bush and his cronies say they want peace and diplomacy, but the problem with the members of Bush administration is that you can’t trust them. You can’t take what they at face value.

The administration secretly planned and prepared for war with Iraq without disclosing it to the general public.

Yet, when asked about Iraq, Bush’s favorite response was “I have no war plans on my desk.” At one point or another after the planning began, nearly every member of the administration publicly denied any plans to go to war with Iraq.

The question remains: Why would we expect the Bush administration to start being honest and up front about its intentions now?

A better approach to Iran would be negotiations. We need to give Iran an honorable path of retreat. While Fareed Zakaria agrees that there is no reason not to use sanctions and embargoes against states such as Iran, he suggests that we also need to “allow a viable way out.” That is to say, we need to negotiate and not merely mandate.

I think we should more concerned about acquainting ourselves with the realities of Iran’s foreign policy initiatives, and intelligently determining our most reasonable course of action.