• MSN
  • Hotmail
  • More
    • Autos
    • My MSN
    • Video
    • Careers & Jobs
    • Personals
    • Weather
    • Delish
    • Quotes
    • White Pages
    • Games
    • Real Estate
    • Wonderwall
    • Horoscopes
    • Shopping
    • Yellow Pages
    • Local Edition
    • Traffic
    • Feedback
    • Maps & Directions
    • Travel
    • Full MSN Index
  • Bing
  • NBCNews.com
  • TODAY
  • Nightly News
  • Rock Center
  • Meet the Press
  • Dateline
  • msnbc
  • Breaking News
  • Newsvine
  • Home
  • US
  • World
  • Politics
  • Business
  • Sports
  • Entertainment
  • Health
  • Tech
  • Science
  • Travel
  • Local
  • Weather
Advertise | AdChoices
  • Recommended: 'Winter' - maybe even snow - to return for Memorial Day weekend
  • Recommended: Cars, drivers plunge into river after Wash. I-5 bridge collapse
  • Recommended: Deputy survives horrific shooting caught on camera after police stop
  • Recommended: Amid the rubble, laughter and tears for one family devastated by tornado

NBC News reporters bring you compelling stories from across the nation. For more US news, follow us on Twitter and Facebook.

  • ↓ About this blog
  • ↓ Archives
    • Icons Email E-mail updates
    • Icons Twitter Follow on Twitter
    • Icons Feed Subscribe to RSS
  • 7
    Jun
    2012
    5:32am, EDT

    Soldier accused of lying about Vietnam Purple Hearts, Afghanistan attack

    By msnbc.com staff and news services

    LOS ANGELES - A U.S. Army soldier who prosecutors say falsely claimed to have fought in Vietnam and Afghanistan - and to have earned two Purple Heart medals and a Bronze Star for heroism - was indicted on federal charges on Wednesday, the 68th anniversary of D-Day.

    Command Sergeant Major William John Roy is accused of lying about his service as he sought disability, medical and educational benefits from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, U.S. Attorney's spokesman Thom Mrozek said. 


    Roy, 57, was awarded more than $27,000 in disability benefits and $30,000 in educational benefits after submitting bogus evidence of his combat wounds and bravery in action, Mrozek said. 

    He faces a maximum sentence of 55 years in prison if convicted at trial. 


    Follow @msnbc_us

    According to an indictment handed down in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles, Roy claimed he served as a medic in Vietnam in 1974 and was twice injured in combat during that war. 

    Roy also claimed that he was awarded two Purple Hearts and a Bronze star for his heroism in Vietnam -- when in fact an investigation found that he had been in Germany serving in a non-combat role at the time, Mrozek said. 

    On June 6, 1944, Allied troops landed along the French coastline to fight Germany on the beaches of Normandy, France. NBC's Brian Williams reports.

    Among the documentation Roy provided was a Purple Heart certificate purportedly signed by President Richard Nixon but dated four months after Nixon had resigned from office, Mrozek said. 

    Roy also sent a letter to the Army in 2008 seeking a Purple Heart for extensive injuries he said he sustained in a mortar and rocket attack at a forward operating base in Jalalabad, Afghanistan, when in fact he was not involved in such an incident, Mrozek said. 

    Roy was indicted on one count of presenting false writings to defraud the United States, three counts of making false statements to the government and three counts of stealing government property. 

    June 6, 1984: D-Day Veterans and heads of state met on Normandy Beach to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the Allied Invasion of Normandy. NBC's Tom Brokaw, Jim Bitterman and Chris Wallace

    Mrozek said Roy, who remains on active duty, would be sent a summons to appear in federal court next month for an arraignment on the charges. 

    The Southwest Riverside News Network quoted Mrozek as saying the defendant, who has been in the Army for more than 35 years, was currently at home in Winchester, Calif.

    Reuters contributed to this report.

    More content from msnbc.com and NBC News:

    • Doctor's report on Lincoln assassination discovered by researcher
    • Video: 7 siblings graduate at same time, all with honors
    • 11 famed US sites named to annual 'most endangered places' list
    • Jurors selected in Sandusky trial

    Follow US News on msnbc.com on Twitter and Facebook

     

    237 comments

    Hang the SOB, he is a complete disgrace to the military and all who have served.

    Show more
    Explore related topics: army, security, defense, military, soldier, veteran, medal, featured, crime-courts
  • 7
    Jun
    2012
    4:54am, EDT

    F-16 scrambled after plane strays into Obama's restricted airspace

    By NBC News and msnbc.com news services

    An F-16 fighter jet intercepted a small private plane after it entered airspace that had been restricted because of a visit by President Barack Obama to Los Angeles on Wednesday night, defense officials told NBC News.

    The single-engine Cessna 117 was intercepted northwest of Los Angeles shortly before 5 p.m. PT (8 p.m. ET) and escorted to a landing at a small nearby airfield where it was met by law enforcement officers, according to the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD).


    Local airspace had been cleared while Obama attended a fundraiser at the Regent Beverly Wilshire held by gay and lesbian supporters. 

    The Associated Press reported that the airfield was in Camarillo, citing a Federal Aviation Administration spokesman.


    Follow @msnbc_us

    The AP said there have have been similar incidents when Obama visited Los Angeles in the past. In May, a pilot mistakenly flew into restricted airspace as the president was about to leave the city from Los Angeles International Airport (LAX).

    A similar scenario played out during Obama's February visit, when F-16 jets intercepted a plane that entered the airspace of Obama's helicopter, Marine One. That plane was forced to land at Long Beach Airport, where police said they found about 40 pounds of marijuana during a search of the Cessna, and the pilot was arrested. 

    The Associated Press contributed to this report.

    More content from msnbc.com and NBC News:

    • Drivers, insurance companies rebel against 'crash tax'
    • Doctor's report on Lincoln assassination discovered by researcher
    • Video: 7 siblings graduate at same time, all with honors
    • 11 famed US sites named to annual 'most endangered places' list
    • Jurors selected in Sandusky trial

    Follow US News on msnbc.com on Twitter and Facebook

     

    441 comments

    A similar scenario played out during Obama's February visit, when F-16 jets intercepted a plane that entered the airspace of Obama's helicopter, Marine One. That plane was forced to land at Long Beach Airport, where police said they found about 40 pounds of marijuana during a search of the Cessna,  …

    Show more
    Explore related topics: security, defense, california, air-force-one, aviation, obama, faa, lax, featured
  • 25
    May
    2012
    7:21pm, EDT

    Senate defense panel OKs $50 million more to find Joseph Kony

    By msnbc.com staff

    Follow @msnbc_world

    The Senate defense committee has agreed to spend another $50 million on the Pentagon’s manhunt for African rebel leader Joseph Kony, The Hill newspaper reported.

    The Senate Armed Services Committee approved the money to "enhance and expand" intelligence and surveillance support for the roughly 100 American special forces troops and their Ugandan counterparts tracking Kony and his Lord's Resistance Army, The Hill reported.


    The money is included in a fiscal 2013 defense bill draft approved Thursday, The Hill said.

    Stuart Price / AFP - Getty Images

    Lord's Resistance Army leader Joseph Kony answers journalists' questions at Ri-Kwamba, in Southern Sudan in 2005.

    Kony has evaded the region's militaries for nearly three decades, kidnapping tens of thousands of children to fill the ranks of his Lord's Resistance Army and serve as sex slaves as he moves through the bush. Thousands have been killed by his brutal army.

    In 2005, the International Criminal Court indicted Kony, along with four other LRA commanders, for crimes against humanity and war crimes. Two of them have since died.

    Kony was thrust into the spotlight earlier this year when the advocacy group Invisible Children’s video, "Kony 2012," highlighting chilling mutilations, rapes and murders carried out by his spell-bound fighters, went viral on the Internet.

    Last year President Barack Obama sent the 100 troops to help eliminate the LRA.

    The United States since 2008 has provided about $33 million to support the battle against the LRA, The New York Times reported in October when Obama sent the troops.

    Ugandan forces on May 12 captured Caesar Acellam, a Kony senior commander, after a brief fight with rebels near the Congo-Central African Republic border in what an analyst said was an "intelligence coup" for forces hunting for Kony.

    In 2005, NBC News correspondent Keith Morrison traveled to Uganda to report on a little-known war being waged by rebel leader Joseph Kony and his Lord's Resistance Army (LRA). "Children of War" documented how the LRA systematically terrorized countless communities and abducted tens of thousands of children to fill its ranks.

    More world news from msnbc.com and NBC News:

    • Scotland launches independence campaign with 007's support
    • Runoff could take Egypt's voters on one of two very different paths
    • Leftist tipped to be next Greek leader warns of 'Cold War' over austerity
    • Japan's fugitive penguin caught after two months on the lam
    • Why so glum? Germans struggle to find joy, poll suggests
    • Tens of thousands of elephants likely killed last year, experts say

    Follow us on Twitter: @msnbc_world

     

    68 comments

    why am paying any of my tax money to hunt for this guy??? i do not care!!! it is not my problem!!

    Show more
    Explore related topics: senate, pentagon, defense, uganda, africa, joseph-kony
  • 18
    May
    2012
    4:15am, EDT

    Historic battleship USS Iowa to become museum in Los Angeles

    Volunteers work under the 16-inch guns at the stern of the USS Iowa in Richmond, California, on Thursday.

    By msnbc.com staff and news services

    LOS ANGELES - The USS Iowa, which ferried the late President Franklin D. Roosevelt across the perilous Atlantic waters to a historic meeting with Winston Churchill and Josef Stalin in the dark days of World War Two, is to become a floating museum.

    The battleship saw combat in the Pacific, survived a devastating explosion in a gun turret, and even a snub from the city of San Francisco. At the end of its final voyage, the storied warship will have a permanent mooring in San Pedro, Los Angeles.


    The Los Angeles Harbor Commission voted unanimously on Thursday to create a permanent home for the ship at the city's port, where it will open as a floating museum.

    AP, file

    A cloud of gunfire smoke hangs over the USS Iowa during exercises on Oct. 17, 1952.

    The vessel, which saw service with the U.S. Navy over six tumultuous decades, will become the only battleship museum on the U.S. West Coast when it opens on July 7.

    "There's no more ships like this in existence in the active navies anywhere in the world," said Robert Kent, president of the Pacific Battleship Center.

    "They've either been sunk, scrapped or turned into museums, and the Iowa is the last battleship to find a home," he added.

    'Your ship is coming in'
    It is expected to attract 400,000 visitors a year and could revitalize the city’s port area, jubilant local officials told the Los Angeles Daily News.

    "This will help transform our waterfront in making it a world-class destination," Los Angeles City Councilman Joe Buscaino told commissioners, adding that the area will soon see interconnected network of promenades, open spaces and shops.

    We're all so excited," Katherine Gray, vice president of the San Pedro Convention and Visitors Bureau, told the Daily News. "You really feel the swell of support and excitement. ... San Pedro, your ship is coming in."

    The 887-foot Iowa-class warship was commissioned in 1943.

    That same year it took Roosevelt across the Atlantic on his way to a meeting in the Iranian capital Tehran with British Prime Minister Churchill and Soviet strongman Stalin, the first conference of the "Big Three" Allied leaders of the war.

    The hulking warship, which towers 175 feet above the water line, was equipped with a special bathtub for Roosevelt -- who was partially paralyzed following a bout with polio -- which remains on board to this day.

    Later in the war, it pounded beachheads in the Pacific with its 16-inch guns ahead of Allied landings, and took part in the Japanese surrender in Tokyo Bay in 1945. During the Korean War in the 1950s, it conducted gun strikes and bombardments.

    Robert Galbraith / Reuters

    Curator David Way sits at the bow of the U.S. battleship USS Iowa in Richmond, California, on Thursday.

    In 1989, off the coast of Puerto Rico, an explosion within a gun turret on board the ship killed 47 sailors.

    The Iowa was decommissioned in 1990 and was later kept in a naval center in Rhode Island before it was towed through the Panama Canal to Northern California.

    'Don't ask, don't tell'
    Historic groups in Northern California had sought to find a permanent home there for the ship, but they faced a number of setbacks. Among them was a vote in 2005 by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors to reject a resolution to move the Iowa to the city as a floating museum.

    The San Francisco Chronicle reported at the time that some city supervisors had voted against the resolution out of opposition to the U.S. military's then-policy of "don't ask, don't tell," which barred gays and lesbians from openly serving in the armed forces.

    Several members of the board who took part in the 2005 vote could not be reached for comment.

    The Iowa, which once powered through the waves at a top speed of 33 knots or 40 miles per hour, will have to be towed to Los Angeles from Richmond, in North California, where it has been undergoing a $7 million restoration.

    The funds included $3 million from the state of Iowa, where residents have taken a keen interest in the ship, Kent said.

    It is set to leave Richmond on Sunday, pass under the Golden Gate Bridge and arrive off the coast of Los Angeles on May 24.

    While the Iowa will be the only battleship museum on the West Coast, San Diego, also in southern California, has the USS Midway Museum to showcase that historic aircraft carrier.

    The Midway attracts about a million visitors a year, and the Pacific Battleship Center, the group responsible for bringing the USS Iowa to Los Angeles, hopes to one day approach those numbers. Initially, they expect up to 500,000 visitors a year.

    Reuters contributed to this report.


     

    237 comments

    Rather a fitting end to a great lady.

    Show more
    Explore related topics: security, navy, life, defense, military, california, veteran, featured, uss-iowa
  • 10
    May
    2012
    10:21am, EDT

    US public supports cuts in defense spending, going beyond Obama and GOP

    By R. Jeffrey Smith
    Center for Public Integrity

    While politicians, insiders, and experts may be divided over how much the government should spend on the nation’s defense, there’s a surprising consensus among the public about what should be done: They want to cut spending far more deeply than either the Obama administration or the Republicans.

    That’s according to the results of an innovative, new, nationwide survey by three nonprofit groups, including the Center for Public integrity. Not only does the public want deep cuts, it wants those cuts to encompass spending in virtually every military domain – air power, sea power, ground forces, nuclear weapons, and missile defenses.

    According to the survey, in which respondents were told about the size of the budget as well as shown expert arguments for and against spending cuts, two-thirds of Republicans and nine in 10 Democrats supported making immediate cuts – a position at odds with the leaderships of both political parties.

    The average total cut was around $103 billion, a substantial portion of the current $562 billion base defense budget, while the majority supported cutting it at least $83 billion. These amounts both exceed a threatened cut of $55 billion at the end of this year under so-called “sequestration” legislation passed in 2011, which Pentagon officials and lawmakers alike have claimed would be devastating.

    “When Americans look at the amount of defense spending compared to spending on other programs, they see defense as the one that should take a substantial hit to reduce the deficit,” said Steven Kull, director of the Program for Public Consultation (PPC), and the lead developer of the survey. “Clearly the polarization that you are seeing on the floor of the Congress is not reflective of the American people.”

    A broad disagreement with the Obama administration’s current spending approach– keeping the defense budget mostly level – was shared by seventy-five percent of men and 78 percent of women, all of whom instead backed immediate cuts. That view was also shared by at least 69 percent of every one of four age groups from 18 to 60 and older, although those aged 29 and below expressed much higher support, at 92 percent.

    Disagreement with the Obama administration’s continued spending on the war in Afghanistan was particularly intense, with 85 percent of respondents expressing support for a statement that said in part, “it is time for the Afghan people to manage their own country and for us to bring our troops home.”  A majority of respondents backed an immediate cut, on average, of $38 billion in the war’s existing $88 billion budget, or around 43 percent.

    Despite the public’s distance from Obama’s defense budget, the survey disclosed an even larger gap between majority views and proposals by House Republicans this week to add $3 billion for an extra naval destroyer, a new submarine, more missile defenses, and some weapons systems the Pentagon has proposed to cancel. Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has similarly endorsed a significant rise in defense spending.

    When it comes to weapons, respondents on average favored at least a 27 percent cut in spending on nuclear weapons, a 23 percent cut for ground forces, a 17 percent cut for air power, and a 14 percent cut for missile defenses. Modest majorities also said they favored dumping some major individual weapons programs, including the costly F35 jet fighter, a new long-range strategic bomber, and construction of a new aircraft carrier.

    “Surveyed Americans cut to considerably deeper levels than policymakers are willing to support in an election season,” said Matthew Leatherman, an analyst with the Budgeting for Foreign Affairs and Defense Project at the Stimson Center, a nonprofit research and policy analysis organization that helped develop the survey.

    While Republicans generally favored smaller cuts, they overwhelmingly agreed with both independents and Democrats that current military budgets are too large. A majority of Republicans diverged only on cutting spending for special forces, missile defenses, and new ground force capabilities.

    The survey, which was conducted in April, was designed differently than many polls on defense spending, which have asked respondents only if they support a cut. Its aim was instead to probe public attitudes more comprehensively, and so it supplied respondents with neutral information about how funds are currently being spent while exposing them to carefully-drafted, representative arguments made by advocates in the contemporary debate. The respondents then said what they wished to spend in key areas.

    The survey’s methodology and the number of respondents – 665 people randomly selected to represent  the national population -- render its conclusions statistically reliable to within 5 percent, according to the Program on Public Consultation, which conducted it.

    Somewhat surprisingly, all of the pro and con arguments about cutting defense spending attracted majority support, suggesting that respondents found many elements in the positions of each side that they considered reasonable. It also suggests that the survey fairly summarized contrasting viewpoints.

    Sixty-one percent agreed, for example, with a statement that the U.S. has special defense responsibilities because it is an exceptional nation, while 72 percent said the country is “playing the role of military policeman too much.” Fifty-four percent agreed that cutting defense spending is problematic because it will cause job losses, while 81 percent – in one of the largest points of consensus – agreed with a statement that the budget had “a lot of waste” and that members of Congress regularly approve unneeded spending just to benefit their own supporters.

    The survey suggested, in short, that most people do not see the issue in starkly black or white terms, but instead hold complex views about the appropriate relationship between defense spending and America’s role in the world. “Most Americans are able to hold two competing ideas in their mind and, unlike Congress, thoughtfully recognize the merits of both,” Kull explained. “And then [they] still come to hard and even bold decisions.”

    The survey also showed that Americans react differently when given data on the current defense budget in different contexts – providing some insight into how partisans on each side of the debate might tailor their arguments to attract support.

    When framed, for example, in the context of military spending by other countries, or the portion of the so-called annual discretionary budget devoted to defense, or the amount of money spent for defense during the Cold War, most respondents said they were surprised by how large the U.S. budget is now. But when compared to the overall size of the U.S. economy, or the size of the other two leviathans in the federal budget -- U.S. spending on Medicare or Social Security – most respondents said they were not surprised.

    By far the most durable finding – even after hearing strong arguments to the contrary -- was that existing spending levels are simply too high. Respondents were asked twice, in highly different ways, to say what they thought the budget should be, and a majority supported the roughly the same answer each time: a cut of at least 11 to 13 percent (they cut on average 18 to 22 percent).

    In one exercise, a larger group chose to cut the defense budget (62 percent supported this) than to cut non-defense spending (50 percent) or to raise taxes (27 percent).  They then chose to cut deeply as a means to address the deficit. In yet another exercise, respondents first read pro and con arguments for the nine major mission areas that now compose almost 90 percent  of the budget; then a majority of Republicans and Democrats then selected lower levels in eight of the nine areas.

    For example, two-thirds of the respondents, including 78 percent of Democrats, 64 percent of Republicans, and 57 percent of independents, cut spending on nuclear arms. Respondents on average also sought to cut ground forces the largest dollar amount. The sole program that attracted average support for more spending was the Pentagon’s effort to development new capabilities for ground forces, but the suggested increase was slight and mostly embraced by Republicans and independents.

    Majorities took these steps even though they expressed slightly higher support, on average, for statements in favor of these programs than critical of them. Most notably, they said they were convinced that air power is important (77 percent), special forces are valuable (79 percent), and missile defense efforts are worth pursuing (74 percent), while giving arguments for the Navy and ground forces less backing (69 percent and 57 percent, respectively).

    While most programs got either a trim or a buzz cut in the public salon, several won outright support. A majority opposed cutting the controversial V-22 Osprey, an aircraft that takes off like a helicopter and flies like a plane. Even after being told its cancellation would save $1 billion, a clear majority backed its continued production. And even while most respondents favored killing the new strategic bomber, they solidly backed continuing to use bombers to carry nuclear arms as part of a “triad” of forces, alongside land and sea based missiles.

    Whether the weight of public attitudes will be felt in Congress and the White House is unclear. As close students of Washington know, legislative outcomes here are often determined not by average views, but by the passionate convictions of noisy minorities. As a result, it’s worth noting which arguments attracted not just support from solid majorities but high rankings as “very convincing”:

    • It is time to let the Afghanis fend for themselves (43 percent called this very convincing).
    • There is a lot of waste in the defense budget (39 percent very convincing).
    • Special forces are useful and effective (36 percent very convincing).
    • We are playing the role of world policeman too much (29 percent very convincing).
    • Missile defenses could help defend us (27 percent very convincing).
    • Air power is critical (26 percent very convincing).
    • Nuclear arms serve little purpose now (26 percent very convincing).
    • Defense spending weakens other parts of the economy (25 percent very convincing).

    “Americans’ views as expressed in this survey are a big reason why policymakers – after the election – are likely to tighten the Pentagon’s strategy and cut national defense spending more deeply,” said Leatherman, the Stimson Center analyst.

    6 comments

    “Most Americans are able to hold two competing ideas in their mind and, unlike Congress, thoughtfully recognize the merits of both,” Kull explained. “And then [they] still come to hard and even bold decisions.” So the GOP/TP senate nominee from Indiana Mourdock defines compro …

    Show more
    Explore related topics: poll, budget, pentagon, defense
  • 9
    May
    2012
    3:52am, EDT

    Fisher House offers gift to UK's wounded troops: $2 million toward 'sanctuary'

    courtesy Hawkins family

    Former British Royal Marine Ed Hawkins was seriously injured in Afghanistan in 2010. He left hospital last year and is currently on a work placement.

    By Alastair Jamieson, msnbc.com

    LONDON -- Fisher House, the Maryland-based charity which provides overnight accommodation for families visiting hospitalized military members, is expanding onto foreign soil for the first time with a facility for British troops.

    Construction has begun on a $6.8-million building with 18 en-suite rooms that will allow relatives to stay close to the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Birmingham, where the U.K.'s most seriously wounded military personnel are treated.


    As well as providing servicemen and women a place to relax away from hospital wards, it will have communal living space including a family room, play area, lounge and kitchen and a private garden.

    Fisher House, which was founded during the first Gulf War in 1990, has more than 50 projects in the U.S., as well as others located on American bases in Germany. However, this is its first truly international venture.

    'Unique American model'
    Talk show host and former U.S. Marine Montel Williams and the charity’s chairman, Ken Fisher, attended a ground-breaking ceremony at the site.

    Courtesy Fisher House

    Montel Williams at the ground-breaking ceremony for the new Fisher House project at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Birmingham, England, on April 23.

    "This is a great honor for Fisher House, as we share with our British brothers and sisters our unique American model for caring for military families," Fisher said.

    "This will be a sanctuary for the people who need it most: those who have made deep personal sacrifices – whether on the battlefield or on the home front – to keep us safe.  We thank them even though we know it will never be enough."

    Almost 10,000 British troops are in combat alongside 90,000 U.S. personnel in Afghanistan. Figures from Britain's Ministry of Defence, collated by The Guardian newspaper, show 832 have been seriously wounded since Operation Enduring Freedom began in 2001.

    Many families travel for hundreds of miles to be by their loved ones' bedside -- sometimes for weeks at a time, because of the need for months or even years of surgery and rehabilitation. Military accommodation exists for family members but only six bedrooms are available at Queen Elizabeth Hospital.

    Jan. 25: There are many of them around the country and they're all called Fisher House — a place for wounded war veterans to recover with the love and support of their families close by. NBC's Ann Curry reports.

    Sue Hawkins, whose son Ed was almost killed by an improvised explosive device while on a patrol in Afghanistan in May 2010, said the new facility would "be a great source of comfort, particularly at a time when families are surrounded by so much uncertainty."

    The blast killed his corporal and seriously wounded Ed, who was serving with the Royal Marines. He was flown back to Birmingham for several months of treatment.

    "When we were told about Ed, we just left for the hospital," Sue Hawkins told msnbc.com. "We had no idea how long we would be there or even if he would survive. I can remember everything about that day, because of the shock, but that last thing you have time to think about it is planning where to stay."

    Five-hour round trip
    Faced with a daily five-hour round trip from their home in Hampshire, Sue and her husband Michael spent many nights across the road from the hospital in a former nurses' accommodation block, before moving to the military facility – a converted house in a residential street.


    Follow @msnbc_world

    "There were times when Ed became very distressed and we were able to reach him quickly when the hospital called," she said. "That sort of comfort and care is very important. We know first-hand how important it is to have a 'home from home' in difficult, emotional and challenging times. Fisher House truly is a massive step in the best direction possible.”

    Ed Hawkins, who is now 26, left hospital last year and is currently on a work placement.

    British soldier Nick Gibbons, who lost a leg in a bomb in Afghanistan in 2008, also attended the ground-breaking ceremony on April 23. He told ITV News: "It's what you need really, your family around you. Facilities like this are great because it not only allows the family to stay here, it gives you a better relationship with your family. It's a stressful time. The last thing you want is them travelling."

    Fisher House has contributed $2 million to the project, with the rest of the building cost provided by U.K. veterans' charity Help for Heroes, whose high-profile supporters include Prince Harry. It will be operated by the Queen Elizabeth Hospital Charity and funded by Help for Heroes when it opens next year.

    Britain's Prince Harry charmed the crowds in Washington, D.C., where he was on hand to accept a humanitarian award for his work with wounded veterans. NBC's Kristen Welker reports.

    President Barack Obama and his wife Michelle have previously made a sizeable donation to Fisher House, which also operates a Hero Miles Program that uses donated frequent flyer miles to bring family members to the bedside of injured service members. 

    Montel Williams told the Birmingham Mail that he was a regular visitor to Fisher House sites in the U.S., cooking meals for soldiers and their families. "I'll definitely be coming to Birmingham to do the same," he told the newspaper. "I'll bring my sister and my chef with me and we'll rustle up things like crab cakes and fish. It'll be real American-style cooking."

    Msnbc.com's David Arnott contributed to this report.

     

    More world news from msnbc.com and NBC News:

    • Study: Plastic in 'Great Pacific Garbage Patch' increases 100-fold
    • US charity's gift to UK troops: $2 million for 'sanctuary'
    • $868K mystery: Nigeria stock exchange's yacht, Rolexes vanish
    • UK jails 9 members of sex gang who 'shared' teen girls
    • Heathrow chaos: Travelers spend longer in line than on jets
    • Leak hits Shell Nigeria pipeline at center of environmental case
    • Story of vengeful jilted dentist WAS too good to be true
    • Poll: Most Egyptians think US aid billions have 'negative effect'
    • London jogger: Dustin Hoffman 'saved my life'

    Follow us on Twitter: @msnbc_world


    82 comments

    A feel good story to start the morning, thank you. I wish the soldiers and their families the best while going through their recovery, because family is everything in situations such as this. It's good to see there will be a place for this to happen. Great job Fisher House.

    Show more
    Explore related topics: us, afghanistan, britain, defense, military, troops, family, giving, veterans, featured
  • 28
    Apr
    2012
    8:16am, EDT

    Panetta recalls nail-biting moments of Osama bin Laden raid

    Handout / Reuters

    A hand-written memo by then CIA Director Leon Panetta in which U.S. President Barack Obama authorised a Navy SEAL team operation that resulted in the death of Osama bin Laden at his hideout in Pakistan one year ago.

    By The Associated Press

    With the first anniversary of Osama bin Laden's death approaching, Leon Panetta has spoken of the nerve-wracking moments of the night of the raid by U.S. Navy SEALs.

    The picture in Defense Secretary Leon Panetta's office captures the "mission accomplished" moment. 


    It shows Panetta, then the head of the CIA, and a group of U.S. commandos and others in the CIA operations center on the night of May 2 with their arms around each other — a quiet celebration just after U.S. helicopters crossed back over the border into Afghanistan. 

    Not until then — 90 minutes after U.S. special operations forces had lifted off from the heavily fortified compound in Pakistan where they went in search of Osama bin Laden — was he sure they could breathe a sigh of relief. 

    "We got the job done," Panetta said Friday as he recalled the long silences and the tense, heart-pounding moments before Adm. William McRaven's words finally came through loud and clear. 

    "Geronimo EKIA" — the code name for bin Laden, and the signal for "enemy killed in action." 

    Abbottabad - One year after Osama bin Laden

    With the first anniversary of the al-Qaida leader's death approaching, Panetta spoke to reporters on his plane as he flew back from a series of meetings with defense leaders in South America. Perched on a table inside the Airstream trailer — dubbed the Silver Bullet — that serves as his office inside his C-17 transport plane, Panetta traced back through the nerve-wracking moments of that night. 

    And he talked about its impact over the past year. 

    "I don't think there's any question that America is safer as a result of the bin Laden operation," he said. 

    While al-Qaida and its offshoots remain a threat, he said, the military and intelligence communities have learned to work better together since Sept. 11, 2001. Still, he acknowledged, there is no single, completely effective way to destroy the terror network. 

    "The way this works is that the more successful we are at taking down those who represent their spiritual, ideological leadership, the greater our ability to weaken their threat to this country," he said. 

    The story of the raid is well-known: The SEALs and special operations forces that flew deep into Pakistan; the wrenching moment when one of the helicopters went down in the heat, landing hard with its tail on the wall; the SEALs' assault on the house where they believed bin Laden and his wives had been living for several years; and what Panetta on Friday called the "fingernail-biting moments." 

    Nearly one year after the death of Osama bin Laden, some Republicans are accusing the Obama administration of using the event for political gain. NBC's Mike Viqueira reports

    "We knew that there were gunshots and firing, but after that we just didn't know," said Panetta, describing the nearly 20 minutes of silence after the SEALs went into the house. 

    PhotoBlog: Osama bin Laden's hideout revealed

    Then came confusion. McRaven, commander of the operation, told him that he thought he'd picked up the word "Geronimo." 

    "The way he said it was like, you know, 'We think,'" said Panetta. "It wasn't ideal. We were still waiting." 

    A few minutes later came the KIA message. Then came the long flight out of Pakistan. 

    "By that time they had blown the helicopter that was down and we knew we had woken up all of Pakistan to the fact that something had happened," Panetta said with a laugh. "The concern was just exactly what were they thinking and how were they going to respond." 

    The moment they crossed the border, he said, was "the moment when we finally knew the mission had been accomplished." 

    Then they could embrace the victory. 

    The raid created a deep fissure into the already rocky U.S.-Pakistan relations. U.S. officials, including members of Congress, were irate that the al-Qaeda leader had been able to hide — virtually in plain sight — in a Pakistani military town. Some suggested there was at least some knowledge of his hiding place. 

    Pakistani leaders, meanwhile, were outraged that the U.S. had launched a military mission deep within the country's borders without alerting them, violating their sovereignty. Islamabad's military commanders were embarrassed that the U.S. was able to carry out the raid without being detected. 

    The bin Laden saga has continued in Pakistan. His three wives and their families were deported early Friday to Saudi Arabia. Officials have said that the wives and as many as eight children and some grandchildren were living in the compound when it was raided. 

    The anniversary has triggered security warnings for Americans in Pakistan. The U.S. Embassy said its employees would be restricted from restaurants and markets in Islamabad for the next two weeks. While there was no mention of bin Laden, the period includes the anniversary date.

    More content from msnbc.com and NBC News:

    • Lawyer: Autistic boy's teacher didn't call him 'bastard'
    • World record holder for 'longest time to live with a bullet in the head' dies
    • Guess who's coming to dinner? Navy family starts unique deployment ritual
    • Attorney: Zimmerman's website raised more than $200,000
    • Which dress will get you barred from this prom?

    Follow US News on msnbc.com on Twitter and Facebook


    © 2013 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

    237 comments

    Glad OBL is gone. Gratz ST6!

    Show more
    Explore related topics: cia, terror, security, defense, raid, osama-bin-laden, al-qaeda, featured, panetta
  • 23
    Apr
    2012
    1:14pm, EDT

    Pentagon spies get new service, stepped up mission

    By Associated Press

    The Pentagon is rebranding and reorganizing its clandestine spy shop, sending more of its case officers to work alongside CIA officers to gather intelligence in places like China, after a decade of focusing intensely on war zones.


    Follow @msnbc_us

    Several hundred case officers will make up the new Defense Clandestine Service,  according to a senior defense official who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly about the classified program.

    Drawn from the Defense Intelligence Agency, the officers will be sent to beef up U.S. intelligence teams in areas that are now receiving more attention. Those include Africa, where al-Qaida is increasingly active, to parts of Asia where the North Korean missile threat and Chinese military expansion are causing increasing U.S. concern.


    Defense Department case officers already secretly gather intelligence across the globe on terrorism, weapons of mass destruction and other issues, mostly working out of CIA stations in embassies and operating undercover like their CIA counterparts.

    But an internal study by the Director of National Intelligence last year found the agency still focused more on its traditional mission of providing the military with intelligence in war zones, and less on what's called "national" intelligence — gathering and disseminating information on global issues and sharing that intelligence with other national security agencies, the official said.

    The study also found that the Pentagon did not always reward clandestine service overseas with promotions, so its most experienced case officers often left for the CIA, or switched to other career paths within the Pentagon.

    The new service is intended to curb personnel losses, making clandestine work part of the Pentagon's professional career track and rewarding those who prove successful at operating covertly overseas with further tours and promotions, like their CIA colleagues.

    The case officers in the field — some military and some civilian — will answer directly to the top intelligence representative in their post, usually the CIA's chief of station, in addition to serving their agency back home. The arrangement is likely to curb complaints seen in earlier expansions of the Defense Department's spy mission, which the CIA and other agencies saw as the military stepping on their territory.

    The changes were worked out by the top Pentagon intelligence official, Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence Michael Vickers, and his CIA counterpart who heads the National Clandestine Service, and briefed to Congress before Defense Secretary Leon Panetta signed off on the new program last Friday.

    More content from msnbc.com and NBC News:

    • Zimmerman released on bail in Martin shooting case
    • Five big questions as the John Edwards trial starts
    • Triple digit temps in Southwest — in April!
    • Tsunami sign: Soccer ball washes ashore in Alaska

    Follow US News on msnbc.com on Twitter and Facebook

    © 2013 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

    17 comments

    Will these spies be equipped with GPS devices so that the media can track their every movement and report on it daily ????? Geeez ....is nothing classified anymore ?

    Show more
    Explore related topics: cia, national, spy, defense, service, department, panetta, clandestine
  • 3
    Apr
    2012
    3:42pm, EDT

    Gay couples, where spouse is a foreigner, sue over DOMA

    Courtesy of Immigration Equality

    Tim Smulian, a 65-year-old British and South African citizen, and Edwin Blesch, a 71-year-old American, met in 1999 and have been together ever since – though that has entailed moving countries every six months at an enormous financial cost since they can't legally marry in the US. Despite years of stress, both said it has all been worth it and feel being part of the lawsuit is an "obligation to continue the struggle."

    By Miranda Leitsinger, Staff Writer, NBC News

    Same-sex couples, in which one partner is a foreigner, have filed a lawsuit challenging a federal law that prevents them from getting a green card for their spouses, just ahead of the start of a related court battle that some predict could bring the issue of gay marriage to the Supreme Court.

    The lawsuit, filed Monday on behalf of five binational gay couples, targets Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which blocks federal benefits for same-sex couples -- including the right of an American to sponsor their foreign spouse for a green card. The lawsuit claims that DOMA violates their constitutional right to equal protection.

    Follow @mimileitsinger

    “Our couples can’t just wait any longer … we’ve spent the past year working with the Obama administration to encourage them to place green card applications for gay and lesbian couples on hold until DOMA is struck down by the courts or repealed by Congress, and they have declined to do that,” said Rachel B. Tiven, executive director of Immigration Equality, which filed the lawsuit along with Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP.  “As a result, we really have no choice but to sue.”

    The couples in the lawsuit have been together more than a decade – in some cases more than two – and have struggled to cope with the law while maintaining their relationships.

    “They’re at the end of their viable options to stay here as a family,” Tiven said Tuesday. “They’re out of visas … they’re out of work opportunities that would enable them to continue to stay.”

    DOMA, enacted by Congress in 1996, blocks federal recognition of same-sex marriage, thereby denying various benefits given to heterosexual couples, such as the right to immigrate. Thirty-nine states have defense of marriage acts, while six states and the District of Columbia allow same-sex marriage, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. There are an estimated 36,000 binational gay couples in the U.S.

    One of the couples in the lawsuit is American Edwin Blesch, 71, and his husband Tim Smulian, a 65-year-old British-South African. The couple married in South Africa in August 2007, where gay marriage is legal. Their union is also recognized in New York state, which approved same-sex marriage last year.

    For some gay couples, fight goes on to marry — and stay in the US

    “The last years have been probably the most exhilarating in our lives in that we’re together and we both now have the … soulmate that we’ve been searching for all of our lives,” he said.

    But the legal restrictions have made life more stressful for the couple, who live in Orient, NY. Smulian’s visa has expired, and though federal authorities have given him an additional year to stay in the country in what is known as “deferred action,” that time will be up Feb. 7, 2013.


    Follow @msnbc_us

    “We’re now in our retirement years … there’s not a whole lot of time for us to dawdle around waiting for things like this to be settled,” added Blesch, who says he has HIV/AIDS and needs to stay in the country for his medical care.

    The lawsuit notes that if the couples were heterosexual, the federal government would recognize the foreign spouse as an immediate relative of their American partner, who could apply for an immigrant visa for them.

    “Solely because of DOMA and its unconstitutional discrimination against same-sex couples, however, these Plaintiffs are being denied the immigration rights afforded to other similarly situated bi-national couples,” reads the lawsuit, which was filed in U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York. “This is an action to remedy that hateful, harmful, and unlawful discrimination.”

    Immigration Equality and other advocates of couples in this situation have urged federal authorities to put the green card applications on hold, rather than deny them outright, while the legality of gay marriage is addressed through legislation or by the courts. They note that immigration judges have opted to put some deportation proceedings on hold while the law is in flux.

    “There’s no requirement in any law that says a (green card) denial must come immediately,” said Lavi Soloway, a lawyer representing same-sex couples, whose law practice – Masliah & Soloway – created Stop The Deportations: The DOMA project.

    “Press the pause button, don’t destroy people’s marriages,” he added. “Even for a short period so that we make sure we don’t make any premature denials and cause irreversible harm to couples and families.”

    Soloway said two other cases were filed last year – one in Los Angeles and the other in Chicago – on the same issue as the Immigration Equality lawsuit, coming amid a number of legal challenges to DOMA.

    On Wednesday, a federal appeals court in Boston will hear an appeal over DOMA’s denial of federal benefits to married gay couples – a case Soloway said experts expect to make it to the Supreme Court.

    More content from msnbc.com and NBC News:

    • Tornado videos show flying semi-trailers, huge hail
    • 1940 census: Ancestors found, despite site overload
    • Woman, 80, crash lands plane after husband dies
    • Calif. shooting: Oikos University catered to Koreans

    Follow US News on msnbc.com on Twitter and Facebook

    728 comments

    This law is pretty backward, and does go against the law, just get rid of it and be done with it, it dosent do anything except make this country look even more crazy.

    Show more
    Explore related topics: of, act, marriage, gay, defense, doma
  • 22
    Mar
    2012
    9:21am, EDT

    How Staff Sgt. Bales' lawyers are fighting for his life

    Allauddin Khan / AP file

    In this March 11, 2012, file photo, Afghan men stand next to blood stains and charred remains inside a home where witnesses say Afghans were killed by a U.S. soldier in Kandahar province.

    By Miranda Leitsinger, Staff Writer, NBC News

    Lawyers for Army Staff Sgt. Robert Bales, suspected of killing 16 Afghan civilians, will likely mount a two-pronged defense, military law experts say, attacking the evidence against him while also arguing that his reported combat injuries and mental trauma created diminished mental capacity.

    Bales’ civilian attorney, John Henry Browne, has suggested such an approach in his public comments on the case, in which the Army has identified the soldier as the lone suspect in the March 11 attack but not yet charged him.


    Follow @mimileitsinger

    “There’s no forensic evidence, there’s no medical examiner’s evidence, there’s no evidence about how many alleged victims or where those remains are,” he told NBC Nightly News on Tuesday, adding that he intends to travel to Afghanistan to oversee his own investigation.

    But he also stated that his client had “no memory” of the attack and suggested that could be from a concussive head injury. In comments to CBS News on Monday, he indicated he would make a "diminished capacity" argument rather than pursue an insanity defense.

    Defense official: Staff Sgt. Robert Bales to face 16 counts in Afghanistan massacre

    John Henry Browne, the attorney for U.S. Army Staff Sgt. Robert Bales, speaks about the long and emotional first face-to-face meeting with his client. NBC's John Yang reports.

    Some military law experts interviewed by msnbc.com said they expect a legal pincer attack, in which the defense may try to win acquittal by attacking the evidence but have a fallback position aimed at winning a lesser sentence than the death penalty -- which Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has said could be sought in this case.

    Military officials have said that after drinking at an Army outpost in southern Afghanistan on March 11, Bales, 38, crept away in the night to two nearby villages, where he shot his victims and set many of them on fire. At least nine of the 16 victims were children, they said.

    Gary Solis, former head of the Marine Corps’ Military Law Branch and current adjunct professor of law at Georgetown Law School, said the fact that the crime occurred in a combat zone in a distant country complicates the task for prosecutors, who are expected to charge Bales with premeditated murder and other crimes.

    Army Sgt. Robert Bales' lawyer questions evidence in Afghanistan killings

    To convict Bales of that charge, prosecutors would have to prove that people died, the means by which they died, that the accused is the person who used those means and had premeditated the offense, Solis said.

    That would be no easy feat, given the possibility of numerous crime scene complications, he said.

    “The prosecution is under additional burden in that they’re trying a crime that happened … 9,000 miles away,” he said. “They have no bodies, they have no autopsies, they have no forensics, they have no photographs, they have no witnesses. There is no Afghan who is going to come here to testify against this guy, so how do they prove premeditation? It’s going to be a problem for them.”

    Daniel Conway, a lawyer and former Marine staff sergeant who has been involved in battlefield investigations in Iraq and Afghanistan of alleged crimes by U.S. soldiers, said prosecuting Bales will be “exceptionally difficult.” Even establishing him as the gunman could be problematic, he said.

    “It still remains to be seen whether any of these Afghan local nationals can actually identify Bales as the shooter,” he said. “Now there’s going to be some real linguistic divides here in terms of people’s … ability to communicate what they saw but you may very well have the potential down the road for a defense that he didn’t do it.”

    The physical evidence from combat zone crimes is similarly suspect, Conway said.

    Spc. Ryan Hallock / DVIDS via AP file

    In this Aug. 23, 2011 Defense Video & Imagery Distribution System photo, Staff Sgt. Robert Bales participates in an exercise at the National Training Center at Fort Irwin, Calif.

    “In these combat zone cases, you have crime scenes that are contaminated almost instantly … bodies are moved, forensic evidence is either contaminated or cleaned, there (are) typically no photographs that are taken of forensic value so you can’t necessarily go back and do a very thorough wound analysis,” he said, noting that it would be difficult to exhume the bodies if they have already been buried due to Islamic tradition.

    “It’s not easy to separate the fact from the fiction in this kind of case,” he added.

    If Bales’ case goes to trial, the defense will have an opportunity to react to the government’s case, because the Army presents first. That will enable his lawyers to decide whether to focus on attacking the evidence or arguing that Bales’ reported combat injuries and mental trauma from the battlefield created diminished mental capacity. Or, they may do both, Solis said.

    “The government has to go first and it has to prove its case,” he said. “He’s going to be ready to take advantage of any chink in the government’s arguments that he perceives in addition to whatever argument he may have.”

    Bales was on his fourth tour in a war zone since signing up for the Army after the 9/11 terrorist attacks in 2001. He had spent three years in Iraq on his previous tours, during which time he lost part of a foot and suffered a traumatic brain injury (TBI) due to a vehicle rollover, media reports say. Two days before he allegedly attacked the Afghan villagers, he saw the aftermath of a bombing in which a fellow soldier had his leg blown off, The Associated Press reported.


    Follow @msnbc_us

    While an insanity defense remains possible, experts who spoke to msnbc.com note that winning such a case is extremely difficult in a military trial.

    Unlike an insanity defense, where Bales would have to be shown not to have known right from wrong to be acquitted, diminished capacity is simply an argument that the crime was not premeditated and that mitigating factors should lessen his punishment.

    “That’s very hard, so … he might have to go with this diminished capacity,” Greg Rinckey, a former attorney with the U.S. Army’s Judge Advocate General Corps who is now managing partner of military law firm Tully Rinckey PLLC, said of an insanity defense. “Most of the cases that I’ve tried, that’s what we’ve went with is because we couldn’t get to … the complete no mental responsibility or the capability to stand trial.”

    Eugene R. Fidell, who teaches military justice at Yale Law School, said testimony indicating that Bales’ was afflicted by post-traumatic stress disorder, or PTSD, could be introduced at this juncture, but would be unlikely to result in acquittal.

    “Maybe some psychiatrist will say he suffers from PTSD,” he said. “That’s not a defense – probably. There’s no case in which PTSD has given rise to a successful insanity defense in the military.”

    Solis said Bales’ lawyers would likely put the brain injury, the wounding of his comrade, the multiple deployments and his foot injury into the “diminished capacity argument box,” with the traumatic brain injury (TBI) possibly being a strong element in support of that claim.

    Afghan massacre by US soldier puts focus back on brain testing

    “You can get a doctor who will come in there with a chart and … show here’s a normal brain and here’s his brain getting TBI,” he said. “So the jury’s got something concrete … that they can wrap their not guilty finding around,” if that’s how they’re leaning.

    Conway said doctors compare traumatic brain injury to a “hardware” problem, whereas PTSD is more like a “software” issue.

    Solis, the former head of the Marines law branch, said the horrific nature of the crime could ironically benefit Bales’ defense.

    “They’re going to say, ‘Would somebody in control of their facilities, somebody who didn’t have diminished capacity have done something this wacky?’” he said. “The act itself is inherently supportive of a diminished capacity” argument.

    As a result, he said, Bales’ case might not even make it to a military courtroom. Perhaps a deal will be struck, or maybe mental health exams -– which could takes months -- will show that Bales is not competent to stand trial.

    But Conway, the former Marine who has been involved in high-profile military crime cases, including the 2005 killing by U.S. Marines of 24 unarmed Iraqi men, women and children in Haditha, Iraq, said the defense also runs a risk by telegraphing that it intends to argue diminished capacity.

    “It’s a two-edged sword. On the one hand, if they can prevent this from turning into a capital (death penalty) case, that’s a huge victory,” he said. “On the other hand, they’re giving away the playbook and they don’t have any access to the witnesses. So the government is going to be out talking to everybody trying to rebut the diminished capacity defense.”

    At the same time, a defense built on PTSD and brain injury is generally a tough sell in a military courtroom, Conway said.

    “We have used it many times” to get charges reduced, he said. “I can tell you that it’s hard to get a military jury to be sympathetic to these kinds of defenses because the way they look at it is, ‘I’ve had multiple deployments, I’ve had multiple concussive events … I’ve got family problems, and I didn’t go out and do this.’”

    “So you’re going to have to be able to explain to the jury why this case is different from their own experiences in combat and that’s going to be tough to do.”  

    More content from msnbc.com and NBC News:

    • Transit police strike in Philadelphia over pay
    • More Americans uneasy with political use of religion
    • NYC schools: No more pink slime for lunch in fall
    • Boston Archdiocese defends six-figure salaries

    Follow US News on msnbc.com on Twitter and Facebook

    533 comments

    So, this man faces a death sentence for this? And what of the Fort Hood Muslim, Major Nidal Malik Hasan that cried Allah Akba as he killed 12 and wounded 31 people here in the states? He gets off with an insanity plea? Where's the stress in being a psychiatrist stateside compared to being a soldier  …

    Show more
    Explore related topics: afghanistan, defense, john, massacre, robert, civilians, henry, 17, ptsd, tbi, browne, bales
  • 28
    Feb
    2012
    2:17pm, EST

    Pentagon admits it dumped some 9/11 remains in a landfill

    The disclosure that unidentified remains from the 9/11 attack were buried in a landfill was a small part of a larger report on problems at the military's mortuary at Dover, Del. NBC's Jim Miklaszewski reports.

    By M. Alex Johnson, msnbc.com

    Updated at 8:38 p.m ET: For the first time, the Defense Department acknowledged Tuesday that some cremated remains of victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks were dumped in a landfill, conduct the White House called "unacceptable."

    The disclosure is just two paragraphs in an 86-page report released Tuesday by an independent task force reviewing operations at the military's mortuary at Dover, Del.


    M. Alex Johnson

    M. Alex Johnson is a reporter for msnbc.com. Follow him on Twitter and Facebook.


    In a contentious briefing for reporters at the Pentagon, retired Army Gen. John Abizaid, the head of the panel, tried to keep the focus on steps the military was taking going forward, saying the 9/11 findings were only a minor part of the task force's work.

    Asked repeatedly for more information, he said, "We did not spend a great deal of time and effort and energy" on the matter, adding forcefully: "It's my report, but it's not the focus of the report."

    Defense Secretary Leon Panetta formed the task force in December after an investigation by the Air Force, which runs the facility, found that some remains of U.S. military personnel weren't handled "in accordance with procedures."


    The Air Force acknowledged that it had disposed of the incinerated remains of at least 274 service members in the landfill before it ended the practice in 2008. At the time, officials said records went back only to 2003.

    But the independent panel found that the practice went back at least to 2001, and it discovered that "several portions of remains" recovered from the 9/11 attacks at the Pentagon and at Shanksville, Pa., also ended up in a landfill:

    Prior to 2008, portions of remains that could neither be tested nor identified, and portions of remains later identified that the [family or other representative] requested not to be notified of (requesting that they be appropriately disposed of) were cremated under contract at a civilian crematory and returned to [Dover]. This policy began shortly after September 11, 2001, when several portions of remains from the Pentagon attack and the Shanksville, Pennsylvania, crash site could not be tested or identified.

    These cremated portions were then placed in sealed containers that were provided to a biomedical waste disposal contractor. Per the biomedical waste contract at that time, the contractor then transported these containers and incinerated them. The assumption on the part of [Dover] was that after final incineration nothing remained. A [Dover] management query found that there was some residual material following incineration and that the contractor was disposing of it in a landfill. The landfill disposition was not disclosed in the contractual disposal agreement.

    Read the full report (.pdf)

    Air Force Secretary Michael Donley and the Air Force chief of staff, Gen. Norton Schwartz, said they hadn't yet had a chance to review the entire report. 

    Erin A. Kirk-Cuomo/Defense Department

    'It's my report, but it's not the focus of the report,' retired Gen. John Abizaid, chairman of the review panel, insisted.

    "This is new information to me," Donley acknowledged when asked about the 9/11 victims by NBC News Pentagon correspondent Jim Miklaszewski. Schwartz, asked the same question, replied, "That's what I'm saying."

    In a statement Tuesday night, the White House said President Barack Obama had been briefed on the findings and was determined that "these types of incidents never happen again."

    Calling the report's details "unacceptable," the White House said, "The United States has a solemn obligation to compassionately and professionally care for fallen service members and their families, and those we tragically lost on 9/11."

    Rep. Rush Holt, D-N.J., who has sought answers to what happened at Dover since last year, said the report bore out what he believed all along.

    "I suspected, as Gen. Abizaid's panel has now confirmed, that these practices had been going on for many years. Even remains from the 9/11 terrorist attacks were treated in this way," Holt said in a statement to msnbc.com.

    "The Department of Defense needs to engage in some real soul-searching," Holt said. "How is it possible that, for years or even decades, no one at Dover recognized how profoundly inappropriate these practices were?"

    'Commanders in name only'
    Abizaid told reporters that the Air Force's complex command structure led to the problems by creating "commanders in name only."

    But "this was not just an Air Force problem," he said, adding that the entire U.S. military "needs to understand this is a 100 percent no-fail mission."

    For one thing, he said, the Dover facility should no longer cremate fallen troops, because "we think it's a bad idea for DoD to be in the cremation business" in the first place.

    The Dover facility is the first point of entry for U.S. service members who are killed or die overseas. It first came under investigation in 2010 after employees complained about how some cases were handled.

    Investigators said last year that they had found no evidence that anyone intentionally mishandled the remains, but they concluded that the mortuary staff failed to "maintain accountability" with some remains.

    "The standard is 100 percent accountability in every instance of this important mission," Schwartz said at the time. 

    "We can, and will, do better, and as a result of the allegations and investigation, our ability to care for our fallen warriors is now stronger,” he said.

    More content from msnbc.com and NBC News

    • Report: Ohio shooting suspect from violent family
    • Near-blizzard conditions moving into Upper Midwest
    • City: Chicken slaughter art project is cruel
    • Wyoming lawmaker introduces doomsday bill

    696 comments

    Notice that it happened under Bush's presidency? That is because they acted as if they cared but in reality it was all about them and their power grab for the corporations. Typical incompetence under GW Bush's inept, irresponsible, and illegal administration. They should all be in prison foir war cr …

    Show more
    Explore related topics: remains, sept-11, pentagon, defense, 9-11, featured, m-alex-johnson
  • 26
    Jan
    2012
    4:49pm, EST

    No, President Obama isn't actually proposing to cut defense spending

    A lot of rhetoric is being thrown about in discussing the Pentagon budget. Reporter R. Jeffrey Smith from the Center for Public Integrity takes a look at what's actually been proposed by President Obama, in his explainer, "Puncturing the hot air balloons on defense spending: A reader's guide to the debate in 2012." The Center for Public Integrity is a nonprofit, nonpartisan investigative reporting group in Washington.

    Smith's takeaway summary:

    Obama’s national security spending plan does not cut the defense budget. Even if his proposal is enacted, U.S. defense spending will continue to dwarf the rest of the world’s. The new U.S. military strategy was concocted to accommodate the proposed budget trims, not vice versa. Sequestration is a threat, not a promise. And no matter what politicians say or do this year, U.S. defense spending will remain vulnerable to real cuts. The important question in the years ahead is, which military programs will survive and which will go away.

    Read the full story here from the Center for Public Integrity.

    83 comments

    Panetta and the generals say there is a 13% cut in military spending. A far left think tank says it isn't. I'll go with Panetta and the generals. More bullshiite we've come to expect from MessNBC and Obama.

    Show more
    Explore related topics: defense, military, obama, featured, election-2012
Newer postsOlder posts

Browse

  • featured,
  • crime,
  • military,
  • weather,
  • california,
  • updated,
  • florida,
  • environment,
  • us-news,
  • shooting,
  • new-york,
  • texas,
  • education,
  • chicago,
  • police,
  • gulf-oil-spill,
  • kari-huus,
  • nbcnewyork,
  • los-angeles,
  • murder,
  • new-jersey,
  • guns,
  • afghanistan,
  • obama,
  • colorado,
  • sandy,
  • trayvon-martin,
  • nbclosangeles,
  • barack-obama,
  • crime-and-courts,
  • politics,
  • gay,
  • veterans,
  • connecticut,
  • fire,
  • arizona,
  • crime-courts,
  • religion,
  • george-zimmerman
Also
Advertise | AdChoices

Miranda Leitsinger

Archives

  • 2013
    • May (361)
    • April (608)
    • March (548)
    • February (510)
    • January (563)
  • 2012
    • December (457)
    • November (460)
    • October (477)
    • September (432)
    • August (525)
    • July (519)
    • June (508)
    • May (566)
    • April (538)
    • March (576)
    • February (471)
    • January (417)
  • 2011
    • December (455)
    • November (190)
    • October (9)
    • September (3)
    • August (51)
    • July (8)
    • June (3)
    • May (12)
    • April (5)
    • March (3)
    • February (1)
    • January (8)
  • 2010
    • December (5)
    • November (1)
    • October (2)
    • September (28)
    • August (40)
    • July (35)
    • June (177)
    • May (50)
    • April (9)
    • March (2)
    • February (2)
    • January (4)
  • 2009
    • December (5)
    • November (5)
    • October (2)
    • September (11)
    • August (4)
    • July (12)
    • June (1)
    • May (1)
    • April (1)
    • March (3)
    • February (3)
    • January (2)
  • 2008
    • December (3)
    • November (2)
    • October (6)
    • September (30)
    • August (26)
    • July (10)
    • June (4)
    • May (8)
    • April (13)
    • March (9)
    • February (7)
    • January (6)
  • 2007
    • December (10)
    • November (6)
    • October (22)
    • September (11)

Most Commented

  • Man with ties to Boston bombing suspect admits role in 2011 murders; shot during FBI questioning (2094)
  • Boy Scouts vote to lift ban on gay youth (3751)
  • Majority of Colorado sheriffs file suit against new gun laws (1914)
  • At least 51 killed, including 20 children, as tornado tears through Oklahoma (1802)
  • Scouts await decision on gay membership (2218)
  • Judge blocks Arkansas' tough new abortion law (1875)
  • Jodi Arias pleads for jury to spare her life, says, 'I want everyone's pain to stop' (853)

Other blogs

  • The Body Odd
  • Cosmic Log
  • Red Tape Chronicles
  • PhotoBlog
  • Open Channel

NBCNews.com top stories

3147,10
© 2013 NBCNews.com
  • US news on NBCNews.com
  • About us
  • Contact
  • Help
  • Site map
  • Careers
  • Closed captioning
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy policy
  • Advertise