ON GUARD

Radiation and Herbicide Suits Rejected by Courts

by Tricia Critchfield

Veterans and others who were exposed to radioactive fallout and Agent Orange suffered serious setbacks recently when federal appeals courts, in two separate rul­ings, threw out lawsuits seeking damages for their injuries. W hile the victim s’ attor­neys have stated that they ’ll appeal to the Suprem e C ourt, som e legal observers doubt that the high court will overturn rul­ings which, if left alone, will finally put an end to litigation which em barrasses the government.

In Denver, the 10th Circuit Court o f Appeals reversed a 1984 verdict by a Salt Lake City federal court which had awarded damages to ten o f 24 Utah residents w ho’d suffered radiation-induced cancers after living “ dow nw ind” from the N evada test-site. The court based its action on a section o f the Federal Tort Claims Act which prevents suit where injury was the result o f high-level policymakers exercis­ing their “ discretionary functions.” The court’s ruling acknowledges that Ameri­can leaders knew that the bomb-testing they ordered would lead to excess cancer and death rates. The lower court had re­jected this defense during the trial.

One o f the plantiffs, Mrs. Helen Nisson o f southern U tah, w hose son died o f leukemia, told reporters, “ We can give millions to the Contras, but not one penny for kids down here who d ie d .” Over two thousand other cases o f “ dow nw inders” w ho 'd developed cancer.and otherJiealth problems because o f the fallout will never be brought to trial unless the appeals

court’s ruling is overturned. “ It was a body blow , even though I expected the ruling. This appeals court has overturned every radiation case they get their hands o n ,” observed Janet Gordon, director o f Citizens Call, a Utah group advocating com pensation. Ms. Gordon decried gov­ernm ent stonewalling on the issue. “ If w e ’d suffered an earthquake or m ajor flood, they ’d have sent in assistance in a m inu te .”

The efforts o f Vietnam veterans to over­turn the grossly inadequate settlement o f the Agent Orange class action were also frustrated when the 2d Circuit Court of A ppeals, sitting in M anhattan, upheld the court-induced pact. Describing the settle­

m en t’s size as merely a “ paym ent o f nui­sance va lue ,” the judges nonetheless up­held most o f its terms. They did reject trial judge Jack W einstein’s plan to give $45 million o f the settlment fund to a private foundation, explaining that they feared endless litigation over the charity ’s ac­tivities. The court also rejected a secret fee a rrangem en t under w hich “ investo r- attorneys” on the plantiffs’ team would have received three times as much in fees as those who actually did the work. A l­though the court preached that such an arrangement cou ldn ’t be allowed because it generated “ impermissable incentives” to settle, they gave the tainted plan their approval anyway.

The reaction among Vietnam veterans was imm ediate. Randy Guffey of the Viet­nam Veterans Agent Orange Com mittee, a coalition o f vet groups based in Arlington, V A ., com m ented, “ I t’s obviously a polit­ical, not a judicial decision. The judges feared opening Pandora’s Box. There is a body o f scientific evidence which supports our claim s, no m atter what the judges sa y .”

Frank Lattanzi, a veteran affiliated with Citizen Soldier observed; “ In its opinion, the court referred to new research which has docum ented high levels o f dioxin in the blood and tissue o f vets. This is an ongoing scientific issue, yet the courts are trying to deep-six it like so much toxic waste. ”

The New York court also upheld Judge W einstein’s dism issal o f the claim ants who elected to leave the class and sue on their own. Even though it heard no evi­dence, the lower court had dism issed these cases, ruling that they could not have won at trial.

Wayne M ansulla, a W ashington, D.C. attorney who represents the “ op t-ou t” veterans expressed shock at the ruling. “ We conducted hundreds o f depositions and gathered thousands o f documents on the issue o f the governm ent’s knowledge o f the hazards, yet the court mangled the facts and disposed o f the issue in a few paragraphs. The case cries out for review by a court willing to actually read the re­cord from below .” Mansulla and other attorneys plan to petition the U .S. Sup­reme Court for review.

One “ downwinder, ” Mrs. G loria Gre- gorson o f C edar C ity , UT, w ho suc­cum bed recently to cancer may have of­fered the most telling prophecy; “ T hey ’re JusTwaTting for us tod ieonV then they can bury the problem along with u s .”

□

Continued from page 10 Knox and Fatigue Press at Ft. Hood, local papers mushroomed around the country: Shakedown at Ft. Dix, Attitude Check at Camp Pendleton, Fed-Up at Ft. Lewis, All Hands Abandon Ship at Newport Naval Station, The Last H arass at Ft. Gordon, Left Face at Ft. M cClellan, Rage at Camp Lejeune, The Star-Spangled Bum mer at W right-Patterson AFB . . . the list could stretch to over a hundred papers.

The GI newspapers varied from local gripes to a basic anti-brass, anti-war, anti­racist consciousness. Some lasted for only a few issues, folding when the guys putting it out were transferred or discharged. But most of those connected with organizing projects came out consistently, if sporadi­cally, through the war years.

Generally the papers were produced by small groups o f GIs. It was illegal to distri­bute on base, but nonetheless countless copies were sm uggled on and placed around the barracks, stuck in bathroom s, casually left in lounge areas. A large number were distributed in base towns and were well received.

As one Marine organizer put it, “ Guys ask if the paper is ‘underground.’ If we reply yes, they take it. Guys identify with a rebellion if not with the revolution .”

Relations between GIs and civilians on the projects took many forms. On the one hand, civilians performed some essential functions, such as keeping the places run­ning, while guys were on base and gener­ally provided contacts and resources from the world o f the movement. These con­tributions were valued by GIs. But civi­lians d idn’t share the same experiences or

the same risks, and this at times led to conflict.

The problem was not simply a civil- ian-GI dichotomy. One organizer at Ft. Lewis wrote, “ Often, the problem was that the m iddle-upper class people would dom inate the m eetings and directions, with the lower class people doing most o f the w o rk .”

Despite these internal struggles, the high degree o f transience among GIs, and the pervasive power o f the brass, the over­riding intensity o f the war ensured that the work continued. Since the high level o f risk limited what actions could be underta­ken, newspapers were the most realistic form o f political expression. Attem pts were made, however, to find other forms o f struggle. Sick call strikes were or­ganized at Ft. Knox early in the war and later at Ft. Lewis. Soldiers cannot legally go on strike, but military regulations sup­posedly guarantee them the right to go on sick call. Such efforts had to be publicized well in advance, and the brass resorted to intimidation, harassment, and outright re­fusal o f the sick call privilege to crush these strikes. The attempt at Ft. Knox re­sulted in failure, though at Ft. Lewis it had a moderate impact, with up to 30% of the base trying to go on sick call.

A ttempts were also made to hold meet­ings on base. In October o f 1969 such a meeting was held at a service club at Ft. Lewis, but due to agent infiltration, it was raided by the MPs who picked up thirty- five GIs. Though formal charges were never brought, almost all o f them were either transferred, shipped to Vietnam, d ischarged, or busted on other charges.

Attempts were also made to mobilize GIs for off-base actions such as civilian peace dem onstrations. These were at times successful. Hundreds o f GIs participated in Ft. Hood and Ft. Bragg and in cities like San Francisco and in December o f 1969 almost 1,000 marines participated in an anti-war march in O ceanside, California. The military tried to stifle this expression

VET-GATEContinued from page 4 responsible for oversight o f the VA, have dem onstrated little appetite for probing any deeper. Only after intense pressure was exerted by some legislators, did the veterans affairs committee!) in the House and Senate conduct a brief hearing into the growing scandal in March 1987.

At this hearing, the NARS lawyers re­leased another bombshell. Despite its per­sistent claim s that the files o f atomic vete­rans couldn’t be separated from 35 million others, the VA has had the ability since 1982 to track all radiation claim s pending before it. It also established another com ­puter program in 1984 which allows the agency to immediately identify all such claim s which have been resolved. Despite th is steadily accum ulating evidence of sloth and deceit at the highest levels o f the governm ent’s second largest agency, sev­eral com mittee members spent their time attacking the NARS representatives for conducting a “ vendetta” against the VA.

The response of the “ big th ree” vete-

o f resistance, largely by placing whole units or entire bases on restriction.

Throughout this period, the GIs who became involved tended to be white work­ing class Vietnam vets. Racism clearly played a role in preventing solidarity bet­ween white and third world GIs. □

(to be continued next issue— Ed.)

rans o rgan izations to illegal p ractices which affect millions o f their members has been depressingly predictable. For exam ­ple, the national com m ander o f the Dis­abled American Veterans editorialized in the M arch, 1987 issue o f its magazine, “ Current efforts being undertaken in the courts hold out only a false hope for atomic veterans seeking a resolution to their long suffering. ”

Only one national veterans group, the Vietnam Veterans o f America, has ex­pressed any public support for N A R S’ valiant efforts. The others, apparently, fear that they have too much to lose.

It remains to be seen what the long-term effects o f the lawsuit will be. It’s possible that the Supreme Court will again reject N A R S’ effort to allow veterans the right to counsel o f their choice. The current ar­rangement o f power is undergirded to two o th e r w ell-en trenched ru les; a statute which bars any judicial review o f VA deci­sions, no m atter how egregious, and the Feres decision wherein the Supreme Court ba rred any la w su its fo r ac tiv e duty injury— leaving all claim ants to the tender m ercies of, you guessed it, the V.A.

ON GUARDMissile Technician Refuses Nuclear Duty:

Establishes GI Counselling Projectby B ill Boston

On W ednesday, February 25, 1987, Sgt. Mark A. Lane o f the US Army Persh­ing Unit in Heilbronn reported for duty in civ ilian c lo thes, carry ing a statem ent which read in part: “ After a long time of prayer and talking this over with my wife and others, I have come to the decision that I cannot continue to wear the uniform o f the US A rm y.”

Mark Lane has been in the US Army since 1976. He has worked almost exclu­sively with Pershing missiles. Since June o f 1986, Mark has been married to Gabi, a German woman with two children from a previous marriage. Together Mark and Gabi have a daughter, enlarging their fam ­ily to five. At some point M ark’s nuclear duty and his relationship to war led him to question his role as a soldier. He then realized he was a CO and began to take steps to leave the Army. This process has been long and is often frustrated by the Army \s inability to understand his position and also because the military d id n ’t under­stand its own laws.

Mark Lane filed an application for sep­aration from the US Army as a Conscienti­ous O bjector in January 1986. Although most claim s are processed within a matter o f m onths, it took the Army eleven months to read through M ark’s claim , hold the required interviews and send the claim on to the Department o f the Army in the US for final resolution. The claim was finally sent to the Department o f the Army in December. During this time Mark was re­quired to report for duty each day and was kept "o c cu p ied ,” fulfilling the require-

Sgt. Mark Lane

ment to provide him with work that would not com prom ise his beliefs as a Conscien­tious Objector. Mark also had to put up with nearly a full year o f uncertainty, ver­bal harassment, acute feelings o f isolation, trapped within a world to which he no longer felt a part of.

During this time Mark realized his con­victions had deepened to the point where he could no longer identify him self as a soldier: “ Even though to the US Army I am a soldier and will be until discharge— 1 am a Conscientious Objector. This fact cannot be changed .”

In February 1986, Mark reported for

duty without wearing his uniform; he was sent home until the following day. Again, he reported for duty in civilian attire. This time he was ordered to report to his Unit Com m ander. The officer informed Mark o f his rights and warned him that he could be court-m artialed for continuing to refuse to wear his uniform. At this time Mark was not ordered to put on the uniform nor was he given an A rticle 15 (non -jud ic ia l punishm ent). He was simply released from that d ay ’s duty and ordered to report the following morning “ looking like a sol­d ie r .”

Throughout this process, Mark had been in close contact with the Military Counsel­ing Project near his base. The Counseling Project notified local media and held a press conference the next day so that Mark could share his story with others and, by doing so publicly, avoid any backlash from the military.

That afternoon, the Base Com mander threatened Mark with an Article 15, outlin­ing several charges being brought against him. Again the Com m ander ordered Mark to wear his uniform and, again, Mark re­fused on the basis o f his conscience.

The next day Mark was informed o f the A rm y’s decision to discharge him honora­bly in accordance with his application for separation under Chapter 16. He requested this discharge based upon the grounds that he felt he could not overcome a “ b ar” to re-enlist. This type o f discharge is fairly flew a ̂ 1 v e n /w v p e o p l^ n re a w ^ x e o f ft

In M arch, Mark was flown back to the US for “ out-processing. ” He stood firm in his refusal to wear the uniform and the Arm y, in an effort to keep news o f M ark’s

resistance to nuclear duty from spreading, permitted him to process out in civilian clothes.

Mark is currently speaking throughout West Germany and is organizing a coun­seling center in Heilbronn. □

Pershing 2

Height: 32.9 ft. Diameter: 3.3 ft. Weight: 15,840 ft.

Warhead-------- ^

Re-entryVehicle

SecondPropulsionStage

RocketMotors

FirstPropulsionStage

SO U R C E : UPI

Women Veterans Speak Outby W.D Ehrhart

A Piece o f M y Heart. Keith W alker; New York: Ballantine Bool^s, I987; 429 pp., $4.95.

For years after the last U.S. ground troops were w ithdrawn from Vietnam , Vietnam veterans were a largely invisible subculture attracting notice only when one o f its members shot his wife and children or robbed a liquor store. For most Ameri­cans, the Vietnam war had been a disturb­ing nightm are threatening to shatter their illusions and self-perceptions; they d id n ’t want to remember it, and in the process of repressing the war, they chose not to re­mem ber the people who had fought it.

Much o f that has changed in the past six or seven years. Vietnam veterans have re­cently been honored with parades in New York City, Chicago and elsewhere. Be­ginning with the Vietnam Veterans M emo­rial in W ashington, D .C ., nearly every state, city and country town now has its ow n V ietnam veterans m em orial. A l­though these things do n 't exactly make up for the years o f silence and neglect, at least now Vietnam veterans are no longer invis­ible.

One group o f Vietnam veterans, how­ever, remains in the “ twilight zone” of national consciousness, even after all the recent hoopla and that group is the women

I WISH I WERE

W .W . I recruiting poster

who served in Vietnam. W omen?! Yes, women.

They served as military nurses, intelli­g en c e a n a ly s ts and co m m u n ic a tio n s specialists, USO staffers, Red Cross vol­unteers, airline attendants and entertain­ers. In ternational V oluntary Serv ices,

Catholic Relief Services and American Friends Service Com mittee all stationed women in Vietnam. Some o f these women were even killed there.

Yet so neglected is this group o f Viet­nam veterans that no accurate estimate of their numbers even exists, though unoffi­cial estim ates put the to tal at around 15,000. That may not be a lot com pared to the 2.5 million men who served, but to put it in perspective, it is a number three times larger than the total population o f the town I grew up in— and in any case, suffering is not something that can easily be measured in simple numbers. W ho were these w o­men? Why were they in Vietnam? W hat was the war like for them? Why have they become the most forgotten o f the forgot­ten? Where are they now?

Keith W alker’s oral history, A Piece o f M y Heart, goes a long way toward answer­ing these questions and in the process of­fers, in some small m easure, the recogni­tion these women have consistently been denied. It is the story o f 26 women, both military and non-military, who served in Vietnam during the war. And it is a story told by the women themselves in their own w ords. W alker wisely choosing to act only as a facilitator and editor, rather than as a writer.

The book’s greatest strength is its diver­sity. These 26 women offer widely differ­

ing experiences and points o f view. While army nurse Grace Barolet O ’Brien can say that “ Vietnam was for m e, then and now, a powerful growth experience; I ’m glad I se rved ,” army nurse Sara M cVicker can only say, “ I ’d like to think that something positive came out o f it, but I d o n ’t know w h a t.” W hile USO staffer Maureen Nerli rem em bers thinking, “ Honest to God, the people back home d o n ’t know what they are really missing; this is first-class life here; this is w hat’s go in ’ o n ,” AFSC vol­unteer Dot W eller rem em bers that “ the longer we were there, the more our sym­pathies were with the [National Liberation Front] and, o f course, the innocent civi­lians; we came to hate what the United States was doing [to V ietnam ].”

Much o f what is in this books sounds uncannily like what male Vietnam vete­rans have had to deal w ith, then and now. But the sim ple fact o f their sex sets these veterans apart, gives them an extra burden to bear, and leaves them infinitely more isolated. They went to Vietnam not to fight or to kill, but to heal and to nurture. Ten, fifteen and twenty years later, most of them are still in need o f the very things they tried to provide for others. A Piece o f M y Heart is yet another poignant reminder that the Vietnam war is still with us, and that it is not likely to go away at any time soon. - □

W .D. E hrhart’s new est book is Going Back (M cFarland, 1987). He is a member o f the national advisory board o f Citizen Soldier.

Collection Number: AG1977

END CONSCRIPTION CAMPAIGN (ECC)

PUBLISHER: Publisher:- Historical Papers Research Archive

Location:- Johannesburg

©2013

LEGAL NOTICES:

Copyright Notice: All materials on the Historical Papers website are protected by South African copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, or otherwise published in any format, without the prior written permission of the copyright owner.

Disclaimer and Terms of Use: Provided that you maintain all copyright and other notices contained therein, you may download material (one machine readable copy and one print copy per page) for your personal and/or educational non-commercial use only.

People using these records relating to the archives of Historical Papers, The Library, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, are reminded that such records sometimes contain material which is uncorroborated, inaccurate,

distorted or untrue. While these digital records are true facsimiles of paper documents and the information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be accurate and reliable, Historical Papers, University of the Witwatersrand has not independently verified their content. Consequently, the University is not responsible for any errors or

omissions and excludes any and all liability for any errors in or omissions from the information on the website or any related information on third party websites accessible from this website.

This document is part of a collection held at the Historical Papers Research Archive at The University of the

Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.