Economic Hit Men and the Next Drowning of New Orleans

Hurricane Bush Four Years Later, Part 2

by Greg Palast
For Crooks and Liars, Thursday, August 27, 2009

This week only, our readers can download, free of charge, Greg Palast's film, "Big Easy to Big Empty: The Untold Story of the Drowning of New Orleans." Or donate and get a signed DVD. Watch the 1-minute trailer ...

Who put out the hit on van Heerden?

Ivor van Heerden is the professor at Louisiana State University's Hurricane Center who warned the levees of New Orleans were ready to blow — months and years before Katrina did the job.

For being right, van Heerden was rewarded with ... getting fired. [See Katrina, Four Years Later: Expert Fired Who Warned Levees Would Burst]

But I've been in this investigating game long enough to know that van Heerden's job didn't die of natural causes or academic issues. This was a hit. Some very powerful folks wanted him disappeared and silenced — for good.

So who done it?

Here are the facts.

Dr. van Heerden has lots of friends, mostly the people of New Orleans, those who survived and cheered his fight to save their city. But he also has enemies, many of them, and they are powerful.

First, there is Big Oil. More than a decade ago, van Heerden pointed the finger at oil drilling as a culprit in threatening New Orleans and the Gulf Coast with flooding.

"Certainly he was critical of what the oil companies did to the coast," Louisiana engineer HJ Bosworth told me. "Seeing what kind of bad citizens they were. Dozens and dozens of pipeline canals just carved the living daylights out of the coast just to find some oil."

Well, we need oil, don't we?

True, but Bosworth, who advises Levees.org, a non-profit group that birddogs hurricane safety work, explained the connection between flooding New Orleans and oil drilling quantified by van Heerden's research. "Takes a million years to build (the protective coastal marsh); once you carve it up, it's just like bleeding a wild animal, hang it up, carve some holes in it, and the juice just drains out of it. Saltwater and tide invade. You make [the state] susceptible to flooding from coastal and tidal surges."

Click on image to enlarge

So I was amazed to learn that, shortly after van Heerden, wetlands protector, was given the heave-ho by LSU, a group calling itself "America's Wetland" gave the university a fat check for $300,000.

After a little digging, I found that it wasn't really "America's Wetland," the group with the oh-so-green name and love-Mother-Nature website, that provided the money. One-hundred percent of the loot, in fact, came from Chevron Oil Corporation. Chevron had merely "green-washed" the money through "Wetlands."

Was this Big Oil's "thank you" to LSU for canning van Heerden? The University refuses to talk to me about van Heerden's firing ("It's a confidential personnel matter").

Bosworth notes such a grant to the University "doesn't come without strings attached." And this "Wetland" grant appears to have some tangled threads. LSU will monitor the coast's environment, guided by a committee of what the school's PR office describes as "experts" in coastal infrastructure and hurricane research. But the school is pointedly excluding its own expert, van Heerden. Instead of van Heerden, LSU announced it will rely on representatives from Chevron — and Shell Oil.

You can't challenge Shell's expertise on coastal erosion. The Gulf Restoration Network has calculated that the oil giant, "has dredged 8.8 million cubic yards material while laying pipelines since 1983 causing the loss of 22,624 acres."

Shell too is a sponsor of "America's Wetland."

Bad Behavior

Van Heerden and his team of hurricane experts at LSU have other enemies, notably Big Oil's little sisters: The Army Corps of Engineers and its contractors. One internal University memo that has come to light is a complaint from the Army Corps of Engineers' Washington office to an LSU official demanding to know why van Heerden's "irresponsible behavior is tolerated."

By van Heerden's bad "behavior," they seem to be referring to the professor's computer model of the Gulf which predicted, years before Katrina hit, that the levees built by the Army Corp were too short. The Army Corps, van Heerden asserts, compounded the danger to New Orleans by going shovel-crazy, with massive dredging and channel-cutting sought by shipping interests.

Following the complaint from Washington, the University took away van Heerden's computer (no kidding). But they couldn't take away his voice. He began to speak out. University officials do not deny they told him to shut up, to stop speaking to the press about his concerns. They were worried, they told van Heerden, that his statements jeopardized their government funding.

Van Heerden's revelations were, indeed, damning. He revealed that the Bush White House knew, the night Katrina came ashore, that the levees were breaking up, but withheld this crucial information from the state's emergency response center. As a result, the state slowed evacuation and stranded residents were left to drown. [See Big Easy to Big Empty.]

A class action lawsuit has been filed against the Army Corps of Engineers on behalf of all the people of the city who lost homes and loved ones because the Corps-designed levees had failed. Anyone with a TV and two eyes could see that. But the Bush Administration flat out denied it knew its system was flawed and refused any responsibility for the disaster.

Van Heerden, who had warned Washington, long before the flood, that the levees were 18 inches too short, would have been a devastating expert witness for the public. But the university ordered him not to testify, a relief for the Corps. (A verdict is expected soon in the non-jury case.)

The Army Corps and its contractors can feel safer now that van Heerden has been booted. His Hurricane Center will be downsized and instead, the University will expand its "Wetland" program, with Chevron's checkbook.

Joining Chevron and Shell on the LSU board of "wetland" experts will be the Shaw Group, a huge Army Corps contractor.

If you've read John Perkins' book, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, you would know about Shaw Group, or at least the subsidiary for whom Perkins did his dirty work: an engineering outfit that used flim-flam, intimidation and fraud to turn a buck. (I once directed a government racketeering investigation of one of their projects before Shaw bought them up. In the 1988 case, a jury found the company was co-conspirator in a multi-billion-dollar fraud, charges the company settled with a civil payment.)

Shaw Group is also a sponsor of "America's Wetland." So is electricity giant Entergy Corporation. That's the company that shut off the power in New Orleans during the flood, then sold the loose juice elsewhere, pocketing a multi-million-dollar windfall.

Yes, America's Wetland does have a green cover, Environmental Defense, exposed in the Guardian UK in 1999 for its icky habit of licking the sugar off corporate candy canes. We caught them trying to set up a lucrative financial operation with the very polluters they were supposed to be challenging. [See Fill your lungs it's only borrowed grime]

I spoke with the Chairman of America's Wetland, King Milling. Milling's just a local good ol' boy, a sincere guy, not a front for Big Oil. But he naively let his group be used to buy the debate over the environment and ice out un-bought experts like van Heerden.

Flood Warning

With LSU deep in the pocket of the corporate powers and under Army Corps pressure, van Heerden didn't stand a chance. For doing nothing more than trying to save a few thousand lives, he has paid quite a price. As he told me this week from his home, "No good turn goes unpunished."

That's van Heerden's fate. But what about the city's? Is New Orleans ready for another Katrina?

His answer is not comforting: "No, definitely not. If anything, it's worse than when Katrina hit. We've lost a lot of wetlands protection. It's not very safe ... A section of the flood wall itself has sunk about 9 inches, a result of [Hurricane] Gustav."

Is anyone listening?

"The [Army] Corps won't talk to me," says van Heerden. "Like everybody else, they are crossing their fingers and hoping we don't have a storm."

Well, don't say we didn't warn you.

***********

Greg Palast's film for Democracy Now! "Big Easy to Big Empty: The Untold Story of the Drowning of New Orleans" is available as a no-cost download this week. Or make a donation to the investigative reporting fund and receive a gift of the DVD of the film, with Amy Goodman, signed by the reporter. For more information, go to www.GregPalast.com.

Battle Over 'Vulture Funds'

- Watch Video Clip -
I recently researched and produced a story with investigative journalist Greg Palast to follow up on a report we made on Vulture Funds for BBC back in February. These vultures are speculators who buy up the debt of the poorest nations on the planet for pennies on the dollar — then use legal extortion or less-than-legal bribery to extract payments from these nations - payments equal to five, ten or twenty times what the vultures “invested.”

The initial report , that aired on BBC Newsnight and Democracy Now, created an international outcry that reached the White House and 10 Downing Street, and that threatens to close the legal loopholes that make this unscrupulous proactice possible.

In Response to BBC report, Jubilee calls on Debt Advisory International to drop its efforts to collect money from the Zambia

Tuesday, February 20th, 2007

Here's the latest in reaction to the story I researched and co-produced with Greg Palast for BBC Newsnight TV ...

In response to Greg Palast's report last week on BBC and Democracy Now, the debt-relief and economic justice group Jubilee USA is launching a new effort today calling on Debt Advisory International to drop its efforts to collect money from the Zambian government. [includes rush transcript]

---

We turn now to our continuing coverage of “vulture funds.” Vulture funds are Western companies profiting off buying up countries" debts and then forcing those countries to pay off the debt at a far higher price.

Last week BBC investigative journalist Greg Palast exposed on Democracy Now! how one company is trying to collect $40 million dollars from the government of Zambia after buying one of its debts for $4 million dollars. Zambia claims the company, Debt Advisory International, even tried to bribe government officials by offering to make a donation to: “the president's favorite charity.” Palast questioned the company's owner, Michael Francis Sheehan, about the allegation.

• Excerpt of Greg Palast's BBC report on "Vulture Funds"
  [Click for full report]

An excerpt of a report from investigative journalist Greg Palast. Well just hours after we aired that story a British court ruled on the case. Zambia was ordered to pay Sheehan's company $20 million dollars on its original $4 million dollar debt. The Zambian government says the money will have to come directly from its budget for health and education.

Well, an international campaign is emerging to prevent Debt Advisory International from collecting. One day after the ruling, House Judiciary Chair John Conyers appeared on Democracy Now! The Michigan Congressmember said he raised the issue with Present Bush after hearing Palast's report on our broadcast.

• Rep. John Conyers
  [Click for full interview]

Democratic Congressmember John Conyers. In addition to Congress, pressure is also coming from the grassroots. The debt-relief and economic justice group Jubilee USA Network is launching a new effort today calling on Debt Advisory International to drop its efforts to collect money from the Zambian government.

• Kristin Sundell, outreach coordinator for the Jubilee USA Network.

---

RUSH TRANSCRIPT:

AMY GOODMAN: We turn now to our continuing coverage of vulture funds. Vulture funds are Western companies profiting off buying up countries’ debts and then forcing those countries to pay off the debt at a far higher price.

Last week on BBC, investigative journalist Greg Palast exposed on the attempts of one company trying to collect $40 million dollars from the government of Zambia after buying one of its debts for $4 million dollars. Zambia claims the company, Debt Advisory International, even tried to bribe government officials by offering to make a donation to “the president's favorite charity.” Palast questioned the company's owner, Michael Francis Sheehan, about the allegation. We ran it on Democracy Now!

GREG PALAST: Mr. Sheehan says it wasn't a bribe. They were only trying to help the Zambian people.

MICHAEL SHEEHAN: We offered to donate debt to a low-income housing initiative, which was a charitable initiative, which did end up building over several thousand houses for the poor. You're contorting the facts. You're on my property, and I would ask you to step off.

GREG PALAST: We showed this to the current president's advisor. He was not impressed.

MARTIN KALUNGA-BANDA: When you are talking about any amount, $40 million or thereabout, to be paid to service some unfair debt, you are talking about in excess of 300,000 children being prevented from going to school.

AMY GOODMAN: An excerpt of the BBC Newsnight report from investigative journalist Greg Palast that we ran on Democracy Now! last Thursday. Hours after we aired the story, a British court ruled on the case. Zambia was ordered to pay Sheehan's company $20 million dollars on its original $4 million dollar debt. The Zambian government says the money will have to come directly from its budget for health and education.

Well, an international campaign is emerging to prevent Debt Advisory International from collecting. One day after the ruling, House Judiciary Chair John Conyers appeared on Democracy Now! The Michigan Congress member said he raised the issue with Present Bush on Thursday after hearing Palast's report on our broadcast.

REP. JOHN CONYERS: But it was my job, I felt, to raise the whole question of this bond speculation that goes on at the expense of poor debtor countries, in which their debt is bought up and then they're sued for the full amount. It’s bought up at pennies on the dollar, and then they're sued. And I wanted to thank you for revealing this to us, because it allowed me to ask President Bush two questions: one, about Paul Singer and Michael Sheehan; and two, whether he would be willing to stop this incredible misuse of our government’s charity toward funding aid to our poorer nations.

AMY GOODMAN: Democratic Congressmember John Conyers. Paul Singer, by the way, is one of the chief Republican fundraisers in this country for both, well, presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani, as well as President Bush. In addition to Congress, pressure is also coming from the grassroots. The debt-relief and economic justice group, Jubilee USA, is launching a new effort today, calling on Debt Advisory International to drop its efforts to collect money from the Zambian government.

For more, we go back to Washington, D.C., where we’re joined by Jubilee USA director Kristin Sundell. Welcome to Democracy Now!

KRISTIN SUNDELL: Thank you, Amy. It’s good to be with you.

AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about what you're doing with this information?

KRISTIN SUNDELL: Yes. Well, today we are calling on people in the United States to call Debt Advisory International, to call their Washington, D.C. office at (202) 463-2188, and to tell Michael Sheehan, who is the owner of Debt Advisory International and Donegal International, not to take $20 million of the money that was freed up by debt cancellation for the people of Zambia.

AMY GOODMAN: Kristin, what effect does this have on Zambia? Why are you so concerned about this?

KRISTIN SUNDELL: Well, the money that was freed up through debt cancellation for the people of Zambia was the result of ten years of campaigning by people in the global south, in the global north, working together for debt cancellation. And I recently returned from Zambia, where I was a member of a delegation from Jubilee USA to see some of the impacts of debt cancellation there. And we visited hospitals, where user fees have just recently been abolished with the proceeds from debt cancellation. We were told about plans to hire thousands of additional teachers with money freed by debt cancellation. And if Michael Sheehan collects $20 million, that will take fully half of the money that was freed up this year by debt cancellation and would certainly prevent the Zambian government from implementing these plans.

AMY GOODMAN: How exactly does it happen? How does a Western US company get their hands on this debt, and a British court rules on their behalf?

KRISTIN SUNDELL: Well, this dates back to 1999, when Donegal International, a vulture fund, bought up a portion of Zambia's debt at the bargain-basement price of $3.3 million and then has been holding onto this. And now that Zambia is eligible for debt cancellation, under a deal that was reached at the G8 in 2005, it’s now trying to collect this money, and it originally was trying to collect up to $55 million. The judge ruled that it could collect a maximum of $20 million, and we’ll find out on March 9th exactly how much that they are able to collect from the government of Zambia.

AMY GOODMAN: How typical is this?

KRISTIN SUNDELL: Well, this is something that is just coming to the attention of Jubilee USA and debt campaigners here in the United States. I know that this is also something that’s happened in Peru. It’s something that’s happened in the Congo, as well. And so, we are very concerned, and people around the world who have been working on this issue for the last ten years are very concerned, because the money freed up from debt cancellation is meant to address extreme poverty in the countries, not to go line the pockets of people who are taking advantage, like the vulture funds, and buying up debt and then trying to collect on it later.

AMY GOODMAN: Are you coordinating with the House Judiciary Chair John Conyers, who says he’s calling for an investigation?

KRISTIN SUNDELL: We are also communicating with the office of Representative Conyers, and we’re going to be investigating also, exploring with him what further can be done preemptively, in addition to the efforts that are going on today to put pressure on Michael Sheehan. And I should also say, if people want to fax or email his office today, they can also do that via the Jubilee USA website, which is jubileeusa.org, beginning at 9:00 a.m. Eastern this morning.

AMY GOODMAN: Kristin Sundell, I want to thank you for being with us, outreach coordinator for Jubilee USA Network.

KRISTIN SUNDELL: Thanks, Amy.

AMY GOODMAN: Thank you for joining us from Washington, D.C.

Citing Democracy Now! / BBC Broadcast, Rep. John Conyers Confronts Bush and Demands Investigation of Vulture Funds

AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about how your meeting went with the President yesterday?

REP. JOHN CONYERS: Well, we talked essentially about Iraq, Katrina and the domestic breakdown that's going on right now. But it was my job, I felt, to raise the whole question of this bond speculation that goes on at the expense of poor debtor countries, in which their debt is bought up and then they're sued for the full amount. It’s bought up at pennies on the dollar, and then they're sued. And I wanted to thank you [BBC Newsnight] for revealing this to us, because it allowed me to ask President Bush two questions: one, about Paul Singer and Michael Sheehan; and two, whether he would be willing to stop this incredible misuse of our government’s charity toward funding aid to our poorer nations.

JUAN GONZALEZ: And what was the President's response to your questions?

REP. JOHN CONYERS: His response was, “I didn't know anything about this.” And he assigned a staffer to get on it right away. And so, it's our position that the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and the Comity Doctrine brought from our Constitution allows the President to require the courts defer in individual suits against foreign nations. And so, we're conducting a couple of things. First of all, we want to know where these practices are going on at the present time, and, two, how we can get this information to President Bush so that he can, as he indicated to us, stop it immediately.

Vulture Fund Update: Zambia loses 'vulture fund' case

See Newsnight's Vulture Funds report

The judge ruled against Zambia's application to dismiss Donegal's claim, but at the same time proposed to end a freeze of Zambian assets secured by the fund.

Donegal, however, will have a chance to argue the case for a continued freeze of Zambian assets.

According to BBC economics reporter Andrew Walker, people familiar with the case believe that the judge will order Zambia to pay Donegal between $10m and $20m, less than half what Donegal sought.

Lawyers for Zambia, however, said the judgement was a victory for Zambia.

Janet Legrand of DLA Piper called the ruling "fantastic news for both the government of Zambia and its people".

The fight against Donegal's claim had been "entirely vindicated and [marked] a significant milestone in the efforts of [the Zambian government] to fight corruption and maintain a stable economic course".

Concerns

Vulture funds - as defined by the International Monetary Fund and UK Chancellor Gordon Brown among others - are companies which buy up the debt of poor nations cheaply when it is about to be written off, then sue for the full value of the debt plus interest.

There are concerns that such funds are wiping out the benefits which international debt relief was supposed to bring to poor countries.

A Zambian presidential adviser and consultant to Oxfam, Martin Kalunga-Banda, said $42m was equal to all the debt relief it received last year.

"It means 30,000 children who would have benefited from going to school free will not be able to do so," he told the BBC.

"It also means the treatment, the Medicare, the medicines that would have been available to in excess of 100,000 people in the country will not be available."

Mr Kalunga-Banda added that while the repayment might be legal, it arose from debts accrued when the country was under "an undemocratic system".

"The consequences of the debt are impacting on the people of Zambia," he said.

"The Zambians at that time did not even have even the capacity to know this was happening and that is probably what brings in this issue of unfairness."

'No comment'

In 1979, the Romanian government lent Zambia money to buy Romanian tractors.

Zambia was unable to keep up the payments and in 1999, Romania and Zambia negotiated to liquidate the debt for $3m.

But before the deal could be finalised, Donegal International, which is part owned by US-based Debt Advisory International (DAI) stepped in and bought the debt from Romania for less than $4m.

DAI founder Michael Sheehan was confronted by the BBC's Newsnight programme before the court ruling, but said only: "No comment. I'm in litigation. It's not my debt."

In 2002, Gordon Brown told the United Nations that the vulture funds were perverse and immoral.

"We particularly condemn the perversity where vulture funds purchase debt at a reduced price and make a profit from suing the debtor country to recover the full amount owed - a morally outrageous outcome."

Jubilee Debt campaigner Caroline Pearce said that vulture funds "made a mockery" of the work done by governments to write off the debts of the poorest - a key theme of 2005's Live8 concert.

"Profiteering doesn't get any more cynical than this," Ms Pearce said.

"Zambia has been planning to spend the money released from debt cancellation on much-needed nurses, teachers and infrastructure.

"This is what debt cancellation is intended for, not to line the pockets of businessmen based in rich countries."

This BBC Newsnight report was produced by Meirion Jones, BBC London; Rick Rowley, videographer/editor. Investigative research by Matt Pascarella, New York.

Vulture Fund Threat to Third World

Watch the Report on BBC || Watch it on Democracy Now!

February 14, 2007 — On Thursday 15 February a high court judge in London will rule whether a vulture fund can extract more than $40m from Zambia for a debt which it bought for less than $4m.

There are concerns that such funds are wiping out the benefits which international debt relief was supposed to bring to poor countries.

Martin Kalunga-Banda, Zambian presidential adviser and a consultant to Oxfam told Newsnight, “That $40m is equal to the value of all the debt relief we received last year.”

Vulture funds - as defined by the International Monetary Fund and Gordon Brown amongst others - are companies which buy up the debt of poor nations cheaply when it is about to be written off and then sue for the full value of the debt plus interest - which might be ten times what they paid for it.

Mockery

Caroline Pearce from the Jubilee Debt campaign told Newsnight it makes a mockery of all the work done by governments to write off the debts of the poorest.

“Profiteering doesn’t get any more cynical than this. Zambia has been planning to spend the money released from debt cancellation on much-needed nurses, teachers and infrastructure: this is what debt cancellation is intended for not to line the pockets of businessmen based in rich countries.”

Debt Advisory International (DAI) manages a number of vulture funds which buy up the debts of highly indebted poor countries cheaply and then sue for the original value of the debt plus interest. Zambia - where the average wage is just over a dollar a day - is one of the highly indebted poor countries which the world’s governments agreed needed debt relief.

Tractors

In 1979 the Romanian government lent Zambia money to buy Romanian tractors. Zambia was unable to keep up the payments and in 1999 Romania and Zambia negotiated to liquidate the debt for $3m.

Before the deal could be finalised one of DAI’s vulture funds stepped in and bought the debt from Romania for less than $4m. They are now suing the Zambian government for the original debt plus interest which they calculate at over $40m and they expect to win.

Like the other vulture funds DAI refuse to do interviews but reporter Greg Palast caught up with the company founder Michael Sheehan outside his home in Virginia.

Greg Palast: “I just want to ask you Mr Sheehan - why are you squeezing the poor nation of Zambia for $40 million - doesn’t that make you a vulture?

Michael Sheehan: “No comment I’m in litigation. It’s not my debt.”

Greg Palast: Aren’t you just profiteering from the work of good people who are trying to save lives by cutting the debt of these poor nations?

Michael Sheehan: Well there was a proposal for investment. That’s all I can talk about right now.

Five years ago Gordon Brown told the United Nations that the vulture funds were perverse and immoral: “We particularly condemn the perversity where Vulture Funds purchase debt at a reduced price and make a profit from suing the debtor country to recover the full amount owed - a morally outrageous outcome”. But the vulture funds are still operating.

‘We don’t do interviews’

The London case is just one of many which are running around the world.
Newsnight went to New York to try to interview Paul Singer - the reclusive billionaire who virtually invented vulture funds.

In 1996 his company they paid $11m for some discounted Peruvian debt and then threatened to bankrupt the country unless they paid $58m. They got their $58m.

Now they’re suing Congo Brazzaville for $400m for a debt they bought for $10m.

We didn’t get our interview. His spokesman told us, “We have nothing to hide; we just don’t do interviews”.

US courts

The vulture funds raise most of their money through legal actions in US courts. Those actions against foreign governments can be stayed by the word of the US President and that is where lobbying and political influence becomes important.

Debt Advisory International are very generous to their lobbyists in Washington. They have been paying $240,000 a year to the lobby firm Greenberg Traurig - although recently they jumped ship to another firm after Greenberg Traurig’s top lobbyist was put in jail.

Paul Singer has more direct political connections. He was the biggest donor to George Bush and the Republican cause in New York City - giving $1.7m since Bush started his first presidential campaign.

Rudy Guiliani is the favourite to be the next Republican presidential candidate and a leaked memo from his campaign shows that Paul Singer has pledged to raise $15m for Guiliani’s campaign.

Tactics

The vulture funds have teams of lawyers combing the world for assets which can be seized to settle their claims. There have also been claims of dubious tactics.

Back in Britain the Zambian case has seen much legal discussion about allegations of bribery. The Zambian legal team - led by William Blair QC - Tony Blair’s brother, has argued that a $2m bribe was offered to the former Zambian President to make it easier for the vulture funds to claim their money.

They showed the court an email disclosed in the Zambia case saying that a payment to the “President’s favourite charity” had allowed them to do a more favourable deal.

Jubilee Debt Campaign told Newsnight that they are calling on Gordon Brown to turn his moral outrage about vulture funds into action

When we caught up with Michael Sheehan outside his house in Virginia he told us it was not a bribe but a charitable donation.

He told us, “We offered to donate debt to a low income housing initiative which was a charitable initiative which did end up building several thousand houses” before adding “you’re contorting the facts, you’re on my property and I would ask you to step off”.

The Jubilee Debt Campaign told Newsnight that they are calling on Gordon Brown to turn his moral outrage about vulture funds into action if he becomes Prime Minister and change the law to make the Zambian case the last to appear in a British court.

*****

The BBC Newsnight report was produced by Meirion Jones, BBC London; Rick Rowley, videographer/editor. Investigative research by Matt Pascarella, New York.

The Ground Truth Podcast

Directed by Laura Dawn
Music by Moby
Edited by Jonathan Levin & Laura Dawn
Camera by Matt Pascarella & David Grossman
Featuring Patricia Foulkrod (Director & Producer of "The Ground Truth"), Iraqi War Vets Demond Mullins, Charlie Anderson, & Congressman John Murtha

GI Cup o’Joe: New Coffeehouse for Soldiers Opens Near Ft. Drum

By Matt Pascarella
From the January 10, 2007 Issue of The Indypendent | National Desk

Fort Drum, N.Y. is one of the largest military bases in the northeast United States. This installation has the highest per-capita deployment of soldiers as well as the highest re-enlistment rate of any U.S. base.

Nearly three months ago, author and activist Tod Ensign, along with volunteers from Citizen Soldier and Veterans for Peace, opened a coffeehouse for GIs a few miles from Ft. Drum. The Different Drummer café is similar to those that sprang up during the Vietnam War to provide off-duty soldiers with a place to hang out, listen to music and become politically active. (See below for more on the Vietnam-era GI coffeehouse movement.)

THAT WAS THEN – THIS IS NOW
I ask Ensign how many soldiers have been coming into Different Drummer since its opening. “Some soldiers come into the coffeehouse when we have an event – like live music. They’ll hang out, they’ll dance, and then they might check out the books, look around curiously but that’s it. So far we have not been able to attract more than a few soldiers.”

Ensign’s café is the first of its kind since the Vietnam era and aside from “getting the word out” about the café, he faces deeper challenges. “The conditions of service and who serves in the military today are much different than during Vietnam,” he tells me. The most fundamental difference is that the military is now an all-volunteer force. Cultural differences are significant, too. The counter-cultural movements of the 1960s appealed to a lot of young soldiers who served at that time.

“During the GI movement there was a sense of identification with this larger movement – anti-war, anti-imperialist, women’s movements, black movements” and a culture of music, sex and drugs that coexisted with those politics, which soldiers could access and be a part of when going to coffeehouses. This sense of connection to a larger movement doesn’t seem to exist today. Another crucial difference, he tells me, is how people access information today. “The coffeehouses thrived on the publishing of newspapers. There were 250 papers and newsletters – some of which lasted a few issues and some of which lasted a few years. Today, I can’t see any evidence of that. We’ve tried to get something going up there, to have a blog and have people write about their experiences, and so far we haven’t had any luck.

“Bookstores were also an important part of the GI projects. Yet, from what I can see, young people don’t seem to be drawn to books or pamphlets. We have a whole bookstore there, racks of books, some of which we give away for free and we are hardly able to even give them away. “The use of writing and engagement around publishing doesn’t seem, so far, to be a draw at all. No one comes in and says, ‘I wrote this poem, I’m back from Iraq.’ ‘I wrote this rap, I’m back from Iraq.’” As for printing it, “that hasn’t happened so far.”

“Soldiers don’t come in where it’s going to be a discussion, where there’s going to be dialogue and to maybe hear their views on uranium weapons, or their views on whether they should be sent back for a third tour.” Therefore, many of the events at Different Drummer feature either live music or film screenings, including a Saturday afternoon film series.

DIFFERENT APPROACHES
“We’re in a testing period now,” Ensign says; “We are trying different methods, different approaches and we’re trying to outreach in different ways.” The ultimate goal, he says, “is to figure out ways to get the trust of people and make them see our coffeehouse as a social space that is open to whatever they want to work around, organize around.” A Vietnam vet who works at Ft. Drum and helps Different Drummer told Ensign under condition of anonymity that mental health services on the base are overrun. Using this knowledge, along with the fact that a high percentage of soldiers returning from combat are already likely to suffer posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), Ensign and his team have put an emphasis on “providing neutral information” on these issues.

The café is planning an event in February featuring a specialist on PTSD and is hoping to have personnel from the Veterans’ administration medical services attend. This information will also be available at the café’s St. Patrick’s Day event, which will welcome home the 3rd Brigade, nearly 6,000 troops, from Iraq.

Aside from the psychological effects of war, Ensign says soldiers at Ft. Drum face basic quality-of-life issues. Different Drummer is looking at housing problems, which force some soldiers to be bussed nearly 30 miles to get home from the base, and family pressures on soldiers facing multiple deployments as potential areas to offer support.

In terms of convincing soldiers that enough is enough, Tod believes there is a lot of work to do, but the tipping point may be nearing. “It is a conjuncture of events: It’s falling public support, it’s doubts within the military itself about the enterprise, it’s the toll that it takes on them with post-traumatic stress, with their families, their children, the injuries – and I have to believe that at some point it’ll begin to erode and crack. When that happens we have to be in a place where we can connect to them.”



A DIFFERENT ERA: A LOOK AT THE GI COFFEEHOUSES OF VIETNAM
The first GI coffeehouse popped up near Ft. Jackson, S.C., in January 1968 and was jokingly called “UFO” – its name a play on the military’s clubs known by the acronym USO. It was the only integrated place in the city, its regulars consisting not just of blacks and whites, but also students from the local university and GIs.

Within a year, more than 20 similar coffeehouses opened near military bases throughout the United States, attracting a large number of GIs against the war. Eventually soldiers began to use the cafés as places to write about their experiences and views on the war. By 1970, more than 50 underground newsletters were being clandestinely circulated on military bases throughout the country – including publications like Fed Up!, Bragg Briefs, Helping Hand and About Face.

The cafés became small centers for dissenting soldiers while serving domestic assignments. They fed not only underground publications and served as places to plan actions on the bases. This dissatisfaction with the military and the war spread to the front lines of Vietnam as well.

The first coffeehouse, UFO, was closed by a court order that declared it a “public nuisance.” Some of the other cafés were targeted by firebombs and by local police. Following the end of the war, many closed.


Matt Pascarella is a freelance journalist and award-winning producer.

Congresswoman McKinney Files Articles of Impeachment

By Matt Pascarella

On Monday, gathering in a conference room in Washington D.C., Georgia Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney and her advisors worked on a draft copy of the articles of impeachment against President Bush.

At the heart of the charges contained in McKinney’s articles of impeachment, is the allegation that President Bush has not upheld the oath of presidential office and is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors.

Article I states that President Bush has failed to preserve, protect and defend the constitution. Specifically cited in this article is the charge that Bush has manipulated intelligence and lied to justify war: “George Walker Bush … in preparing the invasion of Iraq, did withhold intelligence from the Congress, by refusing to provide Congress with the full intelligence picture that he was being given, by redacting information … and actively manipulating the intelligence on Iraq’s alleged weapons programs by pressuring the Central Intelligence Agency and other intelligence agencies.”

This manipulation of intelligence was done, the charge continues, “with the intent to misinform the people and their representatives in Congress in order to gain their support for invading Iraq, denying both the people and their representatives in Congress the right to make an informed choice.”

Article II, “Abuse of office and of executive privilege,” states that President Bush has disregarded his oath of office by “obstructing and hindering the work of Congressional investigative bodies and by seeking to expand the scope of the powers of his office.” The President has “failed to take responsibility for, investigate or discipline those responsible for an ongoing pattern of negligence, incompetence and malfeasance to the detriment of the American people.”

This article continues by indicting Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, in their actions to manipulate or “fix” intelligence and mislead the public about Iraq’s weapons programs. Ultimately, this article calls not only for Bush’s impeachment and removal from office but also asks the same actions to be taken against Cheney and Rice.

Article III states that President Bush has failed to “ensure the laws are faithfully executed” and that he has “violated the letter and spirit of laws and rules of criminal procedure used by civilian and military courts, and has violated or ignored regulatory codes and practices that carry out the law.”

Specifically, McKinney cites illegal domestic spying as a result of failing to obtain warrants thereby subverting congress and the judiciary in the process: “… by circumventing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act courts established by Congress, whose express purpose is to check such abuses of executive power, provoking the presiding judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to file a complaint and another judge to resign in protest, the said program having been subsequently ruled illegal; he has also concealed the existence of this unlawful program of spying on American citizens from the people and all but a few of their representatives in Congress, even resorting to outright public deceit.”

The article continues by citing public statements Bush has made that were blatantly contradictory to his policy and actions regarding domestic spying.

While the staff was editing the document, one advisor told me, “As we sat down and worked on this, a pattern became very clear … a pattern to specifically undermine the constitution and establish a unitary presidency.”

The charges addressed in McKinney’s resolution are nothing revelatory or new. Rather, they are issues which have been in the public eye for quite some time and have increasingly been covered in the media over the last year.

Despite winning the congressional majority, the Democrats have yet to put forth a plan to investigate what have become somewhat ubiquitous allegations.

Speaker-elect, Representative Pelosi, dismissed any possibility of impeachment, saying it is “off the table” and that it is “a waste of time … making them lameducks is good enough for me.” Although, in the November election, 60% of the voters in her own district cast ballots in favor of Proposition J, a measure calling for the impeachment of President Bush.

In 2005 Representative John Conyers sponsored a resolution, HR 365, to create a special committee to investigate allegations against the Bush Administration – a move that would likely lead to the discovery of impeachable offenses. This resolution was passed to the House Committee on Rules and was never brought up for a vote.

At that time it was widely believed that if the Democrats took control of congress, Conyers would reintroduce the resolution as would have subpoena power if selected as leader of the House Judiciary Committee.

A few days after the Democrats won control Conyers echoed Pelosi’s statement saying, “I am in total agreement with her on this issue … impeachment is off the table.” Last week a spokesperson from Conyers office said that the resolution would not be reintroduced and that the Representative had no intention to pursue the matter.

Will other members of congress support the action Congresswoman McKinney has brought forth?

At the table in what could be considered her impeachment “war room” the question is brought up a number of times.

Mike, an advisor to McKinney, mentions, “Conyers was supposed to have investigations. They were chomping at the bit 6 months ago to do subpoenas.”

McKinney quietly replies, “Now they say they aren’t even going to issue subpoenas.”

Looking up from her papers she takes a deep breath, “I’m going in alone on this one because now it is all about them playing majority politics.”

This is McKinney’s last week as a member of congress and this act, to impeach the president, is the final resolution she will enter into the Congressional record.

For those who know anything about Cynthia McKinney it may come as no surprise that she would file this resolution as her parting gift to Congress.

McKinney is no stranger to being attacked by the media and has been isolated from her own party.

From her inquiries into election fraud in 2000 to her calls for a transparent and thorough investigation into 9-11, not to mention the widely covered run-in she had with the Capitol Hill Police, the congresswoman is aware that this resolution will likely be ignored and that she will be ruthlessly attacked upon its filing.

“What do you think they are going to do to me this time?” she asks her staff. Everyone uncomfortably shifts in their seats and after no answer comes McKinney explains, “We have to do this because this is simply the right thing to do. The American people do want to hold this man and his office accountable for the crimes they have committed and if no member of congress is willing to do it, than I will.”

It is questionable as to how effective this move could be in gaining support because of her reputation as a firebrand congresswoman and because, ultimately, she is on her way out of office.

The Congresswoman and her staff realize this but hope that by filing the articles of impeachment it will, at the very least, open up a discussion on whether or not President Bush and key members of his administration have committed impeachable offenses and whether our officials should be held to account.

“My duty as a member of Congress is merely to uphold and preserve the constitution and to represent the will of my constituency. Ultimately, it isn’t up to me or any other member of congress – it is up to the American people to decide.”


---
Matt Pascarella is a freelance journalist & producer who was present during the drafting of the Articles of Impeachment that Congresswoman McKinney filed today.