USN and USMC Violation of Law

General Discussion-Camp Lejeune Water Contamination

USN and USMC Violation of Law

Postby JME » Fri Jan 25, 2008 1:15 pm

There has been a constant "drum beat" by the USMC/USN since this Camp Lejeune water contamination situation began that they had not violated any State or Federal laws pertaining to the contaminated water that they had provided at the base prior to 1987. It is a known fact that the military was given the flexibility by our Federal government to establish and maintain their own internal justice system, the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Because they were allowed to operate with this UCMJ, each branch of service was required to create and maintain a system of laws that were unique to that branch of service. This was accomplished through written and published orders/instructions. The USMC was unique in that they were part of the Department of Navy (DoN), they depend on the DoN for all Medical, Dental, and facilities/utilities requirements. By virtue of this dependence, the USMC also came under the purview of many Navy orders/instructions. Such was the case with the drinking water systems, BuMed Instr 6240.3 was a law that the U. S. Navy created which provided regulations pertaining to drinking water systems on USN/USMC installations. This document provided very strict/detailed regulations for the operation of drinking water systems. Had the regulations outlined in this document been followed, most of this Camp Lejeune tragedy would have been averted.

While the USN/USMC may not have violated any State or Federal laws (as they are quick to point out) they fail to mention that they were in gross violation of their own laws, this is a fact! Jerry Ensminger
JME
Site Admin
 
Posts: 1319
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 8:55 pm
Location: NC

Postby HITMAN » Sat Jan 26, 2008 1:52 am

very interesting jerry; thank you it gave me an idea to follow up on.
do you happen to know where one could obtain a copy of the ucmj/ the complete "book"?
i wanted to research this issue you brought out and also the issue of health care provided to active duty members or vets or civilian contractors.
and the "rules" or laws governing the care of service or civilian people.

Im interested because of the fact that when I went through basic (paris island) they lined us up and we "had to take" all kinds of pills, shots, and liquid concoctions. then in schools (camp pendleton) the same thing and again while at lejuene.

They never told anyone what it was or what it was supposed to do;

i remember a story of a marine (past 5 years) that was court martialed because he wouldnt get the anthrax injection. He was ultimately cleared of the ucmj charges of disobeying a lawful order, deriliction of duty, etc. but they threw him out of the marines.


i cant help but keep pondering on the idea that as a serviceman/woman that someone is ultimately responsible for your safety and your health.
Not as a guiney pig but as a human being!

I had suffered some severe reactions to some of that "stuff" and once in CA. (pendleton) within hours of one of those shots I was rushed to the hospital in convulsions.


I also am concerned with this feris act that every one had to sign.
It would seem that I nor anyone else seems to recall this document.
Like every one else I wanted to be a marine (I enlisted) and when papers were put in front of me we just signed where they said too.
it would be reasonable to say that a jag officer should have been present whenever a paper was signed and they should have read it, and went over it, so every one KNEW what it was and what it was saying.
Point is: in the civy world if that were to happen a court of law would say that You didnt know what you were signing you werent told what it was or it was slipped in unbeknownst to you: in which case it is not only not legal but it is ??? not your fault and it is null and void.

I dont see anything coming out of this as far as the ucmj going after any prior officers or command staff. We know they are hiding the issue and we know they protect their own;

In the end i would like to see this:
the gov. say "although we were not directly involved, and it was our predisestors who did this, we have an obligation as humans and officials to resolve this issue"

If you know where I can get the ucmj laws please let me know; Ill look on the net, but if you know another way....
thanks
HITMAN
 

Postby JME » Sat Jan 26, 2008 10:24 am

You can Google the UCMJ. I would like to point out that the Ferres Doctrine was a decision made by the U. S. Supreme Court in 1950 that had a "blanket" application to all members of the armed services ever since. While the Ferres doctrine is required to protect military commanders from lawsuits pertaining to combat and other military exercises, many Defense Department applications of it are absurd. Just like our Federal Intelligence and Surveillence Act (FISA), which everyone is recently claiming to be outdated and that it needs an "overhaul" to modernize it, so goes the Ferres doctrine! The Department of Defense (DoD) applies the Ferres doctrine to every case where a service member or his/her representatve files a claim against them for damages. DoD's consistent blanket use of this doctrine in cases where obvious/documented malpractice or negligence was committed, is in my opinion a "slap in the face" to the citizens of this country! DoD's nonsensical application of this doctrine in cases where it obviously/morally should not apply, is an affront to the very thing that every person who joins the U. S. Armed Services swears a solemn oath to up hold and defend. That being the Constitution of the United States of America........Jerry Ensminger
JME
Site Admin
 
Posts: 1319
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 8:55 pm
Location: NC

Postby Mpartain » Sat Jan 26, 2008 4:22 pm

I'd like to point out an example of what we are talking about. Within the 1963 BuMED Instruction are definitions that define the terms used within the instruction. Please see the following definitions: Health Hazard and Pollution.

5. Definition of Terms, sub paragraph D.
Health Hazards mean any conditions, devices, or practices in the water supply system and its operation which create, or may create a danger to the health and well being of the water consumer. An example of a health hazard is a structural defect in the water supply system, whether by location, design, or construction, which may regularly or occasionally prevent satisfactory purification of the water supply or cause it to be polluted from extraneous sources.

Wells are defined as part of the water supply system within the instructions (Paragraph 5 subparagraph g ).

Pollution as used in these Standards, means the presence of any foreign substance (organic, inorganic, radiological or biological) in water which tends to degrade its quality so as to constitute a hazard or impair the usefulness of the water.

The well fields for Tarawa Terrace were constructed across the street and down gradient of known potential (and real) pollution sources such as ABC One Hour dry cleaners, auto repair shops and gas stations. Furthermore, these businesses were on septic tank systems (City sewer was not installed until the late 1970's). According to a hydrological survey in 1959, ground water runs down gradient to the nearest stream or river. This means that water would soak into the soil from these businesses and then run through the Tarawa Terrace well fields and into the New River.

When the definition of a health hazard was written into the BuMed definition, the well fields at Tarawa Terrace were the perfect example of what not to do!

I urge everyone that reads and places posts on this site to go out and educate yourself. I recently discovered all of this just 7 months ago shortly after I was diagnosed with male breast cancer. I have only begun to scrape the surface of this tragic story. Thanks to the efforts of people like Jerry and Tom, it was not swept under the rug and the story did not disappear into oblivion as certain people within the USMC, DoN, and DoD would hope. Do not rely on the official "version" of events. READ the documents yourself and make intelligent observations. Avoid conjecture and back what you say by proven facts.

Mike Partain
Mpartain
Site Admin
 
Posts: 502
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2007 4:08 am
Location: FL-Tallahassee

Postby JME » Sat Jan 26, 2008 5:06 pm

I would also like to draw everyones attention to sub-paragraph d. on page #4 of BuMed Instr. 6240.3 titled Chemical Characteristics (Limits). I will quote from the document: "Drinking water shall not contain impurities in concentrations which may be hazardous to the health of the consumers. It should not be excessively corrosive to the water supply system. Substances used in its treatment shall not remain in the water in concentrations greater than required by good practice. Substances which may have deleterious physiological effect, or for which physiological effects are not known, shall not be introduced into the system in a manner which would permit them to reach the consumer." Well, I guess we all know that this regulation was not adhered to at Camp Lejeune.

Page #6 of this same document also spells out acceptable limits of specific chemicals, chlorinated hydrocarbons 3-100ppb. Trichloroethylene (TCE) and tetrachloroethylene (PCE) are both chlorinated hydrocarbons and we all know that the levels of these chemicals in Camp Lejeune's water far exceeded these limits! Jerry Ensminger
JME
Site Admin
 
Posts: 1319
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 8:55 pm
Location: NC

Jerry : I have a question.

Postby Mask Rider » Sun Jan 27, 2008 12:30 am

I've found articles that were written, which simply states. That those well's that are in question ,were closed in 1985 due to contamination . So why did the Marines re-open those well's under the cover of darkness .

My question is this :

Who issued those orders,and why ?

If it could be proven that some monkey monk told some body to do just that, then could they be sued sense we can't get no satisfaction from the government .

kidney cancer
Mask Rider
 

Postby JME » Mon Jan 28, 2008 9:11 am

There was an action brief written for the Commanding General by Colonel M. Lilley in March 1985. This action brief spelled out the many different options that were available to provide drinking water to the residents of Tarawa Terrace (TT) and it included all of the Pro's/Con's for each option. One of these options was a very simple fix which in my opinion (and that of many other experts who have reviewed this situation) would have been, and quite obviously should have been adopted. That option was to go immediately outside the entrance to TT and tie into the existing Jacksonville City water line. The main reason that this option was not adopted is listed on that brief, Camp Lejeune did not want to owe any "reciprocating favors to the City of Jacksonville!" Forget about the health and welfare of your people, they were worried about favors they would owe in the future! Instead, Camp Lejeune selected option # 7 of this brief which was turn on the contaminated wells until they could construct a water line across Northeast Creek from Holcomb Blvd. water plant to replace TT's water supply. We now know that this option took until March of 1987 to complete..........Jerry Ensminger
JME
Site Admin
 
Posts: 1319
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 8:55 pm
Location: NC

Those laws should not apply

Postby Diana Newman » Thu Apr 24, 2008 3:25 pm

Those laws should not apply to the innocent children of USMC military men they are the true victims. We were there because of PCS orders. We did not have a choice but to drink the water, bath or eat the meals prepared for us. I have suffered ill health since a child. My latest battles are fibromyalgia (in intense pain constantly) and in February 2008 had surgery to remove the left lobe of my thyroid due to cancer.

I just found out about the contamination at the end of October 2007. I have been reading and educating myself ever since. I have emailed my fathers history files showing where we lived on Camp Lejuene in Tarawa Terrace to Jeff Byron. As soon as I can figure out how this registry works will email a history of my illnesses.
Diana Newman
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2008 9:01 pm
Location: CA

Postby Mpartain » Thu Apr 24, 2008 4:26 pm

Hello Diana,

The Feres doctrine does not apply to us dependents. We are goverened by the Federal Tort Claims Act. One of the Cap members had parathyroid cancer and is battling a reoccurence of the disease (they are not sure what kind of cancer). I know she will want to talk with you. Her name is Denita you can send her an email through the memberlist.

I was diagnosed a year ago tomorrow. I underwent a msatectomy in May and found out about Lejeune in May. We have been doing a lot of work on the site. Please goto the document section and start reading....

I also urge you to locate and find others in your local community and contact your local congressman/woman...get them involved.

Mike
Mpartain
Site Admin
 
Posts: 502
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2007 4:08 am
Location: FL-Tallahassee

Feres Doctrine

Postby john Hartung » Thu Apr 24, 2008 5:22 pm

Hi Everybody.

My sister in law gave me the book called BEYOND, THE SCOPE OF JUSTICE!! It's by Jeffrey A. Trueman. The chilling effects of the Feres Doctrine in the United States Armed Forces. Trueman is from Veterans equal rights protection advocacy. This book tells alot about the doctrine. please read ...... John H.
john Hartung
 


Return to The Few, The Proud, The Forgotten

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot]