1. Provide the title of your story or series and the names of the journalists involved.
"Disposable Soldiers" by Joshua Kors. Editor: Roane Carey.
2. List date(s) this work was published or aired.
April 26, 2010.
3. Provide a brief synopsis of the story or stories, including any significant findings.
My article exposes a true health care scandal: the story of how U.S. Army doctors tortured an American soldier. The soldier, Sergeant Chuck Luther, had been seriously wounded by mortar fire while serving in Iraq. The explosion tossed Luther to the ground, slamming his head against the concrete, resulting in headaches so severe his vision would black out. Doctors at Camp Taji pressed him to sign fraudulent documents saying his blindness was caused by a pre-existing condition, making him ineligible for disability and medical benefits. When Luther refused to sign, Army doctors put him in a closet and held him there for over a month, with armed guards enforcing sleeping deprivation — keeping the lights on all night, blasting heavy metal music at him all through the night. When Luther tried to escape, he was pinned down, injected with sleeping medication and dragged back to the closet. Finally, after over a month, the sergeant was willing to sign anything — and he did, signing his name to discharge documents saying he had a pre-existing illness. Luther was then whisked back to Fort Hood, where he was told the devastating consequences of signing those documents: no disability benefits, no long-term medical care, and the Army was now reclaiming his bonus. Luther was given a bill for $1,500 and told that if he did not pay promptly, the military would start garnishing his wages and assessing interest. As you'll see in the article, I uncovered that Luther's case was by no means an isolated incident. Military doctors have pressed thousands of other soldiers wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan into signing phony discharge papers for a "pre-existing" condition, saving the military billions of dollars in disability and medical benefits.
4. Explain types of documents, data or Internet resources used. Were FOI or public records act requests required? How did this affect the work?
I knew nothing about the U.S. Army's use of torture on its own soldiers when Sgt. Luther emailed me in February 2008, an email entitled "Help!" I had been covering veterans' issues for a few years by that point and was regularly receiving letters from soldiers with gut-wrenching stories: a female soldier demoted for reporting that a superior officer raped her, a sergeant with shrapnel embedded in his skin told he needed more evidence to prove his wounds came from war. Luther's story, though, stood out among the rest. As you know, the country was vigorously debating whether using "enhanced interrogation" on enemy combatants was legal or moral. It never occurred to me that there was an uglier truth: that the Army was using those same tactics against its own soldiers. I spent two years investigating Luther's case, acquiring stacks of medical papers documenting his confinement, interviewing a fellow soldier who visited him during his captivity, securing an on-the-record interview with his commander who confirmed everything. I even acquired photos Luther took of the closet during his month-long confinement. To my surprise, acquiring written records documenting Luther's confinement and torture turned out to be the easy part. A diligent soldier, Luther had gathered his medical records, discharge papers and many other documents before emailing me. No FOIAs were needed. Luther's health care providers proved equally diligent. In their handwritten notes, the Army doctors documented every day of Luther's confinement: the destructive physical and psychological effects of his sleep deprivation, the milligrams of Haldol they used to keep the soldier sedated and unable to escape.
5. Explain types of human sources used.
Yes, it was gathering human sources, not the documents, that proved the extraordinary challenge — the reason my reporting on this scandal took two years. Torture, as you can imagine, is not a topic military officials are eager to talk about. Many feel, rightly so, that speaking publicly about the U.S. Army's torture of its own soldiers would mean the end of their careers. The Pentagon's official media channels presented an impenetrable wall of silence. And many of the eye witnesses in Luther's case were now deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. Setting up an interview with a deployed soldier, no matter how tame the topic, can be a real challenge. Torture and the purposeful misdiagnosis of wounded soldiers are extraordinarily serious crimes, the ultimate violation of the health care code of ethics. I was determined not to publish a word without layers and layers of corroborating evidence. Eventually, with persistence, several key insiders agreed to speak with me, including a soldier who visited Luther in the health care facility during his captivity and Luther's commander, who coordinated the soldier's treatment with his Army doctors. During my trip to Fort Hood, I even secured an interview with Luther's state-side doctor, who told me that not only was Luther clearly, purposely misdiagnosed but that he had seen a dozen other wounded soldiers discharged from Fort Hood due to a "pre-existing condition." All of them, he said, were equally fraudulent.
6. Results (if any).
My reporting sparked a wave of outrage and action. Senator Kit Bond and a group of Republican congressmen wrote a letter to President Obama, urging action. Senator Boxer and other prominent Democrats released statements as well. The White House replied immediately saying the president was very concerned. The story was picked up by ABC News Radio, RT Television, the San Francisco Examiner, Army Times, the Congressional paper The Hill, Sirius XM and dozens of local stations. The BBC did a three-part series on my reporting. The Nation was flooded with letters from wounded soldiers saying they too had been pressured into signing phony documents agreeing to a pre-existing condition. One angered vet set up a Facebook page to halt the fraudulent discharges; within days it had over 5,600 members. On September 15, the House Veterans' Affairs Committee called a hearing to investigate Luther's torture. I was called to testify, as was Sgt. Luther, along with top officials from the Department of Defense. Rep. Bob Filner, the committee chairman, flatly labeled Luther's treatment "torture." In response, the Pentagon declared an official investigation into the soldier's treatment. During the hearing, under pressure from the chairman, Pentagon officials released the updated count of "pre-existing condition" discharges: Since 2001, over 25,600 soldiers had been pressed into signing the same papers forced upon Sgt. Luther, at a savings to the military of over $14.2 billion in disability and medical benefits. Facing an outraged committee, Lernes Herbert of the Department of Defense revealed that the Pentagon was now taking an extraordinary step to mitigate the damage from these phony discharges: in response to my reporting, said Hebert, the military will now contact all 25,600 soldiers who, like Luther, received a "pre-existing condition" discharge to inform them that they can appeal their case and potentially receive benefits. I ask you to watch this brief clip from Congress' torture hearing, featuring Sgt. Luther's graphic description of his treatment and a disgusted committee chairman: http://bit.ly/torturehearings. The reason, I think, the VA Committee was so enraged is that they expected Army officials to dispute Luther's testimony. But just as no readers disputed my reporting — and no corrections needed to be run — no one has denied that the U.S. Army tortured this medal-winning soldier. The only question is what to do about it. Veterans' groups have come up with their own solution. On December 16 the Vietnam Veterans of America, in coordination with Yale Law School's Veterans Legal Services Clinic, announced it is suing the Pentagon on behalf of Luther and those 25,600 soldiers. The veterans legal group Morrison Foerster is also preparing a class-action lawsuit. The impact of my investigation continues. Yesterday, nine months after publication, a colonel at Fort Hood sent word that, in my response to my reporting, the Army is officially terminating all of the doctors involved in Sgt. Luther's torture.
7. Follow-up (if any). Have you run a correction or clarification on the report or has anyone come forward to challenge its accuracy? If so, please explain.
I'm proud to say that, despite the anger my articles caused in the upper-echelons of the military, not a single statement has been challenged, and no corrections have been run. Major General Gina Farrisee didn't even question the accuracy of my reporting when specifically pressed to do so at the Congressional hearing by House VA Committee Chairman Bob Filner. Said Filner: "Sergeant Luther's report of what I call torture, could that happen in the Army, and was it ever investigated? … There are pictures of the thing, there seems to be witnesses. Was that ever investigated?" Sheepishly, Farrisee said no, it was not. "Man," replied the angered chairman, "if I were you, I would have jumped. We can't let that happen in the Army, and if it's true, somebody's got to be punished. … Some people are making these charges in public session here where they're sworn to tell the truth. They've been in the newspaper. Surely, you'd be concerned if the Army was accused of torturing its own soldiers, wouldn't you?" Maj. Gen. Farrisee was firm: she and the other Pentagon officials were not challenging the veracity of my reporting. Farrisee then promised a full investigation.
8. Advice to other journalists planning a similar story or project.
Two bits of advice: Don't be afraid to pursue a story no one else is investigating. That's how reporters break new ground. It's scary, of course, to dig where no one else is digging. With every article that explores new territory, that uncovers new findings, you put your entire reputation on the line. The risk is worth it because you're shining a light on something important. At the same time, demand the highest levels of verification for your investigation — paper verification, witness verification, confirmation from superiors, discharge documents, medical documents, eyewitnesses. Publish only when you have layer upon layer of sources confirming identical facts.