Veterans & courts
I salute the Trib for the editorial “The VA report: Failing our vets” (April 25 and TribLIVE.com). Its criticism of the Pittsburgh VA Healthcare System over its “total disregard for the health and welfare of veterans in its care” was on target. The VA's problems illustrate how the government's treatment of veterans differs from the lofty talk about honoring their service.
As a former Army major in the Judge Advocate General Corps and a civilian lawyer, I know the struggles faced by service members desperate to access benefits they earned while serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. Government is their faceless enemy. In our region, veterans are in dire straits waiting for benefits. Some are homeless; some battle prescription drug addiction and are self-medicating; many need mental-health support. Many end up in the criminal justice system.
Washington County Veterans Court was established to handle these cases; unfortunately, none of the county's judges are veterans. The voters I meet are shocked to hear that, and angry when they learn about the plight of returning soldiers. My campaign has given a voice to those men and women. It is a time to show our veterans that America really is a grateful nation.
The writer is a candidate for Washington County Common Pleas Court judge.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- White House not playing to win
- An Obama clone
- U.S. Steel worthy of grant
- Better in long run
- Hospital’s hero & more
- Good ‘friends,’ good food
- Farewell, my Springdale
- Unworthy of high office
- Write-in alternative
- Working hard in fast food
- Behind tax inversions