Text File

Accounting - Left Behind Moorer 09/24/92 ...I think that for all practical purposes we really lost the war, particularly from a political point of view, because we couldn't get in an airplane and go to each point of contact where we thought there might be a POW confined and held against his will. Accounting - Left Behind Moorer 09/24/92 ...the question arises now whether you would be willing to detain those boys who thought they were coming home while we went through another long discussion and negotiation with North Vietnam. So my position was, let's get those we have home and continue to press to find out whether there are any more. Accounting - Left Behind Murphy 09/24/92 ...in my personal view there were no confirmed reports of live U.S. military personnel left behind in Vietnam or Laos. I do not recall seeing any such reports, and I would have been very upset, as you would be, if you had to read such a report in that position. Accounting - Comptroller's Records Murphy 09/24/92 It would seem to me, somebody in the comptroller's office would have to testify to just how they were using these numbers. I will admit that it says current captured, is a real number going down to 67 by the end of this period. Accounting - Left Behind Nagy 12/01/92 There certainly was a change in attitude on the part of the Reagan administration that was evident during the 1980's. That certainly let, and I believe throughout the period of the seventies and eighties that it was basically a continuation inside of DIA, and that was that there remained the possibility that there were still live Americans present in Southeast Asia remaining after the departure of the United States from that area. Accounting - Left Behind Oksenberg 06/25/92 Sen. McCain: Did you see any hard evidence or any evidence that Americans were alive?

Mr. Oksenberg: I saw no hard evidence that Americans were alive. Obviously, with the upsurge of refugees came increasing reports of live sightings. Accounting - Left Behind Oksenberg 06/25/92 I can assure you, Senator, that at no point during my time on the watch did we come to the conclusion that there were certainly no live Americans in Indochina. Accounting - Left Behind Otis 12/03/92 In spite of the high visibility of Commander Dodge's case, the North Vietnamese chose to deny any knowledge of him. Commander Dodge was not repatriated in 1973.

I was extremely concerned about the media reports that proclaimed all POWs returned. I received letters from President Nixon, Vice Admiral David Bagley, Chief of Naval Personnel, and Roger Shields, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense, all assuring me of their commitment to securing the fullest possible accounting.

The only letter that even mentioned live Americans was that of Dr. Shields, who stated, quote, there is no specific knowledge of any live Americans left, unquote. In other words, fullest possible accounting meant search for remains.

There was no public challenge of the Vietnamese by the United States that captured servicemen were left behind. There seemed to be a naivete that all prisoners had been returned and that remains would be forthcoming. I was shocked and bewildered, but I could not believe that the missing were already abandoned by our own Government, press, and public. Accounting - Shields Statement Perot 08/11/92 ...[the Vietnamese] said, your own Government declared these men dead in 1973. Why should we think your Government wants them back? Accounting - Shields Statement Perot 08/11/92 I said Roger, I'm surprised that you declared all the men dead in April 1973. He said, I was ordered to do it. And he said he was ordered to do it by the Deputy Secretary of Defense, William Clements. Then he said words to the effect that he protested, because just two weeks earlier these memos were going around. Accounting - Left Behind Richardson 09/24/92 Chairman Kerry: Looking through this, obviously retrospectively, but looking at it as we're trying to look at it and looking at it as the American people are looking at it 20 years later, unfortunately, would you say that the record suggests that the American people and certainly the families were not leveled with respect to this?

Richardson: I would say that information on the face of it was withheld from them, and one would have to use some rationale for doing that -- that is, for withholding it. Accounting - Nixon Statement Richardson 09/24/92 Well, I tried to call attention to the distinction of the degree of certainty with which a given proposition can be stated. For purposes of our best estimates as to the number of current captured, the intelligence resources of the Government would put together all the bits and pieces they had and come up with a number which represented the weight of that evidence, and I suppose that is what this number reflects.

The President's statement would presumably be tilted in a direction designed, as I suggested earlier, not to raise false hopes and so on, whatever may have been the considerations. Somebody could rationalize the distinction between the basis for this number and the basis for his statement.

But how it actually came about, for all I know he deliberately chose to lie. But I don't -- I try to give him the benefit of the doubt, I would say that he -- what he meant was that every prisoner as to whom we have definitive information. Accounting - KIA/BNR S. Stockdale 12/03/92 I don't think we're as close to it as some might like to believe, but I think that there will come a point in time when you have to take the responsibility to make the judgment that some people are never -- no remains -- nothing is ever going to be returned. And that's your job. Accounting S. Stockdale 12/03/92 I can see why they are that convinced, because of the long history of the deception. And maybe a lack of recognition that there are always some people in war who are lost. There will never, in my opinion, be a satisfactory accounting. In our League's list of objectives we said that we wanted to get the fullest possible accounting.

When you lose a war, you don't get to go in and account for your people. Even if you win the war, you don't find everybody. Accounting - Left Behind Schlesinger 09/21/92 Chairman Kerry: I think I want to start by asking a very simple question. In your view did we leave men behind?

Schlesinger: I think that, as of now, that I can come to no other conclusion, Senator. That does not say that there are any alive today, mind you. But in 1973, some were left behind. Accounting - Left Behind Schlesinger 09/21/92 Despite the Paris agreement, there was no reason, in my judgement, to assume that the North Vietnamese would release everybody. Accounting Schweitzer 12/04/92 Why has it taken 19 years for us to get to this starting point, is probably the most important of these three questions... First, the U.S. emphasis has been on live-sighting reports, and much of the POW/MIA community simply wasn't interested in researching existing proof that these men were dead. This lack of vision has cost us years in the search for answers. Accounting - Left Behind Secord 09/24/92 Sen. Kassebaum: It seems to me one of the major debates after Operation Homecoming was how to rate the intelligence. You made the comment earlier that creditable evidence, I believe, led you to argue that there were Americans still Laos. Is that correct?

Secord: Yes, Senator, that's right. Accounting - Left Behind Secord 09/24/92 Sen. Grassley: I would like to have you describe for the committee how confident you were in the data, and how specific it was. And just give us some examples.

Secord: I think a lot of the data was flaky, but there is a law of large numbers that comes into play here. And we had a lot of case studies on each and every one of these downings, or nearly every one of them. Some of them were just gone, and we had nothing, but many, many hundreds of downings. We had all kinds of operational data, including some that I described earlier -- everything from good beeper, good chute, good beeper on the ground, transmitting on the survival radio. Accounting - Left Behind Secord 09/24/92 Sen. Grassley: In your view, were there prisoners left behind in Laos after Homecoming?

Secord: Yes, sir.

Sen. Grassley: Were the number of prisoners significant enough to warrant military action?

Secord: We believed so. Accounting Sheetz 06/25/92 Sen. McCain: Why is it that it took 20 years to get one list, in your view?

Sheetz: 20 years to get one list? We always had access to the files of the JCRC in paper files. What's been difficult is every time a team goes out into the field in one of these joint iterations we learn something that we didn't know before, and that information causes you to then reevaluate what you know about a particular case, and our databases are always sort of chasing after one other as new information comes in. This is not -- these numbers are not static numbers. They are always in fluidity. Accounting - KIA/BNR Sheetz 08/04/92 ...some of the KIA cases, the descriptions that you read, are more compelling than others, but having reviewed each and every one of them, we do not find that there are fatal flaws in the documentation and the judgments that were reached by the field commanders who were responsible for reporting the status of their lost men. Accounting Sheetz 12/04/92 Chairman Kerry: Let me understand. You have 196 discrepancy cases?...

Sheetz: Fate has been determined on 61 of those. So, when you subtract that out, that gets you down to the 135 figure. The 196 is the actual cases that existed, and we've been able to get answers on the fate on 61 of those. So, 135 are still to be determined; fate to be determined.

Chairman Kerry: And 90 in Laos? How many fate determined in Laos?

Sheetz: None, sir. But I might add, again, from prior sessions we have explained that 85 percent of the losses that took place in Laos that are still unaccounted for took place in the Eastern-most provinces, right along the Ho Chi Minh Trail area, and only 9 of those 90 discrepancy cases are cases in which they took place clearly in areas of Pathet Lao control.

So, essentially, 80 to 81 of those cases are in the border, Vietnamese- controlled areas where we are going to be working in the tripartite arena with the Vietnamese and the Lao to try to get answers on those cases. Accounting - KIA/BNR Sheetz 08/04/92 Chairman Kerry: ...And the person is listed as KIA in that particular category based on first-hand reports from people within a unit or aircraft, or whatever, is that correct?... So what I am saying is that in the case of almost 100 percent of those 1,095, there are sufficient multiple reports of the incident to permit you to draw the conclusion you've drawn, are there not?

Sheetz: Yes, sir...

Chairman Kerry: So I ask you again the same question I asked you a moment ago. Is it not fair to say, and even more appropriate to say, that there ought to be, maybe, a new category that in the case of those 1,095, while their body has not been returned, in some cases based on the report it is clear, is it not, that a body will never be returned?

Sheetz: That is true, sir...

Chairman Kerry: So that person is in effect accounted for. The family has accepted the accounting, and in point of fact it does not belong on a POW/MIA list. It is not POW, it is not MIA, it is KIA, body not recoverable. Accounting - KIA/BNR Sheetz 08/04/92 Chairman Kerry: Now, if you are saying that 1,095 were KIA, well, they have not been returned. Are they not accounted for?

Mr. Sheetz: The fullest possible accounting has three levels of evidence, if you will. [Level] 1, the most ideal outcome would be the return of a live American prisoner. Level 2 would be... recovering their remains and repatriating those remains to the United States. The third level of outcome is for those who perished, where remains cannot be recovered, to develop sufficient documentation as to confirm the fate of the individual...

Chairman Kerry: These 1,095 fall into the third category, correct?

Mr. Sheetz: At the present time, they do. Accounting - Nixon Statement Shields 09/24/92 Chairman Kerry: Why did not the President of the United States stand up and say, the prisoners are not back? Why did not the Secretary of Defense say, I stood up a few months ago and I had 14 people I said did not come back and, by God, they are still not back, and why will Americans not care about it? Accounting - Shields Statement Shields 09/24/92 Chairman Kerry: Now look at the cause and effect. Here are the papers coming off your press conference. [Headline] "POW unit boss: no living GIs left in Indochina." Here, [Headline]: "Rumors that there were hundreds of U.S. servicemen still left in Laotian prison camps do the families of the missing a disservice." Headline: "All U.S. POWs free Pentagon maintains." Headline: "Unreturned GIs are feared dead..."

Shields: I never said that the men were all dead. I never said that. I've never said that to this day.

Chairman Kerry: No indication that any of the missing are alive in Indochina. We went through this last time; there were indications.

Shields: Senator, I don't believe that I could tell Mrs. Hrdlicka or Mrs. Van Dyke or the Van Dyke parents or anyone else that I had indications at that time that their loved ones were alive. Accounting - Nixon Statement Shields 09/24/92 Vice Chairman Smith: But from March 28th to April 12th a heck of a lot of things have happened here that reversed all information that we had in the pipeline on prisoners of war, in Laos especially. And in 2 weeks we went from a memorandum to the President of the United States via the National Security Advisor from the Secretary of Defense saying there are POWs in Laos. Not alleged, there are POWs in Laos, and we had better do something in terms of getting them out before we get out of here. Now that is essentially what the memorandum said. We went from that to a press conference by the President of the United States the next day which says all POWs are coming home. There are no more living Americans in Indochina, you then said on April 12th. Accounting - Shields Statement Shields 06/25/92 Shields: Senator, there is a difference in saying people are alive and in captivity and saying we don't have indications now that they are.

Chairman Kerry: That is the disingenuous piece of this.

Shields: It is not disingenuous, Senator. This was and still is a very serious issue. I read in the newspaper yesterday that your committee has information that an American was alive in Indochina in captivity in 1989.

Chairman Kerry: No, no, no. That is wrong.

Shields: It was reported in the paper, Senator.

Chairman Kerry: Let me just make it very clear. Senator Smith has an opinion personally as to that. I will tell you I personally do not share a judgment on that or that opinion, nor do I think has the rest of the committee come to any conclusion whatsoever as to anyone in 1989, and I will tell you that this committee has no evidence today of any specific individual in any specific place being alive now.

Shields: And that's exactly what I said, Senator.

Chairman Kerry: But it's not.

Shields: And the information you have on an individual in 1989 is more recent than a lot of the information that I was dealing with, and that's exactly why I did not say they were all alive nor did I say they were all dead. I did not know that. Accounting - Shields Statement Shields 06/25/92 ...we really did not have proof positive, at that time, of current information that would allow us to go back. I'm sure that had we known at that time of the evidence of people, had Senator McCain or some of his comrades said, we left a man in this camp, I'm sure we would have done something about it. There were three foreign nationals and we did. Accounting - Shields Statement Shields 06/25/92 ... we had no hard, specific current information at that time. And I think we had done enough of our debriefings at that time, because we had asked men immediately if they knew about living Americans. Accounting - Shields Statement Shields 09/24/92 Chairman Kerry: I am not challenging your honor. I am trying to determine whether or not you do not see what America saw out of your statement. Not your fault, maybe, but what America saw out of your statement were the headlines that I read. You may not have willed that, but that is what happened.

Shields: ...I have given that statement to innumerable people since we met last time. And they have looked at this statement; no one has come up with the impression that the said all the men dead.

Chairman Kerry: But do you not see that when you say that there is no indication that anyone is alive--

Vice Chairman Smith: What is the difference between that and they are all dead?

Chairman Kerry: You are basically taking somebody in POW status, and you wrote that, and saying we no longer believe that person is a POW. Accounting - Returned POWs Shields 06/25/92 We hoped that our returnees would be able to provide us with substantial information about the missing, but relatively few cases were cleared up on the basis of returnees information. Accounting - Nixon Statement Shields 06/25/92 Sen. McCain: How do you account for the President of the United States saying all POWs are home?

Dr. Shields: Senator, I don't control the statements of the President of the United States. I did not at that time. I was as dismayed at that statement as anyone else was. Accounting - Left Behind Shields 06/25/92 Shields: We did raise those issues, and we raised them with a great deal of vigor.

Chairman Kerry: You recall that being a sort of publicly perceived grievance that was expressed, or you raised them in private channels? I do not recall this Nation being in turmoil over the notion that we thought Vietnam might be holding people.

Shields: I think, Senator Kerry, that the Nation was probably ecstatic that the conflict was over, and that we were not adding to those POW/MIA lists. Accounting - Left Behind Shields 06/25/92 You are aware of the efforts that were expended on behalf of Chi Chan Harnaby, Lieutenant Dodd, and so forth. They were men that you and your comrades said had been left behind. And even though they were not Americans, we left no stone unturned to bring them home. And in fact, they did return home to their loved ones. In the case of Emmet Kay, we knew he was a prisoner, and we pursued that and he was returned.

In the cases of Charles Dean and Neal Sharman, we knew that they had been captured. That was not a secret. We made that evidence available to anyone, and we acknowledged that. We did not bring them home. We were not able to do that. Accounting - Shields Statement Shields 06/25/92 Chairman Kerry: No one on the committee is suggesting that the 1973 policy should have suggested that you say yes, they are all alive.

Shields: What is the difference between saying they are alive and we have no indications now that they are alive?

Chairman Kerry: We did have indications that some people were alive. We had absolute intelligence. You in your own deposition,... you agreed that recent information could go back 6 months, 12 months. And we had recent information 6 months and 12 months that so and so was seen alive or so and so was alive.

Shields: I'm not aware of that, Senator. Within 6 months? Recent information specifically relating to a man? I'm not aware of that information. Accounting - Shields Statement Shields 06/25/92 Shields: Senator, people were asking if we knew whether we had left anyone behind, and the answer was we do not have indications at this time.

Chairman Kerry: That has been the official line... But the questions is what did we know in 1973 and what did we do?

Shields: We know that men had been alive in captivity at one time... And those that returned did not know of men who had been left.

Chairman Kerry: To say all prisoners had returned as the President announced on the 29th of March, a week before your press conference, was wrong. He knew it was wrong. Let me tell you why. You recall going to see Secretary of Defense William Clements in his office in early April, a week before your April conference, correct?

Shields: That's correct.

Chairman Kerry: And you heard him tell you, all the American POWs are dead. And you said to him, "You cannot say that."

Shields: That's correct.

Chairman Kerry: And he repeated to you, "You did not hear me. They are all dead."

Shields: That's essentially correct. Accounting - Shields Statement Shields 06/25/92 At the termination of Homecoming we had no current hard evidence that Americans were still held prisoner in Southeast Asia... None of those who returned had any indication that anyone had been left behind. We knew that there was a possibility that defectors were alive in enemy- controlled areas, but had no firm evidence to confirm this either.

Robert Garwood was an example of an American whom we felt might be alive and in an enemy-controlled area, But according to the returnees who saw him last, he was not being held as a prisoner. Accounting - Shields Statement Shields 09/24/92 [Describing 1975 testimony] Then the famous question, do you think that there are still POWs alive and well somewhere in either Laos of Cambodia. And this is the statement with which you have had such great trouble. We have no indications at this time that there are any Americans alive in Indochina. What the people at the hearing did not hear, and what was never reported in the press were these words, as I said, "we do not consider the list of men that we received from Laos, the recovery of 10 individuals, nine of whom were American and seven military, to be a complete accounting for all Americans who were lost in Laos. Nor do we consider it to be a complete statement of our information known to the Pathet Lao in Laos. With regard to Cambodia, we have a number of men who are missing in action there. Some that we carried as captive." Again, the statement of people who were carried as prisoner who did not return. "We intend to pursue that, too... even though we have no indication that there are any Americans still alive, we are going to pursue our efforts in the process of accounting for the missing... we anticipate that if any Americans are yet alive...that we would be able to ascertain that through this process..." Accounting - Shields Statement Shields 06/25/92 Admiral McCain... repeatedly asserted that he felt a small number of American were still alive in Indochina. When asked how many, he opined that perhaps 20 to 30 were alive. When asked whether he had any evidence at all that there is anybody alive, he admitted he did not. Accounting Shields 06/25/92 ...the practical impact of lists relating to status was always limited... it had a mixed impact on family members, depending on what status a man had. It appears also to have had a limited impact on prisoners and missing. Ronald Ridgeway was classified as killed in action, but that did not prevent his repatriation. Frank Cius was carried as missing in action in Laos, but he also returned home to his loved ones. David Demmon was carried as a prisoner in South Vietnam, but to this day, he remains unaccounted for. Accounting - Shields Statement Shields 06/25/92 Chairman Kerry: ... we have uncovered some 244 people... were carried by DoD as POW, prisoner of war. You did not know until after the debriefs that 111 of them died in captivity. When you made this statement, those debriefs had not been completed, had they?

Shields: No, they had not. Accounting - Left Behind Shields 06/25/92 The only individuals whom hard, and at that time current, information indicated were in captivity and for whom no accounting has yet been received were two civilians; an American, Charles Dean, and Neil Sharman, an Australian, who were captured in 1974. They were unquestionably in the hands of the Pathet Lao when the events that led to the fall of Saigon and Vientiane in mid-year 1975 occurred. Our intelligence capability and our ability to track them in captivity ended with the collapse of the friendly governments. It is unlikely, I believe, that an accounting is obtainable now which will resolve the doubts of many families about the status of their loved ones missing in Southeast Asia. The record has become too convoluted and distorted for that to happen. Accounting - Shields Statement Shields 06/25/92 Sen. Robb: Why was not some effort made, either institutionally or individually, to say hey, we have information that is simply at odds, at variance with the information that you have just announced or articulated through either policy papers or official pronouncements, whatever the case may be? Why was there not some critical questioning or skepticism that can be raised at that time, and why was there a passive acceptance?

Shields: Senator, there are statements by General Walters at the CIA. I don't know him well, but my understanding is he doesn't accept much passively at all... I don't think that the United States Government possessed the kind of information that you are speaking of. Accounting Shields 06/25/92 There has been some concern, I believe, over the fact that DIA carried some men in classification, in particular the prisoner category, which differed from those of the services. The reason for this is simple, and I believe valid. Accounting - Status Changes Shields 06/25/92 By law, only the service secretaries have the legal authority to determine an individual's status, and the law was observed in this regard during my tenure in the Department of Defense. Accounting Shields 06/25/92 The facts regarding individual cases were not in dispute. If a man listed by the Navy as missing was carried by DIA as captured and that led to better correlation of intelligence reports, then our own efforts were improved. Accounting - Shields Statement Shields 09/24/92 Chairman Kerry: [citing Shields' comments] "We do not consider the list to be a complete accounting", then you went into MIA and some who were listed as captive. That is not a phrase that grabs me in any way as if you believe somebody is still a prisoner... Accounting - Shields Statement Shields 09/24/92 Vice Chairman Smith: I want you to tell me about the Nixon meeting. That is where we are now, April 11th. I want you to lead me into that meeting. Did anybody say anything to you? I just want you to give me some very specific answers, and I want a long discourse. Did anybody say anything to you prior to that meeting, at any time, about what you should or should not say to the President of the United States, yes, or no?

Shields: Absolutely nothing... Accounting Shields 06/25/92 We understood long before we received the DRV-PRG list in Paris in January 1973 that Operation Homecoming would only be one phase of our work. It was evident that the process of accounting for those who did not return would be long, arduous, and complicated under even the best of circumstances. Accounting - Left Behind Sieverts 06/25/92 Sen. McCain: ... if Mr. Shields said -- in his memorandum, he says DoD had no specific knowledge, that is different in my view than no indications. That is a very different use of language. I think, frankly, that in your memorandum no specific knowledge is a defensible position. No indications, I think, is not.

I think what I am trying to get at here is what was the thrust of the belief? Is it that the President of the United States said there are no more Americans alive in Southeast Asia and we closed the book until the agitation on the part of families and other Americans brought this back to the attention of the American people? Or has there been a good-faith effort? Or is it somewhere in between, in the view of many of us, that during the 1970's the issue was ignored to a certain degree because of the desire of the American people and the American Government to put this issue behind us, which could have led us to some failed opportunities to return some Americans who may have been held alive.

I know that is very difficult, but I think it is a philosophical question that is important to be cleared up, and maybe we could begin with you, Mr. Sieverts.

Mr. Sieverts: The root question is whether there were any opportunities to achieve the return of living Americans. That's the sole question. And no, I don't think there were any. I don't think we had any indications of Americans in captivity. Some of my testimony is intended to bear on that question, because of our past experience, of the lengths to which Americans would go -- we're talking about POWs held Accounting - Left Behind Sieverts 06/25/92 The root question is whether there were any opportunities to achieve the return of living Americans. That's the sole question. And no, I don't think there were any. I don't think we had any indications of Americans in captivity... the lengths to which Americans would go-- we're talking about POWs held against their will in captivity-- the lengths they would go, one way or another, to let us know of this. It bears on the photographs, for example. The idea of Americans cheerfully being photographed and not using the opportunity to somehow convey who they are and what the circumstances are is beyond my imagination.

But it's beyond my experience, more importantly, of being responsible for this subject during the long time when we really did have Americans in captivity and we did get indications which were quite solid. Accounting Sieverts 06/25/92 Sen. McCain: Mr. Sieverts, was that the policy on your watch, that we did not know whether they were alive or dead? Or was it that we assumed they were all dead, or what?

Sieverts: ...Our approach during that entire period was to present information in a positive spirit through the channels that were available pursuant to the Paris agreement and, to the extent that it was possible, and it was not at all easy, to do so in Laos, as well. At every opportunity, we would shade the interpretation of cases and lists in a favorable direction... In the direction of saying we know you have more information... Over a period of time, we broadened those lists. We added to them, we gave specific case records, detailed case records.

The difficulty was that at the same time if you overstated that assumption for a domestic audience you would create what was clearly exaggerated and possibly an entirely false hope among families. Accounting - Shields Statement Smith 09/24/92 Dr. Shields, all I am saying to you is based on the documents that I have read -- not on my opinion, the documents that I have read, the depositions we have taken, the witnesses we have talked to, the information that I have been able to glean from whatever I have been able to see, that is not what went into the pipeline prior to March 28th. It was not gut feeling, it was not visceral, it was simply -- it was so factual and at least so definitive that the Secretary of Defense made a recommendation to resume the war and risk bringing home the last group of American POWs. And that changed, that changed.

So my question to you is what is the point of a press conference after the President speaks and says all the POWs are home?..You had a private meeting with the President of the United States and you come out of that meeting and you hold another press conference. And you say, in addition to what the President already said, there are not any more living Americans. Accounting - Nixon Statement Smith 06/25/92 ...the point is that we continued operations in a third country that we were not supposed to be at war with, and we were losing people while we were bringing home American POWs from Vietnam. We were still losing people and still standing up saying that there are no prisoners when we had no idea what happened to them. And somebody has to be accountable for that. Accounting - Nixon Statement Smith 09/24/92 ...the document says on June 30th that we are listing and distinguishing between missing and POWs. We now are listing 67 hostile captured people as prisoners of war on June 30th, when in fact the official position as announced by the President and others is that there are not any more POWs. Am I correct?

Sen. Grassley: Yes. President Nixon made his statement on March the 29th, and Dr. Shields made his statement on April the 14th. Vice Chairman Smith: And this is June 30th, listing 67 people as prisoners?

Sen. Grassley: Yes. Accounting - Nixon Statement Smith 06/25/92 ... on January 27th and 28th there were lists exchanged and provided. But we still were flying missions over Laos after those lists were exchanged. We were losing Americans in Laos in a secret war... So when you say on April 12th that you do not have any information on live Americans, that is simply not true. Accounting - Nixon Statement Smith 09/21/92 ...Actually, there were two policies, one right after the other, with the same data base...the first policy was full accountability. Then there was a statement when the President said all the POWs are home.

The policy then changed to everybody is home, all the POWs were home. But the data base, the intelligence information that you had, did not support that claim, as you have all as you have all said. Accounting - Nixon Statement Smith 09/24/92 ...as to why this data base was apparently looked at differently as we came down to this period of March 28th through April 15th, in that period of time when President Nixon made his statement, Mr. Shields made his statement?

What happened differently? Was there something there that we are missing that caused this change in analysis of the intelligence? Or do you believe that there were people there after Operation Homecoming, based on what you knew?

General Secord: Well, yes, of course I believe there were people after Operation Homecoming. This memorandum was written contemporaneously. Accounting - Nixon Statement Smith 09/24/92 ...I am just trying to say to you that you had a tabulation; it was a running tab, it was coming into you by the week. Nothing changed in the way it was reported, nothing changed in the documents that went into the pipeline, the information that went into the pipeline. Nothing changed. On the contrary, it was reported to the Secretary of Defense that it was valid information. The only thing that changed is you guys made an announcement, or the President made an announcement on March 29th which was totally at odds with all of that data... Accounting - Nixon Statement Smith 09/24/92 ...II A has provided U.S. delegation folders with background information on about 80 persons in the category of POW, and then even today, here is a list that we have just received from -- the committee received on the 20th of March, 1992, from Margaret R. Munson, director, DoD, POW-MIA Central Documentation Office. It lists 50 people who are in Category I survival code in Laos.

I mean, there is just no way that any reasonable person can conclude based on the documents and the information that this committee has received, that you could make the kind of statement that the President made and know that it was correct. And I will tell you, to speak for myself, this one Senator just does not accept it. Accounting Sungenis 06/25/92 Sungenis: The first casualty reporting requirement from the services was in 1963, and that was a numerical report only. In March of 1973 the requirement was made that the services provide us with individual casualty reports. And what they did in '73 was provide us with a DD form 1300 for each individual and a punched card with that information. Since that day we have maintained the file. But as you know, this was after Homecoming when we got into the business. Accounting Sungenis 06/24/92 To the best of my knowledge, at no time did this office engage or participate in any policy determination or jurisdictional matter concerning the reporting criteria used by the respective military services. Accounting Sungenis 06/24/92 ...at the time the official file was transferred to the Archives, the back-up materials, such as the hard copy DD Forms 1300 and other supporting documentation, we discarded. Accounting - Left Behind Trowbridge 06/25/92 That we had no current information at the time where we could go and put our hands on some individual that was alive at that time. Accounting - Left Behind Trowbridge 06/24/92 Some [names] were written on the walls. No one ever saw these individuals in a prison environment. Accounting - Left Behind Trowbridge 06/24/92 Sen. Kerrey: Do you have any recollection of ever having anybody say to you during that period of time in 1973, after Operation Homecoming, that we should just let this matter rest?

Trowbridge: No sir.

Sen. Kerrey: Were you ever told by somebody, the war is over, let us not drag this our any further with energy expanded in areas that are not apt to be terribly useful?

Trowbridge: No sir, never. Accounting - Left Behind Trowbridge 06/24/92 ... the U.S. Government carried 97 individuals listed as prisoners of war that did not return. This is at the completion of Operation Homecoming. Accounting - Left Behind Trowbridge 06/24/92 ...When I said 97, or to use your term 80, actually at the completion of Operation Homecoming our agency held 115 individuals in a prisoner status who did not return home. Accounting - Left Behind Trowbridge 06/24/92 Sen. Kerrey: Do you not think it fair to say there was an attitude in 1973 that we were indeed glad the war was over and that we wanted very little further discussion of anything in regards to the war, including the status of our prisoners.

Trowbridge: Oh, I think that there may have been some very well individuals that thought that way, but I think the moral fiber that runs through the American citizen is a, we don't leave our unaccounted for. We go get them. Accounting - Left Behind Trowbridge 06/24/92 We are left with slightly less than 100 men who are officially listed by the service as POWs... in no instance did we have current intelligence to indicate that these men were currently held in captivity. Accounting - Shields Statement Trowbridge/ Shields 06/25/92 Vice Chairman Smith: Is there evidence or is there not evidence that Americans remained alive as prisoners of war, taking out Garwood, from 1973 to 1989? That is a simple yes or no question. Is there or is there not, based on your opinion?

Trowbridge: Based on my opinion and what I have seen, we have nothing that would indicate that an American prisoner -- confirmed information or evidence, firm evidence, or convincing evidence, that an American prisoner was being held against his will.

Vice Chairman Smith: Do you agree with that Dr. Shields?

Shields: Senator, the second definition -- indications. We certainly knew that people were alive at one time. I do not have anything that would allow me to make the judgment, which you suggested is the first definition, that would allow me to make the judgment that those Americans were still alive, and say that to a family member, for example. And say, I am confident that based on the information I have your husband is alive. I could not have said that. Accounting Trowbridge 06/24/92 That was our responsibility, correlating information to somebody who may be missing. But, until somebody told us he was missing, he was not on our roll. Accounting Trowbridge 06/24/92 In some cases, we had very good information that the individuals had been held but had died there. In many other cases, there was no information beyond the original loss data. There were also a few cases where the services listed men as prisoners of war based on data which they later learned was erroneous in that it correlated to a different man. Much of this we learned through debriefing all of the returnees, who also told us of men who had died before entering the prison system. Accounting Trowbridge 06/24/92 ...the war years within DIA, our office was the focal point for POW/MIA information. Accounting Trowbridge 06/24/92 ...the agency's position at the time was that we held no information that individuals at that time were being held against their will. Accounting Trowbridge 06/24/92 DIA thought it possible that a man was a POW, yet the services carried him as missing in action. The status the service assigned was always their legal status. Accounting Trowbridge 06/24/92 DIA did not and does not determine the legal status of a serviceman. That is the sole responsibility of each of the military service secretaries. Accounting Trowbridge 06/24/92 We had a very close relationship. Our agency supported Dr. Shields with intelligence information.