|Congress has set aside the Third Friday of September each year as National POW/MIA Recognition Day. It is a time to remember those who never came home.|
Prisoners of War / Missing In Action
For the story of the POW/MIA Flag, click this link.
Vietnam War POW MIAs
April 3, 1973: Pathet Lao (Laotian Communist) forces declare they are holding more than 100 American POWs and are prepared to give a full accounting of them The U.S. government responds 9 days later declaring they are all dead -- without ever talking to the Laotians about the POWs they admit holding!
1970-1976: After the French pay an unspecified sum of money to the Vietnamese, the communists release POWs captured in 1954! The North Vietnamese had claimed all of then had died.
August 19, 1986: The Wall Street Journal reports the White House knew in 1981 Vietnam wanted to sell an unspecified number of live POWs for $4 billion. The White House decided the offer was genuine -- and ignored it!
September 30, 1986: The New York Times reports a Pentagon panel estimates up to 100 live American POWs are held in Vietnam alone.
October 7, 1986: CIA Director William Casey says: "Look, the nation knows they (the POWs)are there, everybody knows they are there, but there's no grounds well of support for getting them out. Certainly, you are not suggesting we pay for them, surely not saying we could do anything like that with no public support."
January 1988: A cable from the Joint Casualty Resolution Center states that during General Vessey's visit to Hanoi, "The Vietnamese people were prepared to turn over 7 or 8 live American POWs if Vessey told then what they wanted to hear. All the prospective returnees were allegedly held in a location on the Lao side of the border."
September 1990: The Senate Foreign Relations Committee's Interim Report on POW/MIA's in Southeast Asia concluded that despite public assurances in 1973 that no POWs remained in the region, the Defense Department ". . . in April 1974 concluded beyond a doubt that several hundred American POWs remained in captivity in Southeast Asia."
October 1990: Vietnamese Foreign Minister Nguyen Co Thach admits Vietnam still holds American POWs but is willing to release "as many as 10 live American POWs." His offer, like others before it, is ignored by Secretary of State James Baker III.
February 1991: Colonel Millard Peck, Chief of the Pentagon's Special Office for Prisoners of War and Missing in Action, resigns in protest of being ordered by policy makers in the POW/MIA Inter-Agency Group not to investigate live-sighting reports of American POWs!
April 25, 1991: Senator Bob Smith addresses the Senate and reveals that, of more than 1,400 eyewitness sightings of live POWs, NONE has ever received an on-site investigation!
May 23, 1991: The Senate Foreign Relations Committee's Examination of U.S. Policy Toward POW/MIAs concludes that the U.S. has ignored thousands of American POWs, and left them to rot in Soviet slave labor camps and North Korean and Vietnamese prisons. "Any evidence that suggested an MIA might be alive was uniformly and arbitrarily rejected."
Summer 1991: A flood of new evidence of live POWs pours from Southeast Asia: pictures, handwriting samples, hair samples, blood samples, fingerprints, foot-prints, maps and other physical proof. The Bush administration disregards the evidence and attempts to discredit it by rumor and innuendo. Some of the photos are scientifically validated -- and have never been scientifically disproven!
All these facts are a matter of public record and clearly indicate that we have some serious problems in the POW/MIA arena that our elected officials refuse to acknowledge.
This information was compiled by
Task Force Omega of Kentucky, Inc.
"The intelligence indicates that the American Prisoners of War have been held continuously after Operation Homecoming and remain in captivity in Vietnam and Laos as late as 1989." Oral Intelligence Briefing before the Senate Select Committee on POWs-MIAs, April 8, 1992
"Despite adherences to internal policies and public statements
after April, 1973, that "no evidence" existed of living POWs,
DIA authoritatively concluded as late as April, 1974, that several hundred
living POW/MIAs were still held captive in Southeast Asia." Interim
Report on the Southeast Asian POW/MIA Issue
"In fact, classified and unclassified information all confirm
one startling fact: That DOD in April, 1974, concluded beyond a doubt that
several hundred living American POWs remained in captivity in Southeast
Asia. This was a full year after DOD spokesmen were saying publicly that
no prisoners remained alive." Interim
Report on the Southeast Asian POW/MIA Issue
The Quang 1205 Document
Although the Clinton Administration's knee jerk reaction was to classify the document, the researcher had given a copy of the document to the NY Times. So now the Clinton Administration had to trash this document because Clinton had something in mind respective to Vietnam. He was preparing to:
Lift US objections to the World Bank lending IMF funds to Vietnam;Over the objections of virtually every Veteran Organization, Family members, over 50 former Prisoners of War and the POW/MIA community in general, he lifted the US imposed trade embargo against Vietnam;
Less than two years later, again over the objections of the Veteran Organizations, Family members, 50+ former Prisoners of War and the PoW/MIA community he re-estalished diplomatic relations with Vietnam.
So the 1205 document had to be trashed. Not ever debrieifing general Quang, who is still alive, the US Government said that the document was a fake. it was a plant. But planted by whom and for what purpose? The Soviets were the allies of Vietnam at the time and since the fall of the Soviet Union, the Russians have needed US help. Why wouldn't they have destroyed a document that they had purportedly planted?
Did John Kerry Know There Were POW's
Left Behind? Did He
In retrospect, it is clear that John Kerry had but one goal as Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs. His goal was to remove the issue of Prisoners of War and Missing in Action, as a roadblock to trade and normalization of relations with Vietnam. The question is.... why?
All we need to do is look at two events which occurred shortly after the committee presented its finding, in January 1993.Francis Zwenig, staff director for the Committee, who was often seen during hearings whispering in Kerry's ear, became Vice President of the U.S. - Vietnam Trade Council. Ms Zwenig, who helped shaped the conclusion of the committee and its final report was now benefitting financially from the committee's efforts to close the POW/MIA issue.
In June of 1993, as reported in a Boston Herald article by Michael E. Knell, "Colliers International brokered a $905 million dollar deal to develop a deep sea port in Vietnam.." To skirt the trade embargo still in effect against Vietnam, Colliers International acted through its partner firm Colliers Jardine based in Singapore. At the time the deal was brokered, C. Stewart Forbes was the Chief Executive Officer of Colliers International.
All through 1993 and into early 1994, John Kerry pushed for the lifting of the trade embargo against Vietnam, citing of Vietnamese cooperation on the POW/MIA issue. As evidenced in the articles of Sydney Schanberg and scripted event involving Senator Kerry and Col. Pham Duc Dia, Vietnamese cooperation was clearly a myth. Yet, Kerry persisted in his campaign to lift the trade embargo. Finally, his efforts were rewarded in February 1994, when President Clinton lifted the embargo.
Did Kerry have an another agenda, beyond the stated goals of the committee? Before you answer that question, there is one other piece of information you need to know.
Stewart Forbes CEO of Colliers International and John Forbes Kerry are
cousins. See #7 this is not a Republican plot and it sure as hell
is no coincidence.It's a matter of record.
Sydney H. Schanberg wrote for The New York Times
Magazine (January 20, 1980), He wrote a book for the most part a reprint
of the story that which subsequently became the basis for the
Oscar-winning film, "The Killing Fields".. In
structure it seems a simple enough story of one man's heroic survival and
another's personal redemption : insensitive Western journalist (Sydney
Schanberg) badly miscalculates the danger that his Man Friday (Dith Pran)
is in as the Khmer Rouge take over Cambodia; Sydney escapes deteriorating
situation but Dith Pran can not leave; Sydney conducts a ceaseless rescue
effort, while Dith Pran survives unimaginable horrors, before finally
fleeing the country; they are reunited and all is forgiven.
Mr. Schanberg makes this portion of the story more compelling by being
relatively honest about his shabby treatment of Dith Pran and by revealing
just how guilty he felt about what he had done. It thus becomes a story of
recompense, of how he initially did wrong by Dith Pran but then did his
best to set things right, and eventually everything worked out okay.
Post 1992's POW / MIA / Missing Man Table
You may notice this small table here in a place of honor. It is set for one. This table is our way of symbolizing the act that members of our profession of arms are missing from our midst. They are commonly called P.O.W.'s or M.I.A.'s, we call them brothers.
They are unable to be with us this evening and so we remember them.
This table set for one is small... it symbolizes the frailty of one prisoner against his oppressors.
The table cloth is white... it symbolizes the purity of their intentions to respond to their country's call to arms.
The single rose displayed in a vase reminds us of the families and loved ones of our comrades in arms who keep faith awaiting their return.
The red ribbon tied so prominently on the vase is reminiscent of the red ribbon worn on the lapel and breasts of thousands who bear witness to their unyielding determination to demand a proper accounting for our missing.
A slice of lemon is on the bread plate... to remind us of their bitter fate.
There is salt upon the bread plate... symbolic of the family's tears as they wait.
The glass is inverted... they cannot toast with us tonight.
The chair is empty... they are not here.
Remember... all of you who served with them and called them comrades, who depended on their might and aid, and relied on them... for surely... they have not forsaken you.
Comment on the Color of Roses
Red Rose denotes passion and love
Yellow Rose denotes passing love (as in ending a romance)
White Rose denotes purity and new beginning