Volume 3, Number 7 July 1, 1989 +---------------------------------------------------------------+ | | | NN NN AAAA MM MM VV VV EEEEEEE TTTTTTTT | | NNN NN AA AA MMM MMM VV VV EE TT | | NN N NN AA AA MM M M MM VV VV EE TT | | NN N NN AA AA MM M MM VV VV EE TT | | NN N NN AAAAAAAA MM MM VV VV EEEEE TT | | NN N NN AA AA MM MM VV VV EE TT | | NN NNN AA AA MM MM V V EE TT | | NN NN AA AA MM MM VVV EEEEEEE TT | | | | The International Newsletter for Vietnam Veterans | +---------------------------------------------------------------+ Editor in Chief: Todd Looney Assistant Editor: G. Joseph Peck | NAM VET is a special )| electronic newsletter dedicated to _+|__|_ * VIETNAM |--- --| VETERANS * around the ------------------------=========================== world and \_______________________________________________) provided as a ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ service to participants in the International Vietnam Veterans Echo Con- ference (IVVEC) available on many FidoNet (tm) bulletin boards throughout the United States, Europe, Australia, and Canada. _ Not all of the articles appearing in here | are written by participants in the IVVEC, but NAM VET | is very much an electronic newsletter by, -----/_\----- of, and for Vietnam veterans, their -O==============< : >==============O- friends, wives, and lovers. ( ) (...) ( ) If you are a veteran or anyone else wishing to express yourself concerning our Nation's Vietnam or other related experience, you are invited to submit material for publication to the Vietnam Veterans Valhalla (*DOWN*), VETLink #1 (321/203), or to any BBS carrying IVVEC whose sysop can forward your work from there. NAM VET is published | monthly by Vietnam Veterans Valhalla and/or VETLink #1. | The views expressed are not necessarily those of the NAM VET, | its staff, or any of its volunteers. |____====________ The newsletter is ||__________}____)==================|) made up of =============---------------------===_____ articles and items /| | | | |\\from other newsletters \________|__________|_________|_________|/ and a variety of \\(O)___(O)___(O)___(O)___(O)___(O)// other sources We are not responsible for the content of this information nor are any of the above-mentioned parties. ____________ ======= _________________/|_____... | | " === |_______________| |-----::: |._ - " ) |_|___| Duplication and/or distribution is / / |___| permitted for noncommercial purposes only For other /_/use, contact: Todd Looney at (408) 947-7668 - or - G. Joseph Peck at (413) 442-1660 ================================================================= T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S 1. EDITORIALS Alive and Kicking ....................................... 1 A certain magic ......................................... 3 They haven't forgotten FREEDOM ... or YOU!!! ............ 5 2. AMERICAN PRISONERS Vets in Prison .......................................... 6 3. MIA/POW POW's - What's to be done? .............................. 12 Monk Sights POW's! ...................................... 20 Hearts n' Minds remember... ............................. 22 4. CURRENT HOT ISSUES IVVEC Talks about our flag... ........................... 23 Stars and Stripes ....................................... 33 Bush and the Flag ....................................... 45 5. MEMORIES The White Horse ......................................... 46 A light in the storm .................................... 47 Two Walls ............................................... 49 6. GENERAL ARTICLES Going Back .............................................. 52 A Chance to Understand .................................. 57 7. AGENT ORANGE Q&A Re: Agent Orange Payment Program ................... 60 1989 Schedule of the Mini-Wall .......................... 63 Finally Here!!! ......................................... 64 8. ELECTRONIC VETS ........................................................ 65 9. Subscribe Now! Subscription Form ....................................... 71 10. Lest we not forget ........................................................ 72 NAM VET Newsletter Page i Volume 3, Number 7 July 1, 1989 ================================================================= E D I T O R I A L S ================================================================= Alive and Kicking By: Todd Looney Vietnam Veterans' Valhalla 28 Cecil Avenue Suite 179 San Jose, CA 95128 I'm sorry it's been so long since I've made contact with all of you. My thanks to Joe Peck for keeping track of the NAM VET as well as moderating the IVVEC during my absence. Things could not get any more hectic than they have been during the past few months, but it looks like things are going to be settling down soon and I'll be back in the midst of it all with you again. Things were bad enough with all the legal expenses incurred (we are still $3,000 in the hole), and to top it off, the company I was working with folded up and laid everyone off a couple weeks ago. I have since found a new job in Sunnyvale, California. One of the things my boss wants to do here is set up a BBS for our company, which will allow me to get online with the IVVEC and other veteran-related conferences again. I should be up as MICROPLUS in the FidoNet nodelist by the time you read this, and I'll get hooked into the echo's again as a #1 priority. The Valhalla will not be up and running for another couple of months, until I can get out from under the deluge of past-due bills which have nearly drowned us since all of this has started. When I do get things running again, I'll try my best to get the old number reinstated. Hang in there. The new position I've taken as a CAD Systems Sales Engineer at MicroPlus Systems Technologies has presented some new twists to life that I would like to share with you this month. I've been working with the Vietnamese community here in San Jose, California for about three years off and on. The motivating factor for doing that was the same as for my starting the Vietnam Veterans' Valhalla - to try and help myself understand my own feelings through working with others. The owners of MicroPlus are both Vietnamese, having left the country in 1954 when the French were there fighting the Viet Mien. Our receptionist left Saigon in 1975 at the age of three, and our Senior Technician left at the age of 24 in 1985. When I was first hired here they were full of questions about my service in Vietnam and of course I had plenty of questions about them, and how they got here. Mai, our receptionist, remembers very little, but can recall the countless stories told her by her parents and brothers who were considerably older when they made the decision to leave Saigon. Her father moved the family during the night in February 1975 to the Da Nang area where they thought they could get help from the American forces there. Her father, having been employed at MACV in Saigon, would certainly have been killed by the VC or North Vietnamese Army had he stayed in Vietnam after the fall of the South. Mai's family could not get transportation immediately from the US forces stationed around the coastal area so they bought passage along with 38 other refugees aboard a boat designed to carry only 10. They had very little to eat and almost no water, yet survived off the coast of Vietnam for NAM VET Newsletter Page 1 Volume 3, Number 7 July 1, 1989 nearly three weeks before being rescued by a US Navy warship. Lim, our Senior Technician here, recounted the two month-long journey on foot he and his brother made across Vietnam from Camh Rhan Bay to the Thai border, and the harrowing escape they made across the river in the dead of night trying to avoid detection by the patrolling Vietnamese army. He told me of the years of "re- education" many of his older family members were forced to endure, and how they consistently told him they would never kowtow to the Communist leaders of their country. His whole family seemed to work toward one end - the day Lim and his younger brother could escape to the freedom of the United States. He says his family was very disappointed that the Americans left their country in such a mess, but they understood that there was little else that could have been done because of our (USA) own government and the unrest within our own country. He told me that they never felt resentful though, knowing that the US had done what it could at the time against the VC and the North. He is thankful to finally be here, and now is working to get the rest of his family out of Vietnam. Working for Bui and Hien, the owners of MicroPlus, has renewed my faith in man to some extent in that they have struggled to take advantage of the opportunities offered *every* American in this country. They cannot understand why more Americans don't take advantage of what is available for them, but are thankful to be here and are very dedicated to America and its people. There are a number of questions I had for them as well - questions I have never been able to ask because of the difference in cultures, and not wanting to offend or give the wrong impression. Bui and his wife have been very open with their answers and have filled a gap I never knew even existed. If you ever have an opportunity such as the one I have here, I suggest you take it. It's a new experience to be so close to a Vietnamese-American, and I am thankful to have the opportunities it affords in helping me not only to understand what makes *them* tick, but what makes *me* tick as well. Thanks to all of you again for your support in the past, and to those of you who hound Joe for the latest report on what's been going on in my life. I'll be back in the echo soon if not by the time you read this. Until then, Ciao! Todd NAM VET Newsletter Page 2 Volume 3, Number 7 July 1, 1989 A certain magic by: G. Joseph Peck Assistant Editor, NAM VET Sysop - VETLink #1 Pittsfield, MA (413-443-6313) FidoNet 1:321/203 There's a certain magic that comes upon you when you remember what George Bush said when he began his term as our President. "If we forget where we came from, we won't know who we are..." I guess you might say that the "magic" caught me LAST month as I began writing my editorial. I had just come back from our Washington, DC Memorial - The Wall - wrestling again with "the guilty's" and too quickly tried to put something together for our readers. Oh, the thoughts were there - and I really tried my best to capture them but it was as though through a prism I siezed and gave them form on paper (er... in ascii characters). They just didn't seem COMPLETE... To top it all off, I had to learn again how to put this thing together like Todd does... Asking myself constantly "Who am I" I began to look for articles n' stuff for this issue, topic ideas. When my local VVA Chapter asked me to write an editorial for them describing my trip to The Wall, I began to look a little deeper - and the result was "Two Walls", which you'll find further on in this issue. Since July 4th is *THE* day we, as Americans, celebrate our independence, the focus I had chosen for this issue was, basically, our heritage... "Where we came from - and who we are" - Jewish, Black, Chinese, Japanese, Mexican and Canadian veterans; the WHY of incarcerated veterans; better, more definitive answers to the problem of Agent Orange - and how to offer service to the surviving families of deceased Agent Orange veterans (if you know of any, please - please - please, get their name into the Agent Orange registry!!!); and so on and on... As deadline time drew nearer and nearer, I saw comments in IVVEC about how our conversations had drifted away from what they used to be to more pragmatic topics of TODAY; missing, it seemed, were the brother-to-brother conversations and comraderie we often shared there - the "newbie's" on the block, with their questions and comments, were unknowingly fragging our "safe place" - but their "fragging" shouldn't have been able to occur if our place would have been rebuilding the strength within us. WHAT was the common denominator, the or two or three things that could bring us back a little closer again? And then... the Supreme Court and their ruling on the Flag. Now THERE's some controversy! It hasn't really been a quiet month in IVVEC - nor at my office! Did you know: A new court will be established effective September 1, 1989 to hear appeals from the Board of Veterans' Appeal's decisions? If you have been appealing and appealing and NAM VET Newsletter Page 3 Volume 3, Number 7 July 1, 1989 appealing your VA Claim without results you're satisfied with and you feel certain the "evidence of record" substantiates your claim, your attorney can now argue your case before this court. Remember, though, there will be NO opportunity to introduce any NEW evidence or testimony - the case must be argued from the record as it exists. Also, if you chose this level of appeal, you cannot get your political representatives to intercede in/on your behalf because of the separation of powers. I will keep you updated as more details become available. I'm sure many of you noticed that Todd's back and should be back on-line in the very near future!!! I know we all look forward to having him back ... Can you visit a hospitalized veteran this month? July and August, here in the east anyway, are perfect times to bring a picnic basket to a VA hospital and ask for a veteran to share it with you... PERFECT times... Or how about a visit to an incarcerated veteran - or just a short note? How about the hospitalized or incarcerated veterans' family? Are they doing okay? Is there any help you can be to them? If you have time during the upcoming month, think you could write up your favorite Nam-time or military-time story and get it up to us? These "mad-minutes" are 'bout burnin' both Todd n' me out... 'til next month... Show a brother or sister veteran that YOU care!!! Ci'ao for Ni'ao - Joe - NAM VET Newsletter Page 4 Volume 3, Number 7 July 1, 1989 XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX \ \ \ \ \XXXX XXXXX XXXXX.::::::::::::::.XXXXX INCARCERATED XXXX XXXXX XXXXX --------- XXXXX \ \ \ \ \ \ \XXXX XXXXX .XXXXX W W I I XXXXX. VETERANS \ \XXXX XXXXX ::XXXXX --------- XXXXX::. \ \ \ \ XXXX XXXXX :::XXXXX ------------- XXXXX:::. XXXX XXXXX ::::XXXXX K O R E A XXXXX:::: XXXX XXXXX ::::XXXXX ------------- XXXXX:::: XXXX XXXXX ::::XXXXX ------------- XXXXX:::: XXXX XXXXX ::::XXXXX V I E T N A M XXXXX:::: XXXX XXXXX ::::XXXXX ------------- XXXXX:::: XXXX XXXXX ::::XXXXX::::::::::::::::XXXXX:::: XXXX XXXXX ::::XXXXX::::::::::::::::XXXXX:::: XXXX XXXXX ::::XXXXX::' `::XXXXX:::: XXXX XXXXX ::::XXXXX:: ::XXXXX:::: XXXX XXXXX ::::XXXXX `..........''`XXXXX:::: XXXX XXXXX ::::XXXXX .:(O) . (O):. XXXXX:::' XXXX XXXXX ::' XXXXX .. XXXXX:: XXXX XXXXX .:' XXXXX . .. XXXXX: XXXX XXXXX :: XXXXX . .. ` XXXXX XXXX XXXXX :: XXXXX ' '.. ` XXXXX. XXXX XXXXX :: XXXXX" ' ` XXXXX . XXXX XXXXX ``. XXXXX ' . . . ` XXXXX '. ........., XXXX XXXXX :: XXXXX'' ..''.'''. XXXXX .' '.XXXX XXXXX :: XXXXX" ':.:'' XXXXX .'' .:::'XXXX XXXXX :: XXXXX:.. .:XXXXX.'' .::::' .XXXX XXXXX :: XXXXX '.. ..:' XXXXX ..:' . .:::'XXXX XXXXX ....::'XXXXX ':::::;' XXXXX .:''. .:::' XXXX XXXXX .:::::' XXXXX .: XXXXX :'. ..:... XXXX XXXXX.::' :: XXXXX: PREPARED TO XXXXX .'' ''.. XXXX XXXXX::' :: XXXXX`: FIGHT XXXXX.' '.XXXX XXXXX' :: XXXXX ``. XXXXX XXXX XXXXX '' XXXXX PREPARED TO XXXXX XXXX XXXXX :: XXXXX DIE ...'XXXXX XXXX XXXXX :: XXXXX `...' XXXXX XXXX XXXXX `..' XXXXX .' XXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXX /\ .' .' XXXX XXXXX /\ \ . . XXXX XXXXX / \ \...' `. .' XXXX XXXXX / NOT PREPARED TO BE DESERTED XXXX XXXXX / .'.' . .`.' XXXX XXXXX / ~ | : : : . XXXX XXXXX / |`. : : . .__________ XXXX XXXXX / ~ ~ ||.` ` : || \ / XXXX XXXXX / WRITE OR VISIT AN INCARCERATED VETERAN SOON ! XXXX XXXXX / ~ || . .'. / / XXXX XXXXX/ ~ ~ ~|| ||/ / XXXX XXXXX ~ ~ ~ || || / XXXX XXXXX || || / XXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXX \_________XXXXX________|| XgjpX XXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXX NAM VET Newsletter Page 5 Volume 3, Number 7 July 1, 1989 ================================================================= A M E R I C A N P R I S O N E R S ================================================================= US Department of Justice Report VETS IN PRISON US Dept of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin Vets in Prison ----------------------------------------------------------------- On 10-10-78, The Bureau of Justice Statistics, then the Nat'l Criminal Justice Information and Statistics Service (NCJISS) of the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, rec'd a Presidential directive to collect information on incarcerated vets. Nothing was known then about Vietnam vets. Nothing was known then about Vietnam vets in prison. Estimates of their numbers varied widely. Information about the circumstances of their confinement was virtually non-existent. The unique nature of the war in Vietnam and the controversy surrounding it produced a very different homecoming for Vietnam vets than for vets of earlier conflicts. Many experienced serious adjustment difficulties leading, it was felt, to a greater likelihood of incarceration. Specific information on incarcerated vets was needed to develop programs and policies shaped to their circumstances. In response to the Presidential directive, NCJISS included a series of questions on military service and vets' status in its 2d quinquennial Survey of Inmates of State Correctional Facilities. This survey and its companion Census off State Correctional Facilities were conducted in 11-79 for NCJISS by the US Bureau of the Census. The survey, which consisted of personal interviews with a stratified random sample of 12,000 prisoners in State facilities across the country, gathered information on the present offense and length of sentence, criminal history, drug and alcohol history, personal and family characteristics, employment, education, and income. The Census of State Correctional Facilities was conducted through mail questionnaires for all facilities operated by State depts of corrections it measured inmate population by sex, race and ethnicity, physical conditions of the facility including degree of security, capacity and overcrowding, prison staff, health care and inmate programs. This bulletin is the 1st presentation of data from these 2 sources. Future bulletins will cover other topics from the 1979 prison census and inmate survey. Benjamin H Renshaw III, Acting Director ----------------------------------------------------------------- In 11-79, about 1/4th of all State prisoners were vets of military service. [In 4-80, Federal prisons housed 4,883 vets representing 1 of every 5 Federal prisoners, but the era in which they served is not available.] Among the total of 65,500 vets in such prisons-- > 19,500 served in the pre-Vietnam era. NAM VET Newsletter Page 6 Volume 3, Number 7 July 1, 1989 > 39,500 served in the Vietnam era (8-64 to 7-75); of this number, only 13,000 had been on duty in Southeast Asia [SEA]. > 6,000 served in the post-Vietnam era; of these, 1,200 were serving time for a crime committed while in the service. Vets in State prisons at that time were as well educated as vets in the general population, but they were much more likely to have received a less-than-honorable discharge. Typically, they had been convicted of a violent crime and were serving a lengthy sentence. At the time of the offense for which they were convicted, more than a 1/4th were under the influence of drugs, but more than 1/2 had been drinking. Vietnam vets: There has been a special interest in the number and characteristics of Vietnam vets who are in prison. Data from the survey can only partially address these topics. The survey was a snapshot at a moment of time, 11-79. At that moment, the median age of Vietnam vets in prison was 28, and they had been out of the service for an average of 8 years. It is impossible to know how many Vietnam era vets were imprisoned and released before the survey took place. Similarly, Some vets have entered prison since the survey, but their numbers are probably not as large as those who served time prior to the survey, because Vietnam-era vets are beginning to leave the age groups from which prison populations are primarily drawn. At the time of the survey, Vietnam-era vets who served in SEA made up less than 5% of the inmates of State prisons. Only about a 1/3d of the prisoners who were vets of the Vietnam era actually saw duty in SEA, a smaller proportion than in the general population. This is surprising since it had been assumed that this group would have felt most acutely the difficulties of transition to civilian life. Vet characteristics: On the whole, vets were less likely than non-vets to be in prison. [Comparative data for Vets in the US population are derived from the US Vets Administration, 1979 Annual Report.] This was true for all pre-Vietnam and Vietnam-era vets over age 25. Only among inmates under 25 did vets make up a higher proportion than they did in the same age group in the general population. Even so, vets made up only 13% of these younger prisoners. 5 of every 9 of the younger vets in prison served during the Vietnam era; the other 4 served later. The younger vets from the Vietnam era were quite young--under 21--during that era. At the time of the survey, the age ranges of the 3 imprisoned vet groups overlapped somewhat, but their average ages were quite different. The median age for-- > Pre-Vietnam vets was 45, which is close to the median age (48) of all vets and of all Korean War vets > Vietnam-era vets was 28, closest to that of non-vet inmates > Post-Vietnam vets (all volunteers) was 22. Compared to other vets in State prisons, pre-Vietnam vets were-- > Less likely to have graduated from high school > More likely to have been incarcerated previously NAM VET Newsletter Page 7 Volume 3, Number 7 July 1, 1989 > Likely to have been serving a longer sentence > More likely to have been separated or divorced. Each of these factors is primarily a function of their greater age. Compared to pre-Vietnam vets in State prisons, Vietnam and post- Vietnam vets were-- > Less likely ever to have married > More likely to have used drugs Education: Regardless of age, as a group vets in prison share many traits. They also share most of these traits with non-vets. A striking exception is education. Vets in prison are much better educated that non-vet prisoners. To some extent, this is a function of age, but it also reflects the educational entry requirements of the military services, Among State prisoners, 60% of all non-vets have completed high school. Among post-Vietnam vets, who on the average were 4 years younger than the non-vets, 55% had completed high school. Vets in prison are much better educated as vets who are not in prison. The median educational attainment of vets in prison was 12.3 years; that of vets outside prison was 12.6 years. Minorities: Among non-vets in prison, minority groups were highly over- represented vets in prison were much less so. About 50% of the non-vets but only 33% of the vets were black. About 10 percent of the non-vets but only 7% of the vets were Hispanic. (Among Vietnam-era vets, blacks and whites were equally likely to have served in SEA.) Type of discharge from service: In the way they left military service, vets in prison parted dramatically from vets in the general population. More than 90% of all servicemen receive an honorable discharge. This was true for only 50% of the vets in prison. Roughly 40% of vets in State prisons received less-than-honorable discharges, but for those who served in SEA the percentage was 30. The large number of less-than-honorable discharges among vets in prison was undoubtedly related to their criminal history while in the military. A 4th of the vets were serving or had previously served time for an offense committed in the military. A 1/5th of the post-Vietnam vets were currently serving time for a crime committed in the military. Vietnam-era vets who were on duty in SEA were no more likely than other vets to have been sentenced for a crime committed in the military. Pre-Arrest income: The high rate of less-than-honorable discharges plus the substantial minority to come out of the service with a conviction surely added to the employment difficulties experienced by vets prior to incarceration. About 14% of the vets reported no income for the year prior to their arrest. Among those who did have an income, it averaged $7,861, somewhat more than the pre-arrest NAM VET Newsletter Page 8 Volume 3, Number 7 July 1, 1989 income of non-vets but well below the median income of all males ($10,972). Job history: A 1/4th of the vets in prison were without a job at the time of arrest. Well over 1/2 of this group (but 3/4ths of the pre-Vietnam vets) were not even looking for work. It is not known whether the large number not even looking for work had quit out of discouragement, were unable to work, or were engaged in illegal activities. The 1979 unemployment rate for vets in the general population was 3.4%, but this comparison is quite rough because joblessness at time of arrest cannot be translated into an unemployment rate in the conventional of the term; the vets in prison were arrested at various times over a span of many years. Nevertheless, these vets had been loosely attached to the job economy. Crimes: Most vets in State prisons were convicted of a violent crime. In this, they resembled non-vets. A violent crime was the principal offense of 60% of all inmates regardless of vet status. A 1/3d of both vets and non-vets were in prison for a property crime. Drug and public order offenses each were the chief crime of 5% of both groups. Among specific crimes, vets were more likely than non-vets to have been convicted of murder, rape, or assault but less likely to have been convicted of robbery or burglary. White vets were more likely than white non-vets to be serving time for a violent offense (57% vs. 49%). Vet status made no difference for blacks; 2/3ds of both groups had been convicted of a violent crime. White vets appeared to have been slightly less likely than white non-vets to have committed a drug offense, but there was no apparent difference among blacks. The same proportions of white and black vets were serving time for a public order offense. Era of service played little part in the type of crime for which vets were serving. In all 3 groups, the proportion convicted of violent crime was similar. However, post-Vietnam vets were more likely than other vets to have committed a property crime and less likely to have committed a drug offense. Sentences: As a group, vets were serving longer terms than non-vets. Once more, the difference is probably due to their relatively older years. Older prisoners tend to be serving longer sentences because those long sentences have held them in prison while persons their age with shorter sentences have done their time and been released. To a limited extent, this same phenomenon Shows up in the pattern of life-in-prison sentences. About 12% of the Vietnam-era vets, 17% of the pre-Vietnam vets, but only 2% of the post-Vietnam vets were serving life sentences. Criminal careers: There were no major differences in the criminal careers of vets in the 3 eras: > A 1/4th of all vets had committed a crime while in the service, > About a 4th of e@ch group had served time before they entered NAM VET Newsletter Page 9 Volume 3, Number 7 July 1, 1989 the service, but in some cases the crime was a misdemeanor and the sentence was served in jail rather than prison. > A 1/3d of all imprisoned vets had been on probation at least once before age 20. The percentages for each group were pre-Vietnam 17, Vietnam 36, and post-Vietnam 45. Prior incarceration: As another consequence of vets' age differences, the following had been incarcerated prior to their current sentence: > 50% of the post-Vietnam vets > 60% of the Vietnam-era vets > 75% of the pre-Vietnam vets. Prior incarceration: Compared with non-vet prisoners, vets in prison were slightly less prone to drug abuse and slightly more prone to alcohol abuse: > About 75% of the vets and 80% of the non-vets had used some drug at least once in their lifetime. > About 1/2 the vets and somewhat more than 1/2 the non-vets (48 vs. 56%) had used drugs regularly (at least once a week). > A 1/5th of each group had used heroin regularly. However, vets were less likely than non-vets to have been under the influence of drugs at the time of their offense. Among State prisoners, Vietnam-era and post-Vietnam vets were far more likely to have used drugs than pre-Vietnam vets, who for the most part came of age before the advent of the drug culture. A large majority of the Vietnam-era and post-Vietnam vets used marijuana, but 25% of the Vietnam-era vets used heroin vs. only 10% of the post-Vietnam vets. Vietnam-era vets who served in SEA were only slightly more likely to have used heroin than other Vietnam-era vets. All in all, a 1/4th of the Vietnam-era vets, a 1/5th of the non-vets, and a 1/10th of the vets of other eras had used heroin regularly at some point in their lives but not necessarily while in the service. A 4th of all vets in State prisons, including a 1/3d of Vietnam- vet, had developed a drug or alcohol problem while in the service. Most of these had served during or after the Vietnam era. 1/2 developed a drug problem, 1/3d developed an alcohol problem, and a 1/6th had problems with both drugs and alcohol. Drugs played a more important role in the lives of non-vets than of vets, but the reverse was true for alcohol. This held up even for the post-Vietnam vets, who on the average are younger than the non-vets. About 40% of the post-Vietnam-era vets, 33% of the Vietnam era vets, and 25% of the pre-Vietnam-era vets reported themselves to have been heavy daily drinkers. non-vets were no more likely than pre-Vietnam vets to be heavy drinkers. Vietnam- era vets stationed in SEA drank no more heavily than others who served during that era. Fully 1/2 of all vets had been drinking just prior to their crime. The comparable figure for non-vets was only slightly less. Branch of service: Among all vets in State prisons, 59% had been in the Army, 18% in the Marine Corps, 14% in the Navy, 9% in the Air Force, and a small number in the Coast Guard. Former Marines were the most likely to have served during the Vietnam era and to have been in the combat zone. NAM VET Newsletter Page 10 Volume 3, Number 7 July 1, 1989 Service-related disability: About a 1/10th of all vets in State prisons had been officially recognized by the Vets Administration as having a service-related disability. Vets who had served in SEA were more likely than the other imprisoned vets to be disabled. Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletins are prepared principally by the staff of the Bureau. Carol B Kalish, chief of policy analysis, edits the bulletins. Marilyn Marbrook, head of the Bureau publications unit, administers their publication, assisted by Julie A. Ferguson. This bulletin is based on material developed by Mimi Cantwell and Wilfred Masamura, both of the Bureau of the Census. 11-81, NCJ-79232 To obtain copies of reports or to be added to the bulletin mailing list, write to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, Washng'tn, D.C. 20531 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Table 1: Number and% of vets in State prisons, by era of service, 1979 Number % Total 274,564 100.0 Vets 65,283 23.7 V'nam-era 39,342 14.3 Served in SEA 12,857 4.7 Served elsewhere 26,385 9.6 Pre-V'nam-era 19,498 7.1 Post-V'nam-era 8,008 2.2 Non-vets 208,719 76.O Not avaiIable 562 0.2 -------------------------------------------------------------- Table 2. Vets and non-vets in State prisons, by % in each group with specified characteristic and by age and sentence length, 1979 Pre-V'nam V'nam Post-V'nam Characteristic vets vets vets Non-vets Black 28 35 35 52 Hispanic 7 7 7 10 Not working at time of arrest 24 26 30 31 Convicted of vlolent orime 61 60 52 57 Regular heroin user 13 26 10 22 Heavy daily drinker 27 33 41 26 Less than honorable discharge 39 46 59 N/A Disabled 10 10 2 N/A Age (median years) 45.3 28.5 22.1 26.4 Max sentence (median years) 11.5 10.l 7.8 8.4 NAM VET Newsletter Page 11 Volume 3, Number 7 July 1, 1989 ================================================================= M I A / P O W ================================================================= THE POW QUESTION - WHAT IS TO BE DONE? Input by: TOM WIEBER So. MD Christian 301 862-3160 HST Calif., MD Formatted for NAM VET by: VETLink #1 The following is from an article in "BRAVO Veterans Outlook". June 1989 issue, written by TASK FORCE OMEGA, INC.: The Prisoner of War issue is one in which many of the basic facts have been misplaced in the overall picture of the Vietnam War. These facts American citizens. We know for a fact the following: Of the Prisoners of War (POW), Missing in Action (MIA), and Killed in Action-Body Not Recovered (KIABNR), 80% are PILOTS and FLIGHTCREWS, only 20% of those unaccounted for AMERICANS are ground personnel. This makes this group of POW/MIA/KIABNR's better educated and trained in all areas including escape and evasion as well as captivity training. They were young, healthy, free-thinking, flexible, and aggressive, the best this country had to offer with a very strong will to adapt and survive. There were no Anzio's or Guadacanal's where thousands of men died in the surf, their remains carried out to sea with no way to ever cover them. There were no ships sunk with hundreds of men going down with their ship in vast bodies of water as happened in World War II. There are men and women, military personnel and civilians, who remain throughout Southeast Asia, both alive and dead. This includes the countries of North Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, and China. At the end of the War there were 117 documented and confirmed POW's who were knowingly left behind in captivity. According to the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIAM), to be a confirmed POW, there must be two source. The remains of some 47 of those confirmed POW's have been returned over the years leaving 70 in enemy hands. Our government calls these "discrepancy cases", a term used to negate the fact that, either dead or alive, the communists have them. There were over 600 American citizens lost in Laos. With the exception of 9 men who were captured inside Laos by the Vietnamese, transported to Hanoi within a matter of weeks and released there during Operation Homecoming, no POW's held by the communist Pathet Lao were ever released from captivity. Our involvement in Southeast Asia began, in part, because of the void formed when the French left that area of the world, coupled with a request for assistance from an ally who was being threatened with invasion. In the beginning, U.S. presence in both Laos and Vietnam was minimal. Within a matter of a few years, our advisor corps had grown considerably. By 1964, when then President Johnson issued the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which catapulted us into a wide ranging conventional war, some American citizens had spent considerable length of time locked up in captivity. Ultimately, President Johnson would find himself, and NAM VET Newsletter Page 12 Volume 3, Number 7 July 1, 1989 his administration, making military decisions based solely on political considerations. Quite possibly the most damaging of these North Vietnam. or to his sanctuaries in certain areas of Laos and Cambodia. When he broadcast this decision to the world, he made it perfectly clear that he intended to conduct a no-win war, a fact that was not lost in any way to the communists. It also meant that our military was not allowed to utilize its full conventional capacity to win in the least amount of time while suffering the lowest number of casualties. The reality was that U.S. personnel fought the War with one hand effectively tied behind its back while being forced to use its enemies rules of engagement. By 1972, the American public was totally fed up with our nation's longest War, as well as the manner in which it was being waged. Then President Nixon was faced with the need to extricate the U.S. from Southeast Asia or politically commit suicide. The end result was negotiating strategy so weak that we could not even obtain one single item the U.S. wanted from the settlement, the return of all POW's, the repatriation of remains of the dead, and as full and complete accounting as humanly possible for the rest. By December 1972, the Vietnamese walked away from the peace negotiations and the only recourse available to President Nixon was to order massive air strikes on Hanoi and Haiphong over Christmas. This act, literally, bombed the North Vietnamese back to the conference table. The end result was the 1973. The signatories to the Paris Peace Accords, and later those to the Lao Cease fire Agreement, add to the abandonment of our fellow countrymen. There were only four parties to the Paris Peace Accords. They were the South Vietnamese and the United States on one side, and the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong on the other. There were no provisions for those men and women held captive by the Pathet Lao. In 1975, when the cease fire agreement went into effect in Laos, there were only three parties to it, the Pathet Lao, who we fought, the Royal Lao, who we supported, and the Neutralist Lao. The U.S. was not a party in any way to that agreement, which left those POW's in apolitical limbo. The Pathet Lao stated right from the beginning that if a prisoner was captured and held in Laos, then, he or she would be released by the Laotians in Laos. The Vietnamese are an extremely shrewd people with a proven track record of using any and all means to achieve their goals. Toward the end of the negotiation process, the Vietnamese presented the U.S. with a partial list of POW's, purposely denying having some of the prisoners they knew the U.S. was sure to know they did have. If the Asians had simply left off their list the names the U.S. was not absolutely sure were being held by the Hanoi regime, then the U.S. might have unwittingly accepted their word for it. As it was, the U.S. was forced intended to obtain the release of all its countrymen. This process actually began three days after the peace agreement was signed and was terminated in a matter of months. During Operation Homecoming, the Vietnamese returned 591 men. In addition to not receiving any POW's from captivity in Laos, the only POW's returned from Cambodia were those held by the Vietnamese inside that country. Also conspicuous by there absence were those WOMEN known to be POW's along with WAR WOUNDED AND MENTALLY HANDICAPPED. THERE WAS NOT ONE PERSON MISSING AN EYE, EAR, ARM, OR LEG. THERE WERE NO SEVERE BURN CASES, NOR WERE THERE ANY SEVERE MENTAL CASES. Given the type of warfare fought, the number of air casualties, the high velocity weapons used and NAM VET Newsletter Page 13 Volume 3, Number 7 July 1, 1989 vicious captivity, it is reasonable to expect that some of our POW's would have suffered those types of mental and physical wounds and survived in spite of them. Not only did we receive surprises by omission, but we also received back some POW's that we had no idea were in captivity in the first place! There were several pilots that were believed to have died in their aircraft and who, by reason of their incident, probably never could be recovered. This includes one pilot whose aircraft was struck by a surface-to-air missile and immediately exploded while six other one saw anything or anyone leave the fireball, nor did the cameras record that man's miraculous escape, even though it was a clear and sunny day. He was immediately listed as Killed in Action-Body Not Recovered, a righteous decision based on all the evidence, but totally wrong. Another surprise was an American civilian whose existence in the Plantation Prison Camp was not known by the other prisoners, and whose name was not on the Vietnamese list of POW's to be repatriated. Operation Homecoming was already underway when he was discovered by accident, huddled in an isolated section of the prison, a section that had been sealed off by the Vietnamese some months earlier when the prisoners had been consolidated. The POW's had been restricted from entering this secured area and only after observing guards on several occasions taking food into it and returning later with an empty tray did one Air Force pilot chance retribution by slipping into it. The other POW's, mostly well known and senior rank, forced the Vietnamese to return that civilian with them by refusing to leave the Plantation unless he went with them. If it had not been for the curiosity of one POW and the courage of all of them to fight for that man's freedom, then undoubtedly, he would not have been returned with the others, and would have been among those others who were abandoned. Since the conclusion of our government is that the returned POW's brought out the names of everyone held in captivity. In reality, of the 591 men who did return, only 387 of them were known to each other! These men were held in North Vietnam in the greater Hanoi Hilton prison complex. In fact, there were men whose names were scratched into the walls of prison cells in this prison who did not return in 1973. Their names were not included on any list of those who Died in Captivity (DICT), nor have their remains been returned to the U.S. In a similar vein, those same returnees were not aware of the 9 men captured by Vietnamese in Laos and moved to North Vietnam immediately until shortly before their release because those 9 men were kept isolated from the rest. The surprise of learning their camp housed men heretofore not known to the general population was quite a shock. It also proved to be an asset to the U.S. Government. Our officials were able to claim the "repatriation of those men from Laos"by these 9 men, and was a ploy that worked for several years. Another little known fact about the returned POW's is that they came from 13 separate camps primarily in North and South Vietnam. Our government intelligence agencies are able to locate and identify only 9 of those 13 camps. In other words, we received POW's from 4 camps whose location was totally unknown to our intelligence experts. Besides holding locations throughout Southeast Asia existed without the knowledge of our government? And in turn, how many Prisoners of War were held in these camps? The DIAM has known since the midİ1970's that the North Vietnamese classified captive Americans into 5 categories because this information was passed to them by a high level Vietnamese official who defected to the U.S. shortly after the peace NAM VET Newsletter Page 14 Volume 3, Number 7 July 1, 1989 agreement went into effect. It is also known that the DIAM was able to confirm the truthfulness of his information through other means. The categories are: Progressives (those men who yielded to their captors in order to obtain better food and treatment), Reactionaries (those men who resisted their captors in every possible way, those POW's who would be returned, war wounded / mentally handicapped, and known dead. The question of why the communists would continue to hold Americans years after our military involvement ceased, frequently arises. The reasons are both deceivingly simple, and at the same time, quite complex. What do they want? They want money-aid from,and trade with our country. In addition, they want a minimum of $3.25billion in reconstruction aid. War reparations, if you will, which is in the amount promised to the Hanoi regime by former President Nixon, and which was part of a greater aid package for all Southeast Asian countries. The total figure was in excess of $7 billion to be furnished over a ranks high on their list. Face saving is extremely important to Asians, and as strange as it may seem to us, they will not feel "legitimate" in their own eyes until the United States recognizes them. The fact that we have not done so to date continues to gnaw at them terribly. When the U.S. pulled out of Southeast Asia, millions of dollars in equipment was left behind. Without knowledgeable people to maintain it, it is useless to them. The technical knowledge possessed by our people ranging from the lowliest private on up, is reason enough to warrant holding them. Both time and life mean different things to Asians than they do to us. We Americans are an extremely impatient people. We think in terms of minutes, days, and months, while Asians think in terms of years, decades, and centuries. Likewise, life is highly revered by us while to them it is just another commodity to bargain with because, in a communist society, human beings are considered no more than educated animals to be used for the benefit of the state. In the same vein, communists are not restricted by our sense of lie,or use any means at his disposal to achieve his desired goal. Once the best deal possible has been extracted, then, and only then, will POW's been returned. There will be no explanations or apologies, just men and women coming home in various sized groups from throughout Southeast Asia, over a period of time, in the same manner as did the French Legionnaires. The communist policy toward prisoners, criminals, and jail is also alien to us. While we protect our criminal's individual rights to the extreme, under a communist government, a criminal has no individual rights. In their society, once a person is placed in prison for a major offense, he becomes a non-person. In other words, to his family and friends, he is dead. They morn his passing and he can literally never go home again. He is also subjected to the harshest and cruelest treatment imaginable. In our society, such treatment would never be tolerated. During the War, the communists referred to captive Americans as "Yankee Air Pirates", "Bandits", and "War Criminals", or simply criminals, and even threatened publicly to try them as such. In the Asians, eyes, our men and women had no status, and their only value was to be used for local propaganda and to wring whatever concessions possible out of the War,s end, when inquiries are made but our officials about American POW's, by their own definition, they can disclaim holding any of them. Another theory, which has not been politically pursued by our NAM VET Newsletter Page 15 Volume 3, Number 7 July 1, 1989 government, is that the communists have given local citizenship and names to our prisoners. This tack would allow them to use the ruse of nationality to confuse any negotiations for their release. Through political games and maneuvering, the communists have found ways to justify and deny holding POW's back. Are they prisoners or criminals? Are they Americans or Asians? Those questions can be answered in part by the experience of two Americans who crossed into Laos from Thailand in October 1988, to pass out information about a POW reward offer for an Asian who brings an American prisoner out of captivity. They were held for 41 days, first in the village where they were captured, and later, in Vientaine, where they were moved to. Their interrogators repeatedly asked, "Why did you come to Laos"? To that question they would answer that they were there to try to help American servicemen from the Vietnam War. Over and over again, the communists insisted that THEY ARE CRIMINALS". They also stated repeatedly that even though the War had been over for 13 years, and relations between the Laotian government and the U.S. had improved,they still consider them to be criminals. Both statements are positive in nature, leaving no doubt. During these same negotiations, it became perfectly clear to the Americans that the U.S. government was not negotiating for LIVE POW's, but instead, only for remains, because the Laotian officials told both of them that there was a contract between the two governments for crash site investigations. In the words of the Laotian: "We have a contract with the U.S. government to go to crash sites and dig for bones". The Laotian asked the two of them if they knew about that contract, and when they said yes, that they did, the Laotian would ask, "Then why do you come to Laos"? Their answer to the Laotian was always the same, "Because we are not interested in bones, we are looking for LIVE Americans". The Laotian would again state: "THEY ARE CRIMINALS". The names game, which is played out by Asians and American officials, has gone on since the first U.S. citizen was incarcerated in Southeast Asia in 1961. Even though the labels have been well documented since the beginning, the U.S. continues not to acknowledge the Asian terminology or the philosophy behind it. A question not frequently asked, but one which should be, is what would happen if Prisoners of War were allowed to return to the United States? Quite simply, it would cause political chaos. Both major political parties, four former Presidents plus the present President, along with all of their Vice-Presidents, Secretaries of State and Defense, other bureaucrats, and all members of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives will have to answer for their actions, or lack of them. Based on known facts, there is no doubt that a substantial number of American citizens were wantonly abandoned throughout Southeast Asia by officials of this government. Over the years key officials at all levels have stated their beliefs that live POW's are surviving in communist captivity. The three highest ranking officials in the Reagan administration to do so give us some interesting insights. During an Evans and Novak political forum, former National Security Advisor Robert "Bud" McFarlane stated on October 9. 1985 in response to a direct question that: "there is quite a lot of evidence given by people who have no ulterior motives and no reason to lie, and they are telling things they have seen. I do think there has to be... there have to be live Americans there. What you need to do is to have better intelligence in Vietnam. But, I wouldn't pretend to NAM VET Newsletter Page 16 Volume 3, Number 7 July 1, 1989 you that we've done enough to even start. and that's bad, and that's a failure". During a very heated discussion with several U.S. Congressmen in the office of one of them, former CIA Director William Cases stated in but there is no groundswell of public 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"? Lastly, former Director of the DIAM, Lt. General Eugene Tighe. testified several times before various congressional committees. under oath. in regard to information collected by his agency. He testified that: "During my tenure as Director, I saw more information on POW's than any other man in the world. I was convinced then. and I am convinced today. that Americans are being held against their will by the communists in Southeast Asia. He further added that he requested and received a daily update on this subject. When asked by a committee member how many POW's would he estimate are still alive, the general stated: "There could be 50 or 60 in Vietnam, maybe more". At this time the congressmen did not pursue how many POW's were also being held in Laos, or any other country, for that matter. The first time General Tighe told the House Subcommittee on Pacific and Asian Affairs that live Americans remained in Southeast Asia was on June 5th, 1979, early into his tenure as the director. He continued to testify about living prisoners throughout his time in the Defense Intelligence Agency, but it was not until his testimony of June 25th, 1981 that the importance of what he was telling congress registered on them. Since his great shame on our nation. During the Vietnam War, American military personnel were expected to adhere to a very rigid code of conduct, which was established after the Korean War and which has since been modified to reflect more realistic expectations of them. Enforcement of such a code upon our military carries with it a reciprocal responsibility upon our government. The obligation is legally binding, and not one which our elected or appointed officials can shirk for any reason. It is supported by the U.S. Hostage Act, which states that it is the responsibility of the President to take all action, short of war, to obtain the freedom of any citizen held hostage against their will by a foreign power. There are three basic ways our fellow countrymen can return to us. Each one carries with it a different set of short and long term ramifications which will have far reaching affects. One way they can be repatriated is through government-to-government negotiations. In the short run, if POW's return through this channel, there will be a scream go up across the country, the like of which has not been heard since World War I; but in reality, it will not be that strong or that longlasting. In the long run, little will be done to protect future generations from suffering such abandonment. The next way they can be returned is through a quasi-government operation. In other words, if it is successful, the government can take credit for it; and if it fails, then it's just another crazy private sector effort. In the short run, there will be a greater uproar which will last longer and cause some major changes within the bureaucracy. In the long run, it will not correct those flaws in the system which permitted this travesty to evolve in the first place. The last way in which American POW's can return home is through responsible private sector efforts. In the short run, this country will erupt in a rage which will not easily subside. In NAM VET Newsletter Page 17 Volume 3, Number 7 July 1, 1989 the long run, it will be the most healthy for this nation because it will trigger a wide range of much needed major reforms. It will also give us the opportunity to regain control of our runaway bureaucracy. Should President Bush choose to do what he is legally and morally obligated to, he has a wide variety of options available to him. In the words of former Secretary of State George Schultz in the mid-80's: "his options range from ransom to black helicopters in the night. The use of diplomatic channels, both direct and indirect, is an unused resource to date. It is important that the President authorize high level negotiations and empower his representative with the ability to do whatever is necessary to gain our POW's release. He also can Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia to intercede in our behalf. Both Vietnam and Laos continue to secure low-interest loans through the Import/Export Bank and World Bank. Since U.S. tax dollars substantially support both institutions, we, as a nation,can economically squeeze them for return of our countrymen, both living and dead. We could also throw them an economic carrot by partially lifting the trade embargo on Vietnam and the aid ban on Laos. By doing so, we could entice the Asians into a quid-pro-quo arrangement. The barter system is their way of life, so this system would make perfect sense to them. Military operations by our government to snatch Prisoners of War out of captivity are viable alternatives to political negotiations. That is, IF the United States government has the courage to do so. There is no doubt the American public would support a successful operation to recover POW's in the same overwhelming way they supported President Reagan when he ordered the invasion of Grenada and the bombing of Libya. Yes, it would mean acknowledgment that our government knowingly deserted American fighting men and civilians to a fate worse then them to that living hell as a non-person in a foreign land with no legal recourse or hope for reprieve. Would the Asians kill the remaining POW's if some of the prisoners were liberated by whatever means available? No, probably not. Except for habitual criminals convicted of major crimes who prove to be incorrigible, it is considered to be greater punishment to imprison them for life than to execute them. Further, it is still the intent of the Asians to wring whatever concessions possible out of our government. The plain fact is, that they know they can get more for a living POW than a dead one. More for remains then just information... and they will get nothing for nothing. Since the discovery of POW's would break the current stalemate on the live Prisoner of War issue, the Asians probably would not be too unhappy if all of a sudden a handful of prisoners showed up on the six o'clock news. After all, that action alone would cause serious negotiation to begin anew on behalf of our countrymen. The policy of the United States government is: "even though we have thus far been unable to prove live Americans remain in Southeast Asia, we operate under the assumption that some are". When general Tighe was asked if the criteria has been met by our intelligence agencies to has. The problem is that there is a mind set to debunk the evidence rather than to prove it". He added that every time the requirements are met, they are then raised, when they are met again, they are raised again. The evidence that filled those requirements to prove prisoners exist today includes thousands of firstİhand eyewitness refugee reports, satellite NAM VET Newsletter Page 18 Volume 3, Number 7 July 1, 1989 photography, U.S. military operations sources, and other American citizens who were POW's in captivity in the late 1970's and early 1980's. The question is that if the U.S. government, with all of its modern high-tech intelligence capability, has not been able to prove the existence of living POW's, then it is because of incompetence or lack of desire to prove it? Obviously something is wrong, drastically wrong, when stated policy of our government concedes, and has conceded for the last eight years, the high probability that Americans are still alive, and yet the mightiest nation in the world cannot obtain their release. In the final analysis, it does not matter if there are hundreds of Americans in captivity today, or if there is only one. What does matter is they continue to be held against their will and they have the right to freedom. THINK ABOUT IT! (Late note from TOM: Today. 8 June 1989, an early morning news release reported that a Japanese Monk, released from prison in Hanoi after 13 years, reported that he saw 5 or 6 American Prisoners of War being forced to work on construction sites. The guards referred to these prisoners as "America". Get your congressmen off their duffs to get these and other POW's home NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) Note from Joe: See VIETNAM CAPTIVE SIGHTS POW's following! NAM VET Newsletter Page 19 Volume 3, Number 7 July 1, 1989 FREED VIETNAM CAPTIVE SIGHTS POW'S! Input by: TOM WIEBER So. MD Christian 301 862-3160 HST Calif., MD Formatted for NAM VET by: VETLink #1 POW/MIA NEWS EXTRACTED FROM PRINTED MEDIA WASHINGTON TIMES, 9 JUNE 1989 MIAs still alive says freed monk TOKYO -- A Japanese monk released recently after 13 years in a Vietnamese prison said there were American soldiers held with him, a news service reported yesterday. Iwanobu Yoshida, 65, imprisoned for political reasons, said there were five or six American soldiers alive when he was released in January. "There were about 10 Americans when I was first captured...I heard all of them were beaten and tortured as I was. The Vietnamese government, which has returned 196 bodies but has denied Mr. Yoshida's claim, has repeatedly told Washington there are no American prisoners in Vietnam. WASHINGTON POST, 10 JUNE 1989 FREED VIETNAM CAPTIVE REPORTS SEEING U.S. POWS TOKYO, 9 June -- A Japanese Buddhist monk recently released from a Vietnamese prison camp has said he is certain that several white men held with him were U.S. prisoners daughter reported today. Iwanobu Yoshida, 65, has been hospitalized since his release from Vietnam in January and is apparently too frail emotionally, mentally and physically to discuss his imprisonment, which he told his daughter included electric shock torture and regular beatings. But in a telephone interview from her hometown of Sapporo, Keiko Takatsuka, 37, said her father told her he was imprisoned for three years just before his release in a cell with about seven other prisoners, including three men who said they were Americans. If true, Yoshida's revelations would mark the first actual sightings of American POWs in Vietnam. Yoshida described the three as 40 to 50 years old and said that everyday they were taken to work on a prison construction crew. Yoshida suffered a stroke three years ago and was unable to work but he told his daughter he survived because the Americans brought him bananas they collected during work. Yoshida also said that, before his stroke, he had been held in several other prison camps where he saw many Americans. "There are still lots of them," Takatsuka quoted her father as saying. Veterans' organizations and families of missing servicemen have long charged that Vietnam is holding Americans shot down or captured during the Vietnam War. Vietnam has steadfastly denied it. In January, the outgoing Reagan Administration issued a report saying it had found no evidence that Americans were prisoners in North Vietnam after 1973. But the Defense Department reports also missing in Southeast Asia are dead. A U.S. official said today that the account is "Potentially sensational" because it appears to be an eyewitness account. But officials here cautioned that the account remains unconfirmed and lacking in detail. U.S. officials have not been able to interview Yoshida because of his medical situation. The official said it is difficult to know whether the men were Americans without more specific information such as names or very detailed descriptions from Yoshida. Officials also said they wonder why Yoshida's NAM VET Newsletter Page 20 Volume 3, Number 7 July 1, 1989 information did not emerge when he was first released in January. Takatsuka explained that her father, who was held in Vietnamese prisons since the war,s end in 1975, suffers from a variety of severe ailments and only in the last few weeks has begun to talk a little about his experiences in prison. Yoshida is a Zen Buddhist priest who went to Vietnam 24 years ago as a missionary, eventually setting up his own temple in Saigon just before the Americans withdrew and the North Vietnamese took over the South in 1975. He was immediately arrested, though it was never clear why, and spent the next 13-1/2 years in prison camps. Yoshida is a graduate of Sophia University, one of Tokyo,s international schools. He thus speaks some English, but is not fluent, his daughter said. However, according to his daughter, he apparently knew enough to be able to ask the three men who shared the cell where he was kept for the last three years whether America. That's how we communicated. And they called me Jap". Takatsuka quoted her father as telling her. Takatsuka said her father was released by Vietnamese officials on what they told her were "humanitarian grounds". She said his release followed an Amnesty International report last summer calling attention to his case. Takatsuka said she flew to Hanoi Jan. 20 to pick up her father and returned to Japan via Thailand Jan. 24. He has been hospitalized since. Takatsuka said she is "convinced that what my father said is 100 percent sure," and she added she felt strongly about letting the world know because she of her own experience with the suffering of the families of those missing in Vietnam. "What I am most worried about," she said, "is whether that fact that this has been disclosed could hurt them." U.S. MILITARY ATTACHE IN TOKYO TO INTERVIEW MONK ON POWs TOKYO, June 10 - A U.S. military attache will interview a Japanese monk who reportedly has said he saw American prisoners in the reeducation camp where he was held in Vietnam, a U.S. Embassy spokesman said today. The monk's daughter quoted her father as saying he shared a cell with three American prisoners for the last six years he spent in captivity. She said her father did not remember their names but described them as from mental disorders and a speech impediment. He has been hospitalized since January when he returned to Japan after being released from 14 years of imprisonment in Vietnam. In the last week he has given his first interviews to the Japanese media, saying that he saw Americans held since the Vietnam War. Vietnam denies holding American prisoners, and recently it has cooperated with U.S. officials searching for remains of Americans missing in action. Yoshida's daughter, Keiko Takatsuka, said today that her father communicated with the Americans in his cell through gestures. A U.S. military attache will travel to Sapporo on Sunday to interview Yoshido, a U.S. Embassy spokesman said, speaking anonymously. He said Takatsuka met with a U.S. Naval attache at the Embassy in Tokyo recently to report her father's remarks and that the information was forwarded to Washington for analysis. Takatsuka initially refused to speak with U.S. officials, saying her father was too ill, according to the embassy spokesman. Only Yoshida's daughter can understand what he says, and his speech is at some times incoherent, said a spokesman for the hospital where Yoshida is being treated. NAM VET Newsletter Page 21 Volume 3, Number 7 July 1, 1989 W W M M W W M M M M W W \ / M M M M OOOO W W W --*-- M M M IIII O O W W W W / \ M M II O O W W W W M M II O O W W M M II O O II PPPPPP O O ..... II AA PP PP OOOO . '' '' .. IIII A A PP PP ..' '.. A A PPPPPPP ..' ''. A A PP ..' '. AAAAAA PP .' ''. A A PP .' '. A A .' .:::::.. '. .' .::::::::::. ' .' .::::::::::::::. '. .' __ .::::::::::::::::;:... '. .' _- -_ .:::::::::::::::::::::::. '. .' _-_ _ _ -_ ::::::::::::::::::::::::' '. .. _- -!!___!!!-_:::::::::::::::::::::::. .. .' ==_ _- _= .:::::::::::::::::::::::: ', . =-_= _= = :::::::::::::::::::::::: . .' =-_ =_- = ::::::::::::::::::::::: '. .' = - -_ =_:::::::::::::::::::::. '. .' -_ -_- .:::::::::::::::::::;;;. '. .' _-_ ..::::::::::::::::::::::::; '. . _ _ .:;:::::::::::::::::::::;, . ' _ .:::::::::::::::::::::::::. '. Y .'.....::::::::::::::::::::::::::;' '. N ::::::::::::::::::::::::' `''' ': O `::::::::::::::::::::::: \v/ \ / :'E `:::::::::::::::::::::: =========================== :' U `:::::::::::::::::::::. /^\ \ :'T `:::::::::::::::::::: .: A `:::::::::::::::::: .:'T `::::::::::::::::::. .;' R `:::::::::::::::::. .;' T `::::::::::::::::. .;' E `:::::::::gjp::: .:' O `:::::::::::::...........'' G N O T F O R " Bring them home --- NOW !!! " NAM VET Newsletter Page 22 Volume 3, Number 7 July 1, 1989 ================================================================= C U R R E N T H O T I S S U E S ================================================================= International Vietnam Veterans EchoConference discusses the recent Supreme Court Ruling about OUR COUNTRY's FLAG Messages from the International Vietnam Veterans EchoConference: ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo To : All From: Al Marhofke Subj: Supreme Court I'm sure this is a subject that will generate a great deal of comment. I for one normally keep a low profile. But in this case, could not hold back. According to a Supreme Court ruling on July 22, 1989. It is now okay for the great people of the United States to burn our American Flag. The U.S. has always prided itself in the area of freedom. We can print what we want, say what we want etc, So lets all take that special flag we have and burn it! The flag I fought for. And many of my commrades died for. Is now being burned by different radical groups all over the country. I am past upset on the courts ruling on this issue. It may now be legal to burn the american flag. Just don't do it around me. In my heart I am still a soldier. And yes, I still can and will defend the flag, and what it stands for.... Origin: The Inner Circle BBS 1:154/288 Milwaukee, Wi. 414-355-3691 (1:154/288 ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo To : Al Marhofke From: Lefty Frizzell Subj: Supreme Court In a message of <23 Jun 89 07:55:00>, Al Marhofke (1:154/288) writes: AM>It may now be legal to burn the american flag. Just don't do AM>it around me. AM>In my heart I am still a soldier. And yes, I still can and AM>will defend the flag, and what it stands for.... Al, your gonna have to get in line...and the end is around the corner. Lefty Origin: T.P.T.B.B. That's just it...Bubba! (1:106/116.1) ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo To : Al Marhofke From: Mike Dacus Subj: Supreme Court NAM VET Newsletter Page 23 Volume 3, Number 7 July 1, 1989 Al, it seems to me that the guarantee of the right to express an idea by burning the American Flag ought to pretty well guarantee my right to freely express my ideas by knocking the guy's damned head off if he or she is foolish enough to try anywhere around me. I've watched far too many close friends and comrades-in-arms lie for the last time under that flag as the cold clear notes of Taps expressed the thanks of the Nation that flag represented. This is obviously a case of equal protection under the law. Maybe we'll have the opportunity to see if we're just as protected by the Supreme court as the flag burners. Later. Mike Origin: ZEPHYR, HST, National Capital Area, 703-620-5418 (TComm 1:109/124) ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo To : Al Marhofke From: Juan Perez Subj: Re: Supreme Court AM> I'm sure this is a subject that will generate a great deal of AM> comment. AM> I for one normally keep a low profile. But in this case, could AM> not hol back. AM> According to a Supreme Court ruling on July 22, 1989. It is now okay f AM> the great people of the United States to burn our American AM> Flag. The U has always prided itself in the area of freedom. AM> We can print what we say what we want etc, So lets all take AM> that special flag we have and b it! AM> The flag I fought for. And many of my commrades died for. Is AM> now being burned by different radical groups all over the AM> country. I am past upset on the courts ruling on this issue. AM> It may now be legal to burn the american flag. Just don't do AM> it around AM> In my heart I am still a soldier. And yes, I still can and AM> will defend flag, and what it stands for.... AM> * Origin: The Inner Circle BBS 1:154/288 Milwaukee, Wi. 414- AM> 355-3691 (1:154/288 And you can count on me Origin: THE TROJAN EXPRESS II BBS * WPB, FL * [407-832-8971] (1:3609/5) ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo To : Al Marhofke From: Christopher Jones Subj: Re: SUPREME COURT AL, I know what you mean. It really makes me mad that this great country which pratically lives around the flag will let these people burn the American flag to make their point. from, NAM VET Newsletter Page 24 Volume 3, Number 7 July 1, 1989 Chris Jones Origin: Blythe Systems TelepsYch: People Reaching People 718-448-2358 (1:1033/0) ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo To : Al Marhofke From: Tom Welch Subj: Re: Supreme Court Hello Al: Read you message about the supreme court (the lack of capitol letters is intentional) and there cerebral decision to allow Flag burning and I feel the same way you do! It almost makes me feel the same way I felt back in 1967 after returning home from overseas. Some hippie looking spoiled kid burning the Flag I fought for and still love today!! If you do it around me...you'll have a size 9 1/2 D shoe planted someplace where you least need it!! The only thing that disturbes nme more is the American public's visible response to Flag burning and, as the DAV magazine reported last month, people STANDING on the American Flag at some exhibit!! The only one's who seem to care...at least publically are the DAV and the VFW!!! Maybe there are other people and organizations out there, but I sure don't see them!!! May God Bless You Al...and GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!!! Best Regards.....***TOM*** West Palm Origin: THE TROJAN EXPRESS BBS * WPB, FL * [407-832-8971] (1:3609/5) ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo To : Al Marhofke From: Steve Strandin Subj: Re: Supreme Court Hi Al, I am a mentally ill vet but not so crazy to burn the flag. I can not imagine why the court passed that law. Steve Strandin Origin: Steves Computer BBS, Seattle Wa. , (1:343/48) ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo To : Mike Dacus From: Al Marhofke Subj: Re: Supreme Court Hi Mike: Right on!!! Our attitudes are about the same. The problem is this. If we smack some radical for burning the American flag. Guess who will be the one looking for bail money? Origin: The Inner Circle BBS 1:154/288 Milwaukee, Wi. 414-355-3691 (1:154/288) NAM VET Newsletter Page 25 Volume 3, Number 7 July 1, 1989 ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo To : Al Marhofke From: Lefty Frizzell Subj: Re: Supreme Court In a message of <27 Jun 89 07:33:00>, Al Marhofke (1:154/288) writes: AM> Hi Mike: AM> Right on!!! Our attitudes are about the same. AM>The problem is this. If we smack some radical for burning the AM>American flag. Guess who will be the one looking for bail AM>money? Send your tax exempt contributions to the "Fund for the Veteran with the Broken Ankle"....... Lefty Origin: T.P.T.B.B. That's just it...Bubba! (1:106/116.1) ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo To : Mike Dacus From: Lefty Frizzell Subj: Supreme Court In a message of <24 Jun 89 18:52:00>, Mike Dacus (1:109/124) writes: MD>Al, it seems to me that the guarantee of the right to express MD>an idea by burning the American Flag ought to pretty well MD>guarantee my right to freely express my ideas by knocking the MD>guy's damned head off if he or she is foolish enough to try MD>anywhere around me. I've watched far too many close friends MD>and comrades-in-arms lie for the last time under that flag as MD>the cold clear notes of Taps expressed the thanks of the MD>Nation that flag represented. This is obviously a case of MD>equal protection under the law. Maybe we'll have the MD>opportunity to see if we're just as protected by the Supreme MD>court as the flag burners. Dunno about that Mike, but I am keeping "Bail Money" available. Call me if needed. Lefty Origin: T.P.T.B.B. That's just it...Bubba! (1:106/116.1) ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo To : Mike Dacus From: Ken Morrow Subj: Supreme Court Amen bro... Origin: The Pass Too! -- Net 381 Mail Distribution NAM VET Newsletter Page 26 Volume 3, Number 7 July 1, 1989 (915) 821-5037 (1:381/31) ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo To : Juan Perez From: Bill Spurgeon Subj: Re: Supreme Court Juan - I find your argument about burning the flag to be slightly off-base. What you fought for...what you and I defended...was not the flag...which is, after all, just a symbol. We fought to preserve and protect the constitution, a real lfe document outlining our individual and collective rights. This document is so central to our government, to our people, that your loyalty should be placed here, in it's defense. And what the Court has said is that the constitution protects all mannor of political expression, even those you find abhorant. Let me predict there may come a time when you or I need this protection again, as we did when that crook Nixon tried to subvert the proper exercise of government power. Let me ask how you feel when you see someone burn the effigy of Uncle Sam? Why is that a less powerful scene than someone burning the flag. I don't agree with either, but I oppose the right of people like me and you to decide for others the bounds of legitimate political descent. I am not happy with the court's decision, but I can live with it as a part of our great constitution. Origin: National Firearms Assoc., *80386 + HST = FAST* (512)-441-6300 (Opus 1:382/26) ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo To : Mike Dacus From: Charles Harper Subj: Re: Supreme Court > Al, it seems to me that the guarantee of the right to > express an idea by burning the American Flag ought to pretty > well guarantee my right to freely express my ideas by knocking > the guy's damned head off if he or she is foolish enough to try > anywhere around me. I've watched far too many close friends and > comrades-in-arms lie for the last time under that flag as the > cold clear notes of Taps expressed the thanks of the Nation that > flag represented. This is obviously a case of equal protection > under the law. Maybe we'll have the opportunity to see if we're > just as protected by the Supreme court as the flag burners. > Later. > Mike I agree I think a quick kick in the rear end from me to anyone that burns our flag should be considered my right of expressing my expressions towards the individual that burned the flag. I personally think we have a some of the worst examples of Judges in the Sureme Court at the present time. Origin: Classic City \/\/ildcat Athens, Ga. NAM VET Newsletter Page 27 Volume 3, Number 7 July 1, 1989 404-548-0130 (1:370/11) ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo To : Lefty Frizzell From: Mike Dacus Subj: Supreme Court Maybe if we hit them fast enough they'll never know what hit them and will have no need for the bail money. Late.r Mike Origin: ZEPHYR, HST, National Capital Area, 703-620-5418 (TComm 1:109/124) ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo To : Bill Spurgeon From: Joe Cary Subj: Re: Supreme Court I agree with your answer. Flag burners deserve our contempt but the answer is not to lock them away but to expose the errors in their reasoning. The same for nazis, fascists and white supremists. etc. If they get violent then lock them away. In the orient, the loser of an argument is the first to resort to force. So we have to out reason them, not out muscle them. They wilt if their support is removed. Origin: TCS (301)261-3877 [AKA 7:524/2052] ... (Opus 109/50) ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo To : All From: Al Marhofke Subj: American Flag Because of the recent Supreme Court decision reagarding the American Flag. On July 4th. Myself, and many other organizations in our county. Will be flying our flag at half mast. At this time I ask for your support in this endeavor. And ask that all Vet message boards also be notified of our July 4th plans. I strongly disagree with the Supreme Court on this issue. Too many people are sitting back waiting to see how this controversy will go. This is our chance to show the people of the world. That we love our country and the American Flag. This is one war that we can win. Now let's do it! Origin: The Inner Circle BBS 1:154/288 Milwaukee, Wi. 414-355-3691 (1:154/288) ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo NAM VET Newsletter Page 28 Volume 3, Number 7 July 1, 1989 To : All From: Al Marin Subj: American Flag! Just a quick note to air my feelings a little....when the United States Supreme Court - the Highest court in the land, one that should be respected - decided it was alright for a snot nosed punk to burn our beloved American Flag, my stomach became undescribably noxious! When I think of all the men and women that fought and died for the flag and ALL that it stands for....even the service I did in Nam', I just can't help but wonder...do you remember how it felt when you got back? How YOU were the outcast! What in hell is this country going to? . Origin: The Chess Board - Quick/386/HST/SDS/D'Bridge (1:387/402) ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo To : ALL From: Joe Cary Subj: The Flag This whole uproar about the Supreme Court's decision on flag burning strikes me as misplaced and a wasted effort. I am a VN Vet and I agree with the Supreme Court's decision even though I don't like to see the flag desecrated. In my opinion a Flag- burner is simply trying to get attention and should be ignored. And why waste my tax dollars pursuing the matter in court? A much better approach is to instill the values the flag is supposed to stand for in our citizenry. This should be done at home and in school with our kids and by our own examples. For instance, do you set an example by standing straight and proud, with your hand over your heart when "The Starspangled Banner" is played or when the flag passes during a parade? Or do you just keep gabbing with the people around you? In the latter case you may be showing less respect for the flag than the flag-burner is showing. At least the burner is acknowledging the symbolism and special status of the flag even while burning it. When I went to Vietnam as a draftee it wasn't as a flag-waving, save-the-world-from-communism ideologue but as someone caught up in the flow of events and I didn't have strong feelings one way or the other. But I didn't go so we could lock-up flag burners and I sure as hell didn't go to make it safe for Nixon, Reagan and their cronies to plunder the treasury and subvert the Constitution. There seem to be so many breaking scandals now that I almost hate to read the paper...and the flag waving Republicans seem to be leading the pack. Iran/Contra...defense fraud...HUD & influence peddling ($400,000 to James Watt for a few phone calls, come on!)...Northrop/DEA...S&L failures. The list keeps growing. I don't mean to imply there aren't a few Democrats involved, also. Last night the House of Representatives held an all night session to work out a Constitutional Amendment proposal to ban desecrating the flag. If they would only be so diligent about something that matters. It sounds like this session was instigated by the Republicans who are trying to wrap themselves in the flag. Then, while hiding behind the flag they can plunder the treasury some NAM VET Newsletter Page 29 Volume 3, Number 7 July 1, 1989 more. It's kind of like patting your victim on the back with one hand while you pick his pocket with the other. Anyway, I think we, as a nation need to get back to a sounder moral foundation and we had better start insisting on better government! A first step towards the latter might be to vote against Representatives with over 8 years of incumbancey. Otherwise they get so entrenched their only worry is getting re- elected regardless of the consequences to the country. So, get involved, Veterans. Your country still needs you. Origin: TCS (301)261-3877 [AKA 7:524/2052] ... (Opus 109/50) ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo To : Tom Welch From: Tom Betz Subj: Re: SUPREME COURT People who insist on idolizing the flag are no different than people who idolize the bible or the Ayatollah - all idolaters! They (and you) confuse the moon for the finger pointing at the moon, the symbolized for the symbol. All your emotional baggage is your own lookout. Origin: Blythe Systems TelepsYch: People Reaching People 718-448-2358 (1:1033/0) ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo To : Tom Betz From: Lefty Frizzell Subj: Re: SUPREME COURT In a message of <29 Jun 89 18:03:01>, Tom Betz (1:1033/0) writes: TB>People who insist on idolizing the flag are no different than TB>people who idolize the bible or the Ayatollah - all idolaters! TB>They (and you) confuse the moon for the finger pointing at the TB>moon, the symbolized for the symbol. Yeah Tom, and opinions are like a**holes...everyone has one. That is one of the purposes of this conference, to let people express them. He has and you have...I think you are about even. If you have seen the flag draped over as many coffins of friends as I, and Dacus, and Dealy, and Toothman..and just too many more to mention...you might have a different opinion. Wars have been fought over symbols, check out the Crusades...and will be again. My opinion is this...Burn the flag all you want. AWAY FROM ME. Burn it around me...and I BURN YOU. Simple isnt it. Respect my opinion...and I will respect yours. Respect my belief and I respect yours. Trample on me I trample on you. Respect has got to start someplace...it sure has gone to hell in a hand basket in the US. And if it takes a Constitutional Amendment get even a small part of America back on the right track...then so be it. NAM VET Newsletter Page 30 Volume 3, Number 7 July 1, 1989 I humbly await your reply. Lefty Origin: Setpoint, Inc. Houston, Texas (1:106/116) ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo To : All From: Bill Spurgeon Subj: FLAG BURNING I saw the following on another conference and thought it should be repeated here: "A country with a flag that cannot be burned is not worth defending" Think about that. Many of the vets on this conference think of themselves as super patriots - to the point we are discussing doing harm to the bodys of those who would burn the flag. Have you thought that it IS against the law to burn the flag in any number of other countries...such as Cuba, Russia, Iran, etc. Would you super patriots have US be more like THEM? The right to free speech and expression is basic to our constitution...to our very self-image as a people. I don't burn the flag and I don't agree with those who do, but I am proud that the USA is so free that we can tolerate (without violence) those who choose to do so. One more thing, your loyalty to the flag is admirable, but misplaced. It is the Constitution that is the backbone of this country. This document, more than any other single artifact, defines us as a people and a nation. Free speech takes many forms, some valuable and patriotic, some raucous, subversive and dishonorable, but ALL forms of political expression are worthy of protection. Origin: National Firearms Assoc., *80386 + HST = FAST* (512)-441-6300 (Opus 1:382/26) ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo To : All From: Michael Carver Subj: Flag and Freedom I am a little confused..... This nation was in an uproar over China's arresting and executing "protestors", those who did not believe as the government felt they should. However, the same people have turned around and feel that anyone in the Good Ole U S of A who wishes to protest certain government actions buy burning a "symbol" should be arrested and sent to prison. Where's the logic? I pity anyone who felt they "fought" or even died in battle for a piece of cloth. They did not fight or die for the symbol, but for this great nation where we should charish our freedom to stand up to our country if we feel that they are wrong. Ain't that what the founding fathers wanted? Origin: 5th SF (1:105/204) ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo To : Al Marhofke From: Gjoseph Peck Subj: Re: American Flag NAM VET Newsletter Page 31 Volume 3, Number 7 July 1, 1989 AM> Because of the recent Supreme Court decision reagarding the AM> American Flag. AM> On July 4th. Myself, and many other organizations in our AM> county. Will be flying our flag at half mast. Ya know, Al... that's a good idea... how's about flying it half-mast *AND* inverted??? (International distress symbol) I'm going to be checking with our local Veteran groups... you're right... united we CAN make a difference... Ci'ao for Ni'ao -Joe- Origin: VETLink #1 "All Veterans Are Created" (413-443-6313) NAM VET Newsletter Page 32 Volume 3, Number 7 July 1, 1989 STARS AND STRIPES The material has been authenticated by The Flag Heritage Foundation, Lexington, Massachusetts, Dr. Whitney Smith, Executive Director. Published by Shaw-Barton, Coshocton, Ohio (c) 1973 Command Inc. INPUT BY: VETLink #1 Pittsfield, MA (1-413-443-6313) FidoNet 1:321/203 FOREWORD From its origin as the British Jack to our modern day Old Glory, our flag represents a dedication to freedom that symbolizes America. Our flag is not made of colored cloth and stitches, but of people; of pioneers like Daniel Boone and Neil Armstrong; of soldiers who fought and died to keep it waving free; of old and young, black and white, rich and poor, great and ordinary people alike who share in common a positive act of pride in hoisting the red, white and blue symbol of our nation. It is a genuine pleasure to present this compact little volume (minus the graphics in this ASCII textfile reproduction completed for NAM VET by Assistant Editor G. Joseph Peck), which brings you the story of the Stars and Stripes, and the history and legends which surround it. It is a fascinating and ageless account of our country's determination for freedom and the banner which gradually evolved to appropriately represent it. OLD FLAGS IN A NEW WORLD The first flag in the new world is believed to have been the black Raven flag of the Vikings, brought here by Leif Ericson early in the 11th century. Almost 500 years passed before Columbus brought the flag of Spain, and in so doing, opened the door to armies of explorers unfurling banners of many colors and designs - a virtual catalogue of the Old World. Cartier charted the St. Lawrence under the fleurs-de-lis of France. Sweden's yellow cross on a blue field flew over a military colony along the Delaware River. The red, white and blue of the Dutch protected the colonists of New Amsterdam. Add to these the old czarist flag of Russia and those of Mexico and the kingdom of Hawaii; all of them staking out colonies and new wealth for the Old World or seeking out a different way of life. Here, too, came the separate flags of England and Scotland, borne by men who more than any others were to determine the future of the new continent. THE BIRTH OF THE COLORS Of all the colors in the spectrum, why is our flag red, white and blue? These colors that would come to symbolize our great union of states were themselves born of another great union. England and Scotland, long bitter rivals, were united under common rule in 1603 when James VI, the Scottish king, also became ruler of England. He faced an immediate controversy - which flag should fly over the new union? The English flag of St. George, with a red cross on a white field? Or the Scottish flag of St. NAM VET Newsletter Page 33 Volume 3, Number 7 July 1, 1989 Andrew, showing a white cross on a blue field? The question was argued until 1606, when King James ordered that the two crosses be joined on a single flag symbolizing the union of two great peoples. Together the red and white English flag and blue and white Scottish flag became the red, white and blue Union Jack. This was the flag that flew over the colonies until the spirit of revolution rose. Although the Union Jack did not remain in this country after that revolution, its colors did. FLAGS OF DISCONTENT Long before the revolution the independent character of the colonies was revealed in their flags. There were as many flags as there were colonies, and many state flags today carry some of the early revolutionary symbols. Rhode Island chose a white flag with a blue anchor and the word "Hope" emblazoned on it. A flag in South Carolina had a white crescent and the word "Liberty". On its flag, Massachusetts inscribed "Appeal to Heaven" beneath a pine tree. That the colonists also were beginning to think of themselves as united was shown by several banners representing regions or common causes. The oldest of these was that of New England, which dated back to 1686. It had a solid red field with a red cross in the white canton and a pine tree in the upper left quadrant of the canton. It was a version of this flag that flew at Bunker Hill. Another colonial resistance flag was the "Rebellious Stripes,." the banner of the Sons of Liberty who staged the Boston Tea Party. It showed nine alternating red and white stripes representing the nine colonies that participated in the Stamp Act Congress. Slowly but inexorably, the colors and patters for the American Flag were coming together. JOIN, or DIE A FLAG OF DEFIANCE One of the most powerful and popular of colonial flag symbols was the rattlesnake. Benjamin Franklin used a "curved and sliced" rattler on the masthead of his famous Gazette, with the warning "Join or Die." America's first naval Commander-in-Chief, Esek Hopkins, had for his personal flag a coiled rattler on a yellow field with another warning, "Don't Tread on Me." Many colonists felt the rattler should be a part of the official flag of a united colonies. They argued: "The rattlesnake is found only in America. It has bright eyes with no lids, symbolizing constant vigilance. It never attacks first. It never surrenders. It never strikes without warning. It commonly has 13 separate yet firmly united rattles on its tail. Each rattle makes little noise by itself,but the 13 together alarm the boldest of men." Our flag might have had a rattlesnake but for the still stronger argument of those colonists who could not see "how or why a venomous serpent could be the emblem of a brave and honest folk fighting to be free." It was an argument to which even the rattlesnake yielded. THE RED DUSTER Even after King James VI established the Union Jack, British ships of trade and war showed a red flag with either the Cross of St. George or the Cross of St. Andrew in the upper hoisting corner. NAM VET Newsletter Page 34 Volume 3, Number 7 July 1, 1989 In 1707, Queen Anne changed that naval ensign. She ordered that the practice of flying the separate crosses be stopped and that the Union Jack be in the flag's corner. The solid red field remained. This flag became known as the British Red Ensign, or, more popularly, the "Red Duster," and was a common sight in early American harbors and settlements. It was this flag that the colonists, early in 1776, altered and, in so doing, signaled the impending outbreak of war with England. SIGNAL OF REVOLUTION On January 1, 1776, six months before the Declaration of Independence, General George Washington ordered a bold new flag raised at the top of Prospect Hill in Charlestown, Massachusetts, and in so doing announced the creation of the Continental Army. The banner was the British "Red Duster" with the Union Jack in the canton, but with six white stripes cutting through the solid red field. This made thirteen alternating red and white stripes, standing for the thirteen colonies at war with England. This flag became known as the "Continental Colors" or the "Grand Union Flag." For six months this was the flag of the united colonies, and on July 4, 1776, became the flag of an independent United States of America. After that day the people of the new country wanted a distinct flag to symbolize their new independence. Almost a year was to pass, however, before the Continental Congress responded. THE BIRTHDAY OF A FLAG As the war with England wore on, a new flag symbolizing a new nation was in order. On June 14, 1777, the Continental Congress concerned itself with a number of routine matters. Two orders of payment of money to John Murray were approved. A letter from Amos Throop of Providence was read and referred to the Maritime Committee. Various monies were appropriated for military purposes in the war with England. And then, almost incidentally, the Congress passed a resolution: "Resolved: that the Flag of the united states be 13 stripes alternate red and white, that the Union be 13 stars white in a blue field representing a new constellation." With no more fanfare than that the old Union Jack that spoke of loyalty to England was removed and a field of stars joined the red and white stripes. Strange as it may seem today, the resolution that created the flag was not even reported in the newspapers until three months later, and the birthdate of our flag - June 14 - was not officially proclaimed Flag Day until 1915! SYMBOL OF A NEW SEA POWER On the same day Congress gave birth to our flag - June 14, 1777 - it also granted a naval commission to John Paul Jones. That single act was to bring early recognition to the flag it had just created. After Jones outfitted his ship, RANGER, he moved into friendly French water. On February 14, 1778, in the harbor of Quiberon, French and American ships exchanged flag salutes. This was the first foreign recognition of the Stars and Stripes. Two months later, Jones met and defeated the British ship, DRAKE, and for the first time the Stars and Stripes was hoisted NAM VET Newsletter Page 35 Volume 3, Number 7 July 1, 1989 over a defeated vessel. Most importantly, the victory made our flag a symbol to be reckoned with, a fact which Jones underscored dramatically in one of the great sea battles of our early history. Commanding the BON HOMME RICHARD, Jones met and engaged the British SERAPIS on September 23, 1779. At a point in battle when the balance favored the British, Jones was asked to surrender. He replied, "I have not yet begun to fight." The tide of battle and the future of our navy turned. The SERAPIS fell. The leaders of a young nation had created a flag. John Paul Jones gained for it a new measure of respect. DIFFERENT STARS, DIFFERENT STRIPES The flag resolution adopted by Congress on June 14, 1777, was vague, calling only for 13 alternating red and white stripes and 13 white stars on a blue field. Both the stars and stripes were to correspond with the number of states in the union. Perhaps the oldest version of the Stars and Stripes was the Bennington banner, carried on August 16, 1777, during the Battle of Bennington in New York State, just over the Vermont border. This flag carried an arch of 11 stars beneath which was emblazoned "76". The two upper corners of the blue field also carried a star. There were other major differences between the stars and stripes on early banners and the flag we know today. Early flags had stars with four to seven points; today's have five. The field sometimes started and ended with a white stripe making 7 white and 6 red stripes. Today's starts with a red stripe, having 7 red and 6 white. The clear intent of the 1777 flag resolution was to give our nation a single symbol. It led instead to many versions and, unfortunately, many romantic legends and serious doubts about the true origins of the flag. LEGEND OF A LADY The maker of the first Stars and Stripes remains a mystery. The cherished American tradition is that Betsy Ross was given that task by General Washington himself. No authentic records of the time, however, substantiate the story. The annals of the Continental Congress do not. Nor do the personal writings of anyone, including General Washington. All that is known of Betsy Ross is that she was paid 14 pounds, 12 shillings and twopence by the Pennsylvania State Naval Board in May, 1777, for making ships colors. How then, did the legend begin? Surprisingly, Betsy Ross's supposed connection with the first Stars and Stripes was completely unknown until 1870, almost 100 years after the alleged event, when William J. Canby, grandson of Mrs. Ross, read a paper before the Philadelphia Historical Society. Canby's paper was based primarily on recollections of conversations he'd had with his grandmother. It was an appealing tale, and artists and storytellers of the day were quick to embellish it. But the legend has become so widespread and charming that it is still taught in many schools. A THIRST FOR RECOGNITION The name of the designer of the first Stars and Stripes has never been confirmed, although one man did make a formal claim to that honor. That man was a signer of the Declaration of NAM VET Newsletter Page 36 Volume 3, Number 7 July 1, 1989 Independence and a member of the Congress that made the Stars and Stripes our flag on June 14, 1777. In 1780, Francis Hopkinson of New Jersey requested recognition for some "devices" he had created, including "the flag of the United States of America." Hopkinson wanted a small reward for these "labours of fancy" and suggested a "quarter cask of public wine." Congress demanded a more detailed statement. Hopkinson then put a value of nine pounds - about $45 - hard money on his flag design. Congress refused the claim. Hopkinson, angered by the rejection, resigned his governmental position but continued to press for compensation. In 1783, Congress finally decided that "the report relative to the fancy work of F. Hopkinson out not to be acted upon" and he received neither recognition, nor money, nor public wine. There is no question that Hopkinson did some design work on some flag. Whatever work he did do, however, was not regarded seriously, for the flag was to change many more times - both its stars and its stripes. THE STAR SPANGLED BANNER At the height of the war of 1812, an American, Doctor William Beans, was held prisoner aboard a British warship. He would enter history books because he had a young lawyer friend named Francis Scott Key. Key, with President Madison's blessing, agreed to negotiate for the release of his friend. He went to Chesapeake Bay where the British were massing a fleet for a combined land and sea assault on Fort McHenry. He was cordially received aboard the English ship SURPRISE by Admiral Cochrane and General Ross. The General agreed to release Dr. Beans, but not immediately. Key and his party were to stay aboard the ship until the British "had reduced Fort McHenry to ashes." The British poured shells into the fort throughout the night of September 13, 1814. A relentless barrage shook the countryside. The Stars and Stripes did not yield. It continued to wave defiantly, triumphantly. "At dawn's early light" on September 14, Key, so moved by what he had seen, wrote on the back of a letter the words to the Star Spangled Banner. Later, the music of an old English song, "To Anacreon in Heaven" was adapted to his poem, but it was not until 1931 that it was officially designated by Congress as our National Anthem. FIFTEEN STRIPES The flag Francis Scott Key saw over Fort McHenry was unique in several ways. It was the largest of its time, measuring 30 feet wide and 42 feet long and weighing about 200 pounds. The Star Spangled Banner had 15 stripes and was the only official flag of the United States to show more than 13 stripes. It was created by the Congress in the second flag act of January 12, 1794, to recognize the admission of Vermont (1791) and Kentucky (1792). Each was given a star and a stripe. By 1817, five more states had joined the Union and some people suggested that five more stars and stripes be added to the flag. But there was serious objection. "The stripes will become so small as to be indistinguishable," some legislators observed. Debate went on for almost two years until Congressman Wendover of New York made a resolution: go back to the 13 original stripes, but add a single star in the blue field for each new NAM VET Newsletter Page 37 Volume 3, Number 7 July 1, 1989 state. That proposal became the third flag act, passed on April 4, 1818. Except for the exact arrangement of the stars, which would wait almost another century, the course of our flag's design was set. A SAILOR SIGHTS THE STARS One of the great heroes of the War of 1812 was Captain Samuel Chester Reid, whose 90-man ship, GENERAL ARMSTRONG, repelled a squadron of three British ships with 2,000 men aboard. When the battle ended, Reid's crew had suffered nine casualties, the British 250. Reid was lesser known, however, for his attempts to end confusion over our flag's design. He suggested, for example, specific patterns of stars to designate military, government and private uses of the flag on both land and sea. This idea was not accepted. His proposal to standardize our flag design was also ignored until President Taft made it fact in 1912. One flag Reid did design - with the stars forming one large star - was widely used, but was never officially adopted. His frustrations in trying to bring order out of chaos may have been somewhat eased when, in 1818, he presented to President Monroe a flag his wife had made. The President in turn had it flown over our nation's Capitol. Reid lived to see 14 new stars added to that flag before his death in 1861. THE LAST FOREIGN FLAG By 1836, our flag had 25 stars, and frontiersmen were pushing forward. But vast areas of the land to their west, though settled largely by Americans, lay under the claim of Mexico. Texans won their independence from Mexico in 1836, and for nine years flew a Lone Star flag as an independent republic. On July 4, 1845, Texans voted to join the United States, and on December 29 of that year, the Lone Star became the state flag of Texas and Texas the 28th star of the Union. Mexico, which had never recognized the Republic of Texas, was furious, and declared war on the United States. Almost simultaneously Californians, who also sought independence from Mexico, staged their Bear Flag Revolt - so named because of the homemade flag they carried, which bore a white field, a single star, the words "California Republic" and the figure of a grizzly bear. Their struggle became part of the U.S. war with Mexico. Within six months, Mexico capitulated and a year later, February 2, 1848, signed the Treaty of Guadalupe- Hidalgo, giving up all land claims north of the Rio Grande. On September 9, 1850, California became the 31st star on the nation's flag. Now the young country had its flag flying from the Atlantic on the east to the Pacific on the west. THE BROTHERS PERRY The flags of two brothers are displayed at the U.S. Naval Academy. One of the brothers, in war, helped to make us a naval force; the other, in peace, helped to make us an internation