Volume 3, Number 8 August 12, 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 Nearing our second full year of publication! ............ 1 What can I teach my children? ........................... 2 2. TO THE EDITOR Dear Editor and Veterans... ............................. 5 3. Missing!!! They haven't forgutten US!!! ............................ 6 A visit or note once in awhile? ......................... 7 POWs Abandoned?? ........................................ 8 4. Hearts n' Minds Remember the vets ...................................... 11 5. OUR FLAG!!! OUR COUNTRY'S FLAG ...................................... 14 DAV ENDORSES FEDERAL ACTION ............................. 20 Higher Ante on Patriotism ............................... 22 6. G.I. NEWS VIETNAM ERA GI EDUCATIONAL BENEFIT EXTENSION ............ 23 A Widow's Case .......................................... 26 Veterans Appeals Court to Open .......................... 28 NOT TO BE FORGOTTEN ..................................... 29 7. GENERAL ARTICLES A Trip Too Far .......................................... 34 Lost Patrol Ranch ....................................... 41 8. -- MEMORIES -- TWENTY YEARS ............................................ 42 FEELING OF A NAM VET .................................... 44 Daniel and the Six Day War .............................. 46 The Sixties ............................................. 49 Veterans Patrol Together ................................ 51 EYES .................................................... 54 9. SPECIAL NOTICES! VIETNAM VET DEVELOPS SHAREWARE PROGRAM .................. 55 Finally Here!!! ......................................... 57 10. MOVING WALL SCHEDULE 1989 Schedule of the Mini-Wall .......................... 58 11. Subscribe Now! Subscribe to Nam Vet .................................... 59 12. IVVEC NODELIST ........................................................ 60 Some Gave All... ........................................ 66 NAM VET Newsletter Page i Volume 3, Number 8 August 12, 1989 ================================================================= E D I T O R I A L S ================================================================= Nearing our second full year of publication! By: Todd Looney Vietnam Veterans' Valhalla 28 Cecil Avenue Suite 179 San Jose, CA 95128 By now, some of you may have seen my name slowly creeping back into the IVVEC across the country. I've finally managed to get out of my office using an OkiData modem (yuch!) and into Joe's system back east, Joan in the middle, and a few more local systems. It's been REAL nice seeing all the names of the people, both vets and non-vets, who I have come to know so well during the past three years on the BBS networks! I'm so happy that the IVVEC is still kicking (thanks to Joe and Joan and Woody and Bob and Mike, and Dan, and Steve, and Ron, and David, and ... well, everyone who had a hand in it. Thanks! Now that we're getting close to our Second Anniversary Issue of the NAM VET, it about time for you guys and gals to start kicking in your ideas! Look back over all the old issues you've read and tell Joe or I what your favorite articles were and we'll reprint them for those who have not been fortunate enough. And if you haven't got all the issues look in the back of this issue for the nearest VetNet node near you and get some of the back issues, or call Joe Peck at 1:321/203 for them. Write articles for the MEMORIES section and get them to Joe. Write GENERAL ARTICLES for the NAM VET. Anything...just send in your contributions. I *did* notice one thing from looking at the NAM VET's that Joe has been doing while I was gone, HE seems to have written most of the newsletter! That's a crock. So many of you have great ideas, and can really write up a storm (I know, because many of you used to send things in all the time). Start making this YOUR newsletter again! You don't have to be a Vietnam veteran. The NAM VET is for Vietnam veterans and those who care about them. If you're reading this newsletter, you qualify (grin). Anyway, we're looking forward to hearing from all of you soon! Ciao for niao - Todd - NAM VET Newsletter Page 1 Volume 3, Number 8 August 12, 1989 WHAT CAN I TEACH MY CHILDREN? Editorial by: G. Joseph Peck Assistant Editor - Nam Vet SysOp - VETLink #1 FidoNet 1:321/203 AlterNet 7:46/203 1-413-443-6313 "Eli? Eli? Where ARE you?" Jenny, his wife of 27 years, was beginning to worry that something was wrong. He hadn't been in the best of moods lately. Depression, frustration, and a feeling of helplessness seemed to be causing a lot of sleepless nights for him. She remembered holding him tightly last night, hugging, soothing, reassuring him that everything was going to be okay. Whatever he was being bothered by didn't seem to be the jungle path or elephant grass nightmares that so often haunted him. A sigh of relief rushed from her breast as she entered their sun porch. Sitting on the hassock, his boonie hat in one hand, a small flag in the other, Elias was doing another of his thousand- yard-stares... staring at some vision it was producing in the eye of his mind. Tears traced their crooked fingers across his 47 year old, weatherbeaten face. He turned towards her, stifling a deep sob. "I'm getting old, Jen," he sobbed. "What the hell have you and the kids got to show for anything I've tried to do for you? Remember all the trouble I had trying to find any kind of a job right after I got out of the service? I was even lucky to be able to pump gas!" "What have we got?" Jenny put her arms around him, tried to quiet his unrest. "Honey, we're the luckiest people in the world... we have YOU. Don't you know you're special to all of us... you and the things you do? We believe in you, we always have. No 'IF's' here, honey - just WHY's... that's WHY we stay right by your side no matter WHAT you're doing; that's WHY we kept things quiet and calm when you were going to college and getting your degree; that's WHY we're so proud of you!" Choking back even deeper sobs, Elias continued, unmindful of the tenderness and care that Jenny was trying to show him. "You and the 3 boys all believed we were headed toward better times as we were struggling through my college days. I did too. Little did I realize that I was setting an even-tighter booby- trap for us than I did for Charlie. Now that I've got the degree, I can't get a job in the profession I trained for 'cause I don't have any experience in it and when people look at my resume and my educational background, they won't even give me an entry level job 'cause 'they want somebody's who's gonna stay with 'em!' I can't even get a service-station job anymore - that's 'entry-level' too!" "It's deeper than that, isn't it Eli? You've always found work someplace and you've never let us go hungry. That doesn't seem to be what you're troubled about. We haven't worried when we NAM VET Newsletter Page 2 Volume 3, Number 8 August 12, 1989 knew you were caring for us. What's really bothering you? C'mon, honey, talk about it..." "It's EVERYTHING, Jen... everything all jumbled together and coming up a big NOTHING! Its fighting for my life and the life of my veteran brothers and sisters in the bush and coming back to rejection and silence and being spit on; its coming back to be denied employment because I'm a veteran and then being ashamed to put on a job application that I proudly served this country of ours; its taking the sh*t jobs 'cause I couldn't get anything else; its seeing those who didn't serve now running companies and NOT hiring veterans; its seeing a complaint to the state or federal people about job/housing/medical care discrimination only be entered into that bottomless abyss of "We'll look into it!" and then nothing happening 'cept me an' a whole bunch of others just waiting and waiting for an answer that never comes; its the struggles we've had trying to buy our own home and now we're about ready to lose it 'cause we can't make enough money to pay for it; its the feeling of being abandoned by a country and its people that asked us to defend it; its being bathed in Agent Orange and when your body reacts to it years later, its having the government that did it to you continue to drag their feet and say "I dunno?"; its fighting for an education only to discover that the education you obtained is good enough for an entry-level position and you're just too experienced for a position like that. And NOW, Jen, its hearing news reports of the Supreme Court decision concerning freedom of speech - and watching people on state Capital steps and in parades burning the flag that so many of my friends died fighting for, gave their lives to defend. It's all a big NOTHING, Jen... all a big nothing! What can I teach our children now about the goodness and bright promise of America? What can I teach them when America, by its own example, has taught me what I lived: 'If you fight for this country, be prepared to experience alienation and isolation. Ready yourself to have your financial, educational and medical needs ignored or subjected to long, long periods of bureaucratic delay before being denied. Steel yourself for the hungry times. And THEN, stand patiently by while some demonstrator burns the flag you and many like you fought so hard for!'" Jenny, too, began to cry. Pushing him a little away, tenderly placing her soft hand under his downturned chin, she raised his head so that his eyes could focus directly on hers. "It's not what you CAN teach us, Eli - it's what you HAVE taught us that's so important! When you went into the service, it was because you believed in this country and what it stood for. When you came back and people treated you the terrible way they did, you could have replied in anger or so easily destroyed them - but you didn't; When you applied for those "good" jobs and were denied, you could have brought the roof down on some of those b*stards... but you didn't; When you went for medical attention and were denied because it hadn't yet been determined that you were 'service-connected' for the condition, you could have caused a lot of trouble - but you didn't... When you looked for housing projects like your mom and dad used NAM VET Newsletter Page 3 Volume 3, Number 8 August 12, 1989 to live in that were built for veterans and couldn't find any, you could have blasted City Hall or your local politicians... but you didn't. And WHY? YOU carried on, did what you had to do to help US survive - no matter how much the rest of us felt like giving up; YOU are the one who told us "Don't mean nuthin' - carry on"; YOU are the one who showed us BY YOUR EXAMPLE that bright things WERE ahead of us; and YOU - and your Vietnam veteran brothers and sisters - showed us BY YOUR EXAMPLE of organizing and getting together, uniting your forces, that portions of DSM III (the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the Psychiatric Profession) could be rewritten, that help could be given to people WHEN THEY NEEDED IT and not years after; showed us that things COULD be changed FOR THE BETTER... What CAN you teach our children, Eli? You've ALREADY taught them how to be tough-yet-gentle in a seemingly-uncaring world and about persistence and determination - BY YOUR ACTIONS! They've seen how the lack of medical treatment and other benefits affected you and I and them; they've seen you hold your temper when they KNEW you were angry; they've SEEN you work for good, positive changes and an understanding bureaucracy. Our children will be great, Eli, because they learned what they've lived from YOUR lessons, YOUR teachings - and the instruction of all Vietnam veterans who have helped build The New Frontier the man you all followed talked so fondly of." Laying down his boonie hat, carefully placing the flag back in its holder, Elias stood up and took Jenny in his arms - sobbing, but with a different kind of sob now. "Amazin' how you can be doing something without knowing that others are watching and learning from it, Jen. Really amazing!" "Of course," she said. "We were together then... and we're together now. Ya done good, hon... ya done good!" 'til next month Show a brother/sister veteran That YOU care! Ci'ao for Ni'ao -Joe- NAM VET Newsletter Page 4 Volume 3, Number 8 August 12, 1989 ================================================================= T O T H E E D I T O R ================================================================= Dear Editor and Veterans... By: Joyce Flory NASW New Mexico FidoNet 1:305/101 1:305/101 I was there but I wasn't. I was in high school, all caught up in the "high school stuff"... parties, classes, babysitting. Sure, I read the papers, watched the news... It just didn't make any sense. Where was Vietnam? What was Vietnam? Why were OUR men and boys there? Why were they dying? Why were so many missing or being held captive? I had a crush on the boy next door. One day he was here, the next he was gone. Now, sometime later, he's a name on the Wall - line 29 panel E7. I still don't understand it all and probably never will. I am growing more aware thanks to the books, NAMVET newsletters, and the echoes. Because of the kindness of strangers on those echoes,I now have an etching of the name of my friend and a continuing tribute to him at the moving Wall. Thank you vets... One and all for helping me to better understand a very confusing time. Joyce Flory NAM VET Newsletter Page 5 Volume 3, Number 8 August 12, 1989 ================================================================= M i s s i n g ! ! ! ================================================================= 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 6 Volume 3, Number 8 August 12, 1989 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 7 Volume 3, Number 8 August 12, 1989 POWs Abandoned??? Input by: Glenn Toothman The Commo Bunker FidoNet 1:387/801 As I make the trip down memory lane, I felt like inputting the following from the Army Times 30 Sep 85, by Neil Roland (times staff writer) 2 Officers Claim Superiors Impeded Reports of POW's WASHINGTON -- Two Special Forces officers who in 1984 gathered intelligence on possible prisoners of war in Southeast Asia have charged that their superiors quashed reports that more than 100 Americans were being held as POWs as recently as last year (1984) In separate affidavits, one officer accused an Army major general, while the other cited unnamed superiors and Defense Intelligence Agency operatives Maj Mark A. Smith, who commanded Special Forces Detachment- Korea from 1981-84 and retired February 1, 1985, alleged in a court affidavit that an Army major general advised him in Seoul during April 1984 to "shred" a briefing booklet containing intelligence reports of numerous POW sightings in Indochina. While the affidavit did not name the officer who allegedly urged the booklet's destruction, Smith, in recent interviews, has identified him as Maj. Gen Kenneth C. Leuer, who at the time was Assistant Chief of Staff for Operations for the United Nations Command, Combined Forces Command and Eighth U.S. Army in Korea. Smith also accused Leuer of scuttling the delivery of three POW's from Laos before the mission could be completed in May 1984. Shortly after Smith reported that the prisoners were available for pickup, Leuer barred Smith's unit from traveling to Southeast Asia, Smith said in his September affidavit. Leuer, now commanding general of the 5th Infantry Division (Mech) at Fort Polk, La. declined to comment on the allegations while a lawsuit is pending. A suit was filed September 4 in U.S. District Court in Fayetteville N.C. by Smith, a former POW in Cambodia who served for 22 years in the Army, and SFC Melvin C. McIntire, who served with Smith's unit in Korea and now is with B Company 2nd Bn, 7th Special Forces Group at Fort Bragg. N.C. Smith's supervisor in Korea, Lt Col Robert L. Howard, accused two military officers in an affidavit of a "blatant security violation" in revealing publicly in Thailand in January 1984 that a Thai general had been relaying POW information to the U.S. Howard, who then was chief of the Special Forces Combat Support Coordination Team in Seoul, alleged in his affidavit that these officers - Col Stephen L. Alpern, the U.S. military attache for Thailand and Air Force Lt Col Pa;ul D. Mathews, who works for the NAM VET Newsletter Page 8 Volume 3, Number 8 August 12, 1989 triservice Joint Casualty Resolution Center in Hawaii but is attached to the American Embassy in Thailand -- sought to "undermine the successful intelligence gathering activity of Special Forces Detachment-Korea. Mather and Alpern could not be reached immediately for comment. In addition, Howard, who reportedly worked directly with Defense Intelligence Agency field operatives, accuses the DIA of "an ongoing effort... to ignore" POW reports. He added in the affidavit that he was "shocked" when his superiors in Korea showed "no interest" in his reports about POW's in early 1984. Howard who now commands the VII Corps Special Troops Battalion in Stuttgart, Germany, did not identify his superiors. Howard was awarded the Medal of Honor for his heroism in Vietnam on Dec 30, 1968, while on a mission intended to rescue a soldier who was missing in action in enemy-held territory. The Department of the Army and Defense Department, citing the pending suit, declined comment. The U.S. Government's position is that it has "been unable to prove" that any American POWs are being held in Southeast Asia, said DoD spokesman Maj. Keith Schneider. However, he said, the government has not ruled out the possibility that there are POW's being held and routinely investigates firsthand reports of sightings, most of which have come from Indochinese refugees. The U.S. has not been able to resolve 111 of the 791 eyewitness reports of POWs that it has received since 1975, Schneider said. The DIA and the Joint Casualty Resolution Center in Hawaii (for which Mather works) are now investigating those reports. Air Force Lt Gen Eugene Tighe, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency from 1977-81 and now retired, stated in May his personal view that 50-60 American POWs were being held in Southeast Asia. Lt Gen James A. Williams, the current DIA director, testified before Congress in 1984 that five people who claimed to have seen American POWs in Indochina had passed polygraph tests. Howard, Smith and McIntire indicated that they relied for their information about POWs on numerous Indochinese sources, some of whom were senior officials in the Thai government. Howard cited in his affidavit "senior Thai military officials" as the sources of his information. McIntire said in his affidavit that he had about 10 "credible and reliable sources" including "the highest level of a foreign military power." McIntire said his sources had field agents of their own reporting the locations of the "approximately 200 living Americans" in Laos. He added that he maintained contact with these sources from February 1982 to August 1984. Smith mentioned about 50 local Indochinese as his sources, including Thai military agents, Laos resistance fighters, the NAM VET Newsletter Page 9 Volume 3, Number 8 August 12, 1989 Pathet Lao, the free Vietnamese, and gun, gold, and drug smugglers. He said he visited Thailand six to nine times over a one-and-a-half year period to collect information from these sources, most of whom did not know each other, crosschecking their reports. Smith said in a September 16 interview that he learned that one POW had died in the summer of 1984 and some were "near death" He added the POWs either were "under restraint" in prisons or were "just living there - where do they run to if they were to run away?" According to Smith's affidavit, Leuer blockaded all attempts to forward information contained in Smith's April 1984 report, "Possible American/Allied POWs in Southeast Asia." After Leuer read the cover letters with the report, which Smith hand- delivered, he "turned white, handed the briefing back to me and said, 'this is too hot for me to handle, big guy'... I was told that if I was smart, what I would do was to put the briefing through a shredder and forget the entire issue. I demanded authorization to go to Washington, DC and see another general in the office of the Deputy Chief Of Staff for Operations... I was given a direct order not to have any more contact with that officer." The suit, filed on behalf of the nearly 2,500 Americans estimated to be missing or unaccounted for in Southeast Asia, named as defendants President Reagan, Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger, Secretary of State George Schultz, and DIA's Williams. They and their predecessors are accused of embarking since 1973 on policy... intended to discredit or disprove the existence of living Americans in Southeast Asia for reasons presently "unknown." Reagan is required by federal law to demand the release of the POW thought to be held in Southeast Asia, the suit claims. NAM VET Newsletter Page 10 Volume 3, Number 8 August 12, 1989 ================================================================= H e a r t s n ' M i n d s ================================================================= Remember the vets who suffer by Steven Bentley (Steven Bentley served in Vietnam from 1967 to 1969. He is the head of Veterans Employment and Training Services and serves as chairman of the Post-Traumatic Stress and Substance Abuse Committee of the Vietnam Veterans of America.) Reprinted from 5/28/89 DAILY NEWS Input by: VETLink #1 FidoNet 1:321/203 AlterNet 7:46/203 (1-413-443-6313) Memorial Day is here. You're going to hear a lot of speeches full of nationalistic rhetoric this weekend. But that rhetoric will serve only to paper over a $600 million shortfall in funding for veterans' healthcare programs -- and cover up this nation's other unmet moral obligations to, in Abraham Lincoln's words, "Care for those who have borne the battle." As a Vietnam veteran, I am particularly concerned about the lack of help this country gives the nearly three million Americans who served in that conflict - particularly the one- third of them who suffer from an ailment too many in society and government have chosen not to recognize in any meaningful way. The diagnostic label for this illness is post-traumatic stress disorder. For Vietnam vets, it is the unfinished business of war - emotional shrapnel too deep to work itself out. It often expresses itself in severe anxiety, depression, a tendency toward isolation and alienation. Sometimes there are reactions of rage, problems with intimacy, and self-defeating and self-deceiving behavior. Sufferers fall on a continuum from vets with nightly flashbacks that take them right back to Vietnam to vets who, on the anniversary of a wartime tragedy, will withdraw from their families and maybe drink too much. The illness festers inside, yet its effect spreads deeply to others in the vet's immediate family. The wounds have to be opened and cleansed before they can be healed. TOO LITTLE HELP Yet only 12 units in the U.S. (around 500 beds) are earmarked for stress disorder. --Most of them lack funding. --Most of them lack trained and experienced staffs. --Therapeutic practices vary widely. Because of nonexistent clinical guidelines and a lack of coordination, they don't deal effectively with the problems of multiple illnesses - like, say, alcoholism and stress disorder - that compound each other. --There is little or no family involvement or therapy. NAM VET Newsletter Page 11 Volume 3, Number 8 August 12, 1989 --Some have year-long waiting lists. Even in the best of circumstances, addressing post-traumatic stress disorder is difficult - because the veterans themselves are so different. Some of us carry the politics of the war in our wounds. Some of us feel we were right to be in Vietnam - and feel betrayed by our country. Some of us feel we were wrong to be in Vietnam - and feel used by our country. Some of us don't know what to feel - and are full of mistrust for all extremes, knowing only that we don't feel like heroes. Some of us have felt all of these things at one time or another - and feel stronger for the experience. And yet, for all of our differences, we were the same. We got that funny feeling when they played "The Star-Spangled Banner." We wanted to be right. We wanted to be real men (and women). So we served all over Vietnam - offshore, over Hanoi, in the DMZ and on the Delta. We internalized and digested our experiences differently. We came home and felt the differences all around us. And we all wound up feeling the same way. Deep within us, we felt that we didn't belong. We felt apart - even from each other. Many of us hold feelings we deny and hope they'll go away. Many of us have strangled on that denial. Post-traumatic stress disorder is not the property of the Vietnam veteran. It is common among those who have been through any trauma outside of what is considered the normal human experience - survivors of the Holocaust, of car accidents or sexual assaults, of many other kinds of traumatic events. Victor Frankl, a survivor of Auschwitz and Dachau, has pointed out that "an abnormal response to an abnormal situation is normal behavior." It isn't even new among veterans. In the Civil War it was called "soldier's heart"; in World War I, it was called "shell shock"; in World War II, "combat neuroses." As author Richard A. Gabriel has pointed out, 300,000 of the 800,000 U.S. ground soldiers who saw combat in World War II were psychiatrically discharged." A $10 million, five-year study completed by Research Triangle Institute for Congress concludes that 479,000 Vietnam veterans have full post-traumatic stress disorder. Another 350,000 have a partial version of the illness. Included in these figures are more than half the combat veterans. And where do you find the casualties? A study commissioned by the American Legion reports that more than a million vets have significant problems - and that their civilian income is a clear measure of their problems. The average vet makes $3,000 to $5,000 less per year than peers of similar education, with many well below the poverty level. In 1986, a special congressional committee chaired by Sen. Tom Daschle (D-S. Dakota) placed the number of homeless Vietnam veterans at 82,000 to 110,000. Two years ago the New England Journal of Medicine published a study that estimates the number of veterans to have committed suicide since returning from Vietnam at 59,000. We could build another "wall" in Washington and walk through a canyon of the dead. NAM VET Newsletter Page 12 Volume 3, Number 8 August 12, 1989 What about their survivors? It is estimated that every one of these 480,000 troubled men and women significantly affects the lives of, on average, four family members. One young girl who came up to me after a seminar on post-traumatic stress disorder not long ago was far from unusual. "Last night," she told me, "my dad picked up a chair and hit my mom in the face with it. We knew it was Vietnam." When is the government going to realize that cavalier, uninterested responses only serve to exacerbate and intensify these problems? And, more importantly, when is everyone - including some veterans - going to realize that simply denying these things won't make them go away? One startling point would be to follow recommendations set out in the Research Triangle study and by a special committee set up by the chief medical director for the Veterans Administration. These recommendations call for far more sensitivity and awareness on the part of the VA and its staff, training for clinicians in the interplay between chemical dependency and stress disorder, and similar training for adjudication officers who rule on veterans' claims. (Only a small proportion of suffering vets have collected anything for stress disorder.) In addition, there must be an increased awareness of the disproportionate affects of stress disorder on blacks, Hispanics and women. Most concretely, each of the 172 VA hospitals, or at the very least the large regional centers, should have a treatment unit held to well-defined standards of care. If there is one value that lies foremost in the hearts of Vietnam veterans, it is a hypersensitivity to justice. Even those veterans unaffected by these problems are keenly aware of the injustice that swirls around this issue. There will be much said in the name of the dead this Memorial Day. But what about the living? The way to honor our ideals is not by projecting them onto the dead. It's by practicing them among those still alive - by providing adequate care to those who fought and served beside those who died. NAM VET Newsletter Page 13 Volume 3, Number 8 August 12, 1989 ================================================================= O U R F L A G ! ! ! ================================================================= OUR COUNTRY'S FLAG (Note from Joe: The following article is being reproduced primarily for the children of our NAM VETS. Because of copyright requirements, I must input the article in its entirety. The article is not a paid advertisement nor an endorsement.) Sponsored and distributed by AMERICAN LEGION NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS, National Emblem Sales. P.O. Box 1050 Indianapolis, IN 46206. Created and produced by CUSTOM COMIC SERVICES, Educational and Promotional Comic Books, P.O. Box 50028 Austin, TX 78763. Finished artwork by Mike ROY> Copyright (c) 1988 Custom Comic Services. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. Input with "word" pictures in lieu of graphics by: VETLink #1 FidoNet 1:321/203 AlterNet 7:46/203 (1-413-443-6313) The United States Flag is a symbol to the world of our country's independence, of our individual liberty, and of our unity as a nation. Its history is the history of the American people. When we respect the flag, we respect the men and women who sacrificed to build this country and protect its freedom. When we honor the flag, we honor our country, our people, and ourselves. The next time you see our country's flag, think of the glorious freedoms we enjoy as American's! JULY 4, 1958: (CHILD 1): "Hurry!" (CHILD 2): "Let's go!" July 4th is INDEPENDENCE DAY -- the day we celebrate our country's freedom and our freedom to live as we wish. We have a SYMBOL for our country and our freedom. (CHILDREN): "Here comes the flag!" This is a story about our country's flag, and how it inspired four friends as they grew up. (FOUR FRIENDS): "I pledge allegiance..." Kevin always enjoyed learning about our country's history. When he grew up, he became a history teacher. (KEVIN): "As our country grew and changed, our flag did, too! NAM VET Newsletter Page 14 Volume 3, Number 8 August 12, 1989 The first British flag in North America was flown in 1497. Carried by British Explorers, this flag was the "Cross of Saint George." When the Pilgrims came to Plymouth in 1620, they began a British Colony. Their flag was.. the British King's Colors. In 1707, a new British flag, the RED ENSIGN, appeared throughout the colonies. By 1775, the growing colonies wanted the freedom to govern themselves. They fought the REVOLUTIONARY WAR to free themselves of British rule! In the early days of the American Revolution, Colonists fought under several different flags... PINE TREE FLAG -- flown at Bunker Hill GADSDEN FLAG -- many versions used CONTINENTAL COLORS -- raised by George Washington at Cambridge. On June 14th, 1777, the Second Continental Congress resolved to create a flag for ALL the United States. The flag represented the unity of the 13 colonies as a SINGLE country. The new flag was first flown over FORT STANWIX, New York, on AUGUST 3, 1777. There were several versions of our country's first flag. Each had 13 STARS and 13 STRIPES-- one for each of the original states. BENNINGTON STARS AND STRIPES (Standard Version) "Betsy Ross" Flag After Vermont and Kentucky became states, our country's flag had 15 stars and 15 stripes! During the WAR OF 1812, Francis Scott Key watched this flag fly as British ships bombarded FORT McHENRY. All night the Americans fought the British invaders. When he saw the flag still flying at dawn, he knew our country was still FREE. This inspired him to write the STAR SPANGLED BANNER which became our national anthem. As more STATES joined the growing Union, new STARS were added to the American Flag, while the number of stripes was returned to the original THIRTEEN. In 1831, the new 24-star flag was raised over the ship of CAPTAIN WILLIAM DRIVER-- he was so proud that he gave the flag a nickname that we still use today... OLD GLORY! Our country continued to grow, and new stars were added as each state joined the Union. Today, there are 50 UNITED STATES, and 50 STARS on our FLAG. To CELEBRATE and HONOR the history of our flag, we observe FLAG DAY every year on June 14th! And EVERY day we should honor our flag and our country with the PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. I pledge allegiance... ~...to the Flag of the United States of America..." Gloria always enjoyed caring for others. When she grew up, she became a nurse in the Army. (GLORIA): "Whenever I see our FLAG, I remember why I chose... to serve our country. In the United States we have so many FREEDOMS... Freedom of Speech and Press Freedom of Worship NAM VET Newsletter Page 15 Volume 3, Number 8 August 12, 1989 Freedom to chose representatives of our government Freedom of movement Freedom of Assembly These freedoms are PRECIOUS, and must not be taken for granted. Throughout our history, Americans have SERVED, FOUGHT, and DIED to protect our country's way of life! They all flew the FLAG to inspire them! The flag is still the symbol of our free country. In ALL of our many states, the SAME flag is flown. STANDARD PROPORTIONS OF U.S. FLAG :---.76--- : ........ ,..............................., : : : :....................; --- 1/13 : : : :....................: : 7/ : :....................: : /13 : :....................: : : :....................: 1. : ; :....................: --- :..........:....................: : :...............................: : :...............................: : :...............................: : :...............................: :....... :...............................: :--------- 1.9 -----------------: An Executive Order by President Eisenhower in 1959 specified the OFFICIAL dimensions of the U.S. Flag! When I served in the war, the flag reminded us of our country and the FREEDOM we fought to PROTECT! I remember the first morning I arrived at the battlefield hospital. A platoon was returning from an all-night patrol. Although the men were tired, I saw them pause and come to attention. As our country's flag was raised, I realized the sacrifice they were making in defense of freedom. I felt proud to do my part, and joined them in saluting the flag. -- "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands...." -- Patty always liked PLANNING things and ORGANIZING people. When she grew up, she was elected to be a Representative in Congress. (PATTY): "Whenever we gather as American citizens, we display our country's FLAG! This flag displays stars and stripes in UNITY! Together they stand, as we stand... UNITED AS A PEOPLE! This UNITY is NOT an accident! It is NOT something we should take for granted.! Each of us has a DUTY to help preserve our country's unity and freedom! What does FREEDOM mean to you? How you and your parents can protect our country's freedom. -- BE INFORMED.. learn about local and national issues. NAM VET Newsletter Page 16 Volume 3, Number 8 August 12, 1989 -- VOTE.. in local, state, and national elections. -- Respect and obey the law. -- Respect and obey the law. -- BE PATRIOTIC.. always pay respect to our flag during the pledge of allegiance and the national anthem. -- SERVE ON JURIES.. to help protect our right to a fair trial. -- Support our system of free public education. I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands... By pledging allegiance to the flag, we PROMISE we will work EACH DAY to preserve our country's freedom!" Frank liked to help people in his town. When he grew up, he became a policeman. (CHILD 1): "Hey, officer!" (CHILD 2): "When does the parade start?" (FRANK): "In just a few minutes. The flag will be coming down the street! Do you know what to do?~ (CHILDREN): "Sure! "You stand at attention with your right hand over your heart!" (FRANK): "That's right! And people in UNIFORM salute the flag! You should also respect the flag by TREATING it right! Carry the flag HIGH! Never let it touch the ground! Always display the flag properly. Display the flag from SUNRISE to SUNSET! Don't fly the flag at night unless LIT! Raise the flag BRISKLY and lower it RESPECTFULLY! Protect the flag from becoming soiled or damaged in any way. We also use the flag as a mark of RESPECT to the memory of important people in our nation who have died. On Memorial Day, the flag is flown at half-staff until noon to honor our nation's past Veterans On other days the flag may be flown at half-staff, but ONLY if ordered by the PRESIDENT or GOVERNOR. The BEST way to respect our flag is to display it EVERY DAY! You can wear a flag LAPEL PIN! Firemen, policemen, members of the military and patriotic organizations may wear a FLAG PATCH on their uniform! "Do you know another way we respect the flag?" "By saying the pledge of allegiance!" These four friends grew up to lead very different lives... KEVIN GLORIA By showing respect for our country's flag, they have helped our country grow, too. PATTY FRANK And like these four friends, we all join together as Americans when we pledge allegiance to our country's flag. I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. NAM VET Newsletter Page 17 Volume 3, Number 8 August 12, 1989 HOW TO DISPLAY THE FLAG -- In a parade, the flag should be carried in the center and in front of a line of flags... - or to the marching right. -- When crossed with another flag on a wall, the United States Flag should be in front and to the flag's own right. -- With state or local flags, the United States flag should be in the center and above the rest. -- With flags of other countries, the United States flag should be flown on a separate staff and the same height as the other flags. -- When the flag is flown on an angled staff, the blue field should be at the peak of the staff. -- When displayed other than on a staff, the flag should be displayed flat, with the blue field uppermost to the flag's own right. -- In a church or auditorium, the United States flag on a staff should be in advance of the audience and to the speaker's right. -- When displayed against a wall, either horizontally or vertically, the blue field should be uppermost and to the flag's own right. -- Never use the flag as a decoration! Use bunting of blue, white, and red to honor the colors of the flag. RESPECT THE FLAG! DISPLAY IT CORRECTLY! FLY THE FLAG EVERY DAY HERE'S HOW TO GET MORE (ILLUSTRATED) COPIES OF THIS BOOK AND A FLAG FOR YOUR OWN HOME! OUR COUNTRY'S FLAG COMIC BOOKS No. 72550 100 copies................ $ 39.95 1000 copies................ $ 340.00 LET'S BE RIGHT ON FLAG ETIQUETTE 24 page pamphlet Questions and answers. No. 72600 Each...................... $ .30 100 copies................ $ 24.00 HOME FLAG SETS PREMIER 100% polyester 3' x 5' flag with printed stars & stripes plus 2-piece 6' pole & wall bracket. No. 72803..........$ 9.95 RELIANCE 100% cotton 3' x 5' flag with dyed stars & sewed stripes plus 2-piece 6' pole with eagle, wall bracket, and halyard. No. 72802..........$ 12.25 DEFIANCE 100% cotton 3' x 5' flag with embroidered stars and sewed stripes plus 2-piece 6' pole w/eagle, wall bracket, and halyard. No. 72800..........$ 23.00 DELUXE 100% nylon 3' x 5' flag with embroidered stars & sewed stripes plus 4-piece 6' pole w/eagle, wall bracket, and halyard. No. 72909..........$ 35.55 ORDER FROM: NATIONAL EMBLEM SALES P. O. Box 1050 Indianapolis, IN 46206 Make checks payable to: NATIONAL EMBLEM SALES PRICES GOOD THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1988 NAM VET Newsletter Page 18 Volume 3, Number 8 August 12, 1989 HOW MANY DESCRIPTION STOCK # UNIT PRICE TOTAL _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ SHIPPING AND HANDLING - Not refundable SHIPPING _____ Up to $5.00 $2.00 $5.01 to $15.00 $3.00 $15.01 to $ $30.00 $3.50 $30.01 to $50.00 $4.50 Total _____ $50.01 & Over $5.00 NAM VET Newsletter Page 19 Volume 3, Number 8 August 12, 1989 DAV ENDORSES CONGRESSIONAL ACTION TO BAN FLAG DESECRATION From the August 1989 Edition of the DAV MAGAZINE p. 19 Input by: VETLink #1 FidoNet 1:321/203 Alternet 7:46/203 1-413-443-6313 The DAV has joined the outcry against the Supreme Court decision which ruled that desecration of the American flag, under certain circumstances, was protected by the 1st Amendment of the Constitution. "The Court's decision is out of line with how the vast majority of Americans feel and is morally indefensible," said DAV National Commander Billy E. Kirby. "The American flag, symbolic of our country's freedom and democracy, was paid for by personal sacrifice and the lives of its defenders. There is no justification under any circumstances to desecrate our nation's stars and stripes." The Courts 5-to-4 decision, written by Justice William J. Brennan Jr., protects protesters who burn the flag in political demonstrations as a form of free speech. It also nullified flag desecration laws in 48 states. The ruling overturned the conviction of a protester at the 1984 Republican National Convention in Dallas, who poured lighter fluid on the flag and set it ablaze. About 50 protesters looked on and chanted, "America, the red white and blue, we spit on you." Lawmakers in both Houses of Congress have quickly moved to restore penalties for desecration of the American flag. "The DAV believes in the 1st Amendment rights of free speech," Kirby said. "However, we do not agree with the Court's action that allows the 1st Amendment to serve as a vehicle to desecrate the flag." DAV National Legislative Director John F. Heilman said, "We feel certain Congress will do what is necessary to protect the dignity and integrity of the U.S. flag, either by passage of carefully crafted legislation designed to withstand a Constitutional challenge or by passage of an amendment to the Constitution itself. Our organization will support whatever congressional action it takes to restore penalties for desecrating the flag." The Senate, prior to its July recess, overwhelmingly approved a "sense of the Congress" resolution expressing dissatisfaction with the Supreme Court's decision. In the meantime, a bipartisan effort in the House has resulted in a proposed Constitutional amendment, House Joint Resolution 350, to ban desecration of the flag of the United States." House Minority Leader Robert H. Michel (R-Ill.) introduced the amendment with House Veterans' Affairs Committee Chairman G.V. "Sonny" Montgomery (D-Miss.). NAM VET Newsletter Page 20 Volume 3, Number 8 August 12, 1989 (At press time, the DAV had received an invitation to testify before a House Judiciary subcommittee hearing on legislation intended to prohibit desecration of the flag. Details of the DAV's testimony on the issue - and the proposed legislation - will be carried in next month's issue of DAV MAGAZINE.) NAM VET Newsletter Page 21 Volume 3, Number 8 August 12, 1989 Upping the Ante on Patriotism (Editorial, The New Haven Register July 17, 1989) Input by: Kathleen Kelly The NY Transfer Independent Net 1:1033/0 1-718-448-2358 Should it be illegal to burn a picture of the state bird? State Rep. Richard Blumenthal, who wants to be our next Connecticut attorney general, has upped the ante in the great patriotic mania of 1989. Two of Blumenthal's opponents for Attorney General have already come down hard on the flag-burning issue, so Blumenthal apparently thought he'd better come down even harder. Blumenthal says he is going to introduce legislation in the General Assembly to protect not only the American flag, but also the Connecticut flag from any would-be burners. Who knows, this may be only the beginning. Surely, if we are going to make the national flag and the state flag off limits to burning, then we ought to throw in some of our other national and state symbols. We certainly shouldn't allow troublemakers to desecrate the likenesses of Uncle Sam, the American Eagle, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, or George Bush. Nor for that matter should we permit desecration of likenesses of the state seal, state animal, state flower or state bird. And shouldn't it be unlawful, too, to tamper with any sheet of music on which is printed "The Star Spangled Banner," "America," "America the Beautiful," or "Take me out to the Ball game," which as everyone knows -- at least everyone who has a drop of patriotic blood in his veins -- is as American as apple pie. And speaking of apple pie, it surely should be illegal to speak disparagingly of that dessert which all good patriots love and cherish. Once we get going, there's no end to the things we can make illegal. (c) New Haven Register NAM VET Newsletter Page 22 Volume 3, Number 8 August 12, 1989 ================================================================= G . I . N E W S ================================================================= LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS TO EXTEND VIETNAM ERA GI EDUCATIONAL BENEFITS Input by: Joan Renne Friend's BBS - Omaha, NE FidoNet 1:285/662 1-402-896-2669 As virtually all of you know, the educational benefits under 38 U.S.C. Chapter 34 (Vietnam Era GI Bill) expire December 31, 1989. Several bills are now pending in Congress which would extend those benefits. S. 945 (Mr. McCain) would delete 38 U.S.C. 1662(e) (the December 31, 1989 deadline). H.R. 316 (Mr. Quillen) would change 38 U.S.C. 1662 to read "Educational assistance afforded to eligible veterans under this chapter (34) or chapter 36 of this title shall remain available until used. H.R. 338 (Mr. Roe) would repeal 38 U.S.C. 1662 (a), (b), and (c). [The purpose is to eliminate the time period in which a veteran has to use his educational benefits. I think the bill drafter goofed by not also proposing repeal of (d) and (e).] H.R. 2114 (Mr. Bilirakis) would change 38 U.S.C> 1662(e) to read: "After December 31, 1989, no educational assistance may be afforded any eligible veteran under this chapter or chapter 36 of this title if such eligible veteran is entitled to benefits under chapter 30 [Montgomery GI Bill]." H.R. 2192 (Mr. Rhodes) would change 38 U.S.C. 1662(e) to read: "(1) After December 31, 1989, no educational assistance may be afforded any eligible veteran under this chapter or chapter 36 if such eligible veteran is entitled to benefits under Chapter 30. "(2) In no case may such assistance be provided to anyone after June 30, 1993." H.R. 2237 (Mr. Holloway) would change 38 U.S.C. 1662(e) to read: "After December 31, 1989, no educational assistance may be afforded any eligible veteran if such eligible veteran is entitled to benefits under chapter 30." I urge all Vietnam Veterans to write their Congressional delegation supporting the concept of extending the deadline for Vietnam Era educational benefits. As you can see, while approaches vary, the concept apparently enjoys support. BUT, as with any other proposed legislation, cards, letters and phone calls count. December is rapidly approaching. DO IT NOW! OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO SAMPLE LETTER: NAM VET Newsletter Page 23 Volume 3, Number 8 August 12, 1989 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Honorable xxx xxxxxx U.S. Senate/Congress xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxx, xxxxxxxx 99999 Dear Senator/Congressman xxxxxx: I write in support of extending the deadline for Vietnam Era veterans to use their educational allowances under the "Vietnam Era GI Bill," 38 U.S.C. Chapter 34. When Congress declared an end to the Vietnam War, it did not give adequate consideration to the transition needs of those veterans who would choose to continue serving until retirement; instead, the Congress mandated an end to benefits no later than December 31, 1989. When the "Montgomery GI Bill," 38 U.S.C. Chapter 30, was enacted, inadequate provision was made for transition from the old to the new. There is a "notch" of veterans who do not have a full ten years to use their chapter 34 benefits. Those veterans separated from January 1, 1980 to June 30, 1988. There is a smaller "notch" of veterans who cannot use their Chapter 34 benefits before the deadline since they don't have four years to use them, but who cannot qualify for transition to Chapter 30. That notch is those who left the service between January 1, 1986, and June 30, 1988. Several bills have been introduced in the current session which would address these problems: S. 945 (Mr. McCain) would delete 38 U.S.C.  1662(e) (the December 31, 1989 deadline). H.R. 316 (Mr. Quillen) would change 38 U.S.C.  1662 to read "Educational assistance afforded to eligible veterans under this chapter [34] or chapter 36 of this title shall remain available until used. H.R. 338 (Mr. Roe) would repeal 38 U.S.C.  1662 (a), (b), and (c). [The stated purpose is to eliminate the time period in which a veteran has to use his educational benefits. I think the bill drafter erred by not also proposing repeal of (d) and (e).] H.R. 2114 (Mr. Bilirakis) would change 38 U.S.C.  1662(e) to read: "After December 31, 1989, no educational assistance may be afforded any eligible veteran under this chapter or chapter 36 of this title if such eligible veteran is entitled to benefits under chapter 30 [Montgomery GI Bill]." H.R. 2192 (Mr. Rhodes) would change 38 U.S.C.  1662(e) to read: "(1) After December 31, 1989, no educational assistance may be afforded any eligible veteran under this chapter or chapter 36 if such eligible veteran is entitled to benefits under Chapter 30. "(2) In no case may such assistance be provided to anyone after June 30, 1993." H.R. 2237 (Mr. Holloway) would change 38 U.S.C.  1662(e) to read: "After December 31, 1989, no educational assistance may be afforded any eligible veteran if such eligible veteran is entitled to benefits under chapter 30." S. 945 is probably the fairest approach, in that it would restore the "notch" group to parity with their fellow Vietnam NAM VET Newsletter Page 24 Volume 3, Number 8 August 12, 1989 veterans. This group served with reliance that they would have ten (10) years after separation or retirement to use their benefits. H.R. 2114 and 2237 would preserve a mandatory transition to Chapter 30, if eligible, but would eliminate premature loss of benefits for "notch" veterans. H.R. 316 and 338 would appear to repeal time limits for all veterans, and would appear to actually extend benefits past the longstanding ten-year limit. While this would be a "good deal" for veterans, it would be the most expensive approach. In contrast, H.R. 2192 appears to be the cheapest solution. It preserves chapter 34 benefits for those veterans not eligible under chapter 30, but places a June 30, 1993, deadline. The impact is that "notch" veterans would have to immediately use, or lose, their benefits. While cheapest, it might not be fair to veterans who did not immediately commit to transition education due to their awareness of the December 31, 1989 deadline. [To take a cheap shot, a Congress that can approve $159,000,000,000.00 to bail out mismanaged S & L's can afford even H.R. 316 and 338.] I personally think S. 945 is the "best" solution, because I think those of us who served while chapter 34 was in force relied on its benefits, and the government should be equitably estopped from removing them. The next best solution would be that of H.R. 2114 and 2237, which would at least insure "notch" veterans retained reasonable transition benefits. Whatever the technical solution, the problem remains that Vietnam era veterans face early loss of educational benefits designed to ease their return to civilian life. I urge you to support the concept of remedial legislation and ask you insure prompt and expeditious action in committee and on the floor. Sincerely, xxxxxxx x. xxxxxxxx NAM VET Newsletter Page 25 Volume 3, Number 8 August 12, 1989 LEGAL NOTES -- A WIDOW'S CASE A Vietnam Veterans of America Legal Services (VVALS) Report From the July 1989 Edition of the VVA Veteran Vol 9, No.7 Input by: VETLink #1 FidoNet 1:321/203 Alternet 7:46/203 1-413-443-6313 Vietnam Veterans of America Legal Services (VVALS) recently represented a widow before the Board of Veterans Appeals (BVA) on the issue of "entitlement to service connection for the cause of the veteran's death." The BVA allowed the widow's claim on the grounds that her husband had incurred Post-traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) as the result of his combat experiences in Vietnam and that the PTSD was the cause of her husband's death by suicide. This case is significant because the widow's husband had never filed a claim for service connection for PTSD. This made the widow's claim much more difficult to win because PTSD had to be proven without her husband's testimony. While the veteran had received psychiatric treatment at various VA medical centers, and a few diagnoses of PTSD had been made, the VA adjudicators were not convinced that PTSD was the proper diagnosis. The widow's testimony was critical in convincing the BVA that her husband's actions for several years before his suicide were those of a veteran with severe PTSD. The veteran was extremely depressed and was having severe flashbacks of combat episodes. He was taking very strong psychiatric medication to counteract his flashbacks. A significant fact is that the veteran was taking both Thorazine and Valium, which can make a depression worse as the Thorazine reinforces one of the side effects of Valium, that of depression of the central nervous system and resultant emotional depression. This is verified by the latest Physicians Desk Reference, which was cited in VVALS's brief to the BVA. The VA regulation regarding suicide is worth reviewing in detail: "Service connection may be granted for the cause of death by suicide where it is established that at the time of death there was mental unsoundness due to or the proximate result of a service-connected disease or injury. Where no reasonable adequate motive for suicide is shown by the evidence, it will be considered to have resulted from mental unsoundness and the act itself considered to be evidence of mental unsoundness. A reasonable adequate motive for suicide may be established by affirmative evidence showing circumstances which could lead a rational man to self-destruction." (38 U.S.C. 410; 38 C.F.R 3.302). This regulation basically states that if there is evidence of a reason for suicide other than the effects of a service-connected disability, entitlement to service connection for the cause of the veteran's death will not be awarded by the VA. For example, if there is evidence that just prior to suicide, a veteran with service-connected PTSD rated at mildly disabling (ten percent) loses his life's savings in a business venture, the VA will most probably not consider the suicide to be due to the veteran's PTSD. NAM VET Newsletter Page 26 Volume 3, Number 8 August 12, 1989 In the VVALS widow's case, the evidence presented to the BVA clearly showed that the veteran had PTSD, which was of such severity that it resulted in the veteran's suicide. The BVA was convinced that service connection for PTSD should be awarded posthumously and that the veteran's severe PTSD was the cause of his death. In conclusion, this case also shows that a veteran's survivors and dependents will have much less difficulty recovering Dependent's Indemnity Compensation if the veteran's spouse takes the time to claim service connection for those disabilities incurred during service, as well as to claim service connection for PTSD, which can appear many years after service. NAM VET Newsletter Page 27 Volume 3, Number 8 August 12, 1989 VETERANS APPEALS COURT SLATED TO OPEN FOR BUSINESS SEPT. 1 From the August 1989 Edition of the DAV Magazine p. 19 Input by: VETLink #1 FidoNet 1:321/203 Alternet 7:46/203 1-413-443-6313 When the newly created U.S. Court of Veterans Appeals (COVA) opens for business on September 1, veterans will hopefully find a court that's accessible to veterans and doing the job Congress intended. That's the assessment recently made by DAV National Service Director Arthur H. Wilson, who said the DAV has taken a particularly active role in efforts to formulate the new court's rules and procedures. "The DAV's concern is that COVA truly be responsive to the unique needs that veteran claimants can be expected to bring before it. The DAV will appear before the court on behalf of veterans who are appealing decisions of the VA's Board of Veterans Appeals. Therefore, our National Service Officers will actively participate in the process." Part of the process for any new court is the formulation of rules that address individual court's precise requirements. To this end, Wilson said DAV representatives were serving with COVA ad hoc advisory committee. This includes DAV Associate National Service Director Richard E. Patterson and DAV Staff Counsel Ron Smith, who are helping to prepare proposed rules the DAV hopes COVA will adopt. Also working on the process is DAV Staff Counsel John J. Corcoran. COVA and Chief Judge Frank Q. Nebeker must establish rules governing appellate procedures in the court. Wilson said the DAV and others on the committee are confident their rule proposals will receive careful scrutiny. Judge Nebeker was scheduled to meed with the committee members as this issue of DAV MAGAZINE went to press. Besides presenting recommended rules and procedures, the committee was also expected to provide a status report on other areas of court interest. One area of particular DAV interest is a provision to ensure non-lawyers, such as DAV National Service Officers, are permitted to represent claimants before COVA. "We believe our level of expertise in claims representation is unequaled, either inside or out of the legal profession," Wilson said. "Accordingly, during the court's formative days, it's important that those responsible for formulating COVA procedures ensure veterans full access to the court and representation by qualified non-lawyers, such as DAV NSOs." NAM VET Newsletter Page 28 Volume 3, Number 8 August 12, 1989 NOT TO BE FORGOTTEN UNITED STATES ARMY CENTRAL IDENTIFICATION LABORATORY HAWAII Input by: VETLink #1 FidoNet 1:321/203 Alternet 7:46/203 1-413-443-6313 MISSION AND ORGANIZATION The U.S. Army Central Identification Laboratory, Hawaii (CILHI), is the only organization in the U.S. military that is solely responsible for the search for, recovery and identification of servicemembers killed or listed as missing. The mission of the CILHI is to: - Conduct search and recovery operations in the Pacific for World War II, Korean War and Vietnam War dead; - Process remains and establish identities through the use of anthropological, odontological and other sophisticated scientific techniques; - Accumulate and catalogue information on American and allied personnel listed as missing in action or declared dead but body not recovered; - Provide worldwide emergency support to the Army Mortuary Affairs Program and, as required, to the Departments of the Navy and Air Force, for search, recovery and identification of remains of servicemembers killed or missing in current operations; - Perform humanitarian missions as directed. CILHI is a field operating element of the Casualty and Memorial Affairs Operations Center of the U.S. Total Army Personnel Agency, Alexandria, Virginia. The laboratory employs more than 40 military and Department of the Army civilians who are organized into three sections: Search and Recovery, Casualty Data Analysis and the Laboratory. Those sections are supported by the command element which includes the office of the commander, unit supply, training, and operations. The military and civilian staff of CILHI represents a wide range of training, education and experience. The majority of the military personnel are experienced Graves Registration Specialists with extensive additional training in map reading, search and recovery operations, archaeological excavation techniques, records management and data processing. Other critical specialty areas within CILHI include administration, logistics management and photography. The majority of the scientific staff have advanced degrees, primarily doctorates, and are members of professional associations. Some staff members are board-certified in their forensic specialty. Many staff members have years of experience in Southeast Asia and have participated in the recovery and NAM VET Newsletter Page 29 Volume 3, Number 8 August 12, 1989 identification of thousands of casualties of aircraft crashes, multiple-death incidents and major battles such as the Tet Offensive and Khe Sanh. HISTORY Throughout U.S. history, those killed in war have been recovered and interred to the best of the government's ability at the time. Some efforts to identify and return the dead can be traced back as far as the Seminole Wars of the 1840's. However, it was in the Civil War that the government assumed an obligation to identify and bury war dead in registered graves. This was possible through the aid of large numbers of citizen volunteer soldiers. Through their efforts, mortuary records were collected by posts and various units, and forwarded to the Adjutant General. In addition, systematic records were maintained for soldiers who died in hospitals. However, it is true that many men who fell in battle were interred where they fell with little attempt at identification. The Spanish-American War marked a major development of policy when remains were disinterred from their burial sites in Cuba, casketed, and returned to the U.S. for permanent burial. A Graves Registration Service was introduced during World War I to recover and identify war dead. Congress authorized a return of remains program following the precedent established after the Spanish-American War. During World War II, Congress again authorized a return of remains program and made the Secretary of the Army responsible for the program. Congress set a time limit of five years after the war for final resolution of the issue. Remains were processed by several Army identification laboratories which were dissolved in 1951. A central identification laboratory was established in Japan during the Korean War to process United Nations Forces war dead. The laboratory remained in Japan until it was dissolved in 1956. Some of the laboratory personnel remained in Japan and later provided assistance in identifying those killed during the Vietnam War. During the war in Southeast Asia, the two U.S. Army mortuaries in Vietnam identified all servicemembers. The immediate predecessor of CILHI was the U.S. Army Central Identification Laboratory, Thailand (CIL-THAI). It was established in March, 1973 at Camp Samae San, Thailand, following the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Vietnam and the closing of the Army mortuaries. Working with the South Vietnamese government until its fall in 1975, CIL-THAI was responsible for the search for, recovery and identification of remains of U.S. servicemembers killed in Southeast Asia only. In May 1976, CIL-THAI was relocated to Honolulu, Hawaii and renamed CILHI. The organization's mission was expanded to include identification of servicemembers killed in Korea and WWII and those killed in current operations. Since 1976, the CILHI staff has assisted in the identification of casualties from several recent incidents to include: the bombing of the Marine NAM VET Newsletter Page 30 Volume 3, Number 8 August 12, 1989 Corps barracks in Beirut, Lebanon in 1983; the Arrow Air crash in Gander, Newfoundland in 1985; and the USS Stark missile attack in the Persian Gulf in 1987. SEARCH AND RECOVERY SECTION Before the identification process can begin, the remains of servicemembers must be returned to the U.S. government. From Southeast Asia, remains have been received primarily through official repatriations, whereby, a foreign government recovers the remains and returns them to U.S. custody. Remains are also returned through other sources such as refugees or recovery operations conducted by U.S. military organizations in allied countries. Additionally, CILHI conducts search and recovery operations with the cooperation of foreign governments. CILHI has three fully qualified search and recovery teams which conduct thorough area searches and excavations of crash and burial sites to recover remains and personal effects. Through the use of detailed grid searches and other excavation techniques, the teams gather vital material and information from aircraft crash sites that are used in the identification process. Most recently, search and recovery operations have been conducted in cooperation with the governments of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, the Lao People's Democratic Republic, Papua New Guinea, the Republic of Korea, the Republic of the Philippines, the Solomon Islands and Malaysia. During one mission to Papua New Guinea, a CILHI team located and identified a World War II aircraft which had crashed in 1944. The search team worked for a week in the dense jungle to recover remains and personal effects from the crash site. Specialists in the laboratory later were able to establish the identities of all personnel aboard the aircraft and return their remains to the next of kin nearly 40 years after their loss. LABORATORY SECTION After CILHI receives the remains, the physical anthropologists and the forensic odontologist attempt to establish individual identities, using standard, recognized forensic techniques and procedures. Since remains received at the CILHI are often commingled, the first task of the laboratory staff is to segregate them into separate individuals. After segregating the remains, the anthropologists and odontologist examine them to determine all dental and anthropological data that can be obtained and then document their findings onto a series of charts, forms and special narratives. The skilled scientific staff can determine numerous characteristics of an individual through examination of skeletal remains: age, race, sex, muscularity, handedness, height, dental patterns and indications of injuries the person may have sustained or abnormalities that may have existed while the person was alive. If dentition is received with the remains, the forensic NAM VET Newsletter Page 31 Volume 3, Number 8 August 12, 1989 odontologist examines it to document restorations or unusual characteristics. The odontologist's findings are entered into the Computer Assisted Post Mortem Identification (CAPMI) system, a computer program that has stored within its data base, the antemortem dental records of the U.S.> servicemen whose remains are listed as unrecovered. The CAPMI system compares the characteristics of the recovered dentition against the data base and generates a list of the most likely candidates for a match. The odontologist physically checks the dental records of the individuals listed by the CAPMI system with the actual remains and the postmortem X-rays to try to establish an identity. State-of-the-art computers, microscopes and radiographic equipment are among the items used by the anthropologists and odontologist in the identification process. The staff photographer operates a photo lab which also aids the scientists in their analysis and documentation of the skeletal remains. Even with all the technology available and their many years of experience, the scientific staff is not without its limitations. They can estimate the physical characteristics of a person and establish scientific probabilities, but they must have a probable population against which they can compare the physical data to establish an identification. CASUALTY DATA ANALYSIS SECTION The casualty data analysts collect and maintain personnel, medical and dental files on U.S. servicemembers whose remains have not been recovered. The number of unrecovered servicemembers from all three wars make this a monumental task. For instance, the casualty analysts maintain records on the approximately 2,400 who have not been recovered from Southeast Asia as well as the 58,000 who died and were recovered in the Vietnam War. The section also collects records and information on the more than 8,000 personnel from the Korean War and the nearly 79,000 from WWII whose remains have not been recovered. While the scientific staff examines the remains, the casualty data analysts research records to compile the names of the individuals that could be associated with the remains. If remains have been recovered from an identified crash site, the records of the people who were manifested on that specific aircraft are analyzed to extract physical data that could assist in the comparison. If, however, the remains have been returned through a repatriation, the source, whether a government or an individual, often provides a presumed name, probable date of death, and general location of recovery. Using this information, the data analysts determine which unaccounted for serviceman's loss scenario best matches the information provided by the source. That individual's last known location is plotted on a map and a circle with an established radius is drawn from that point. The files of all unaccounted for servicemen whose last known locations fall within the circle are screened by the analysts. The medical, dental and biographical information compiled on each individual by the analysts is then compared by the anthropologists and odontologist with the biological data they NAM VET Newsletter Page 32 Volume 3, Number 8 August 12, 1989 obtained from the remains. If a favorable comparison is not possible, the records search is expanded until a match can be made. Only then, is CILHI ready to make a recommendation for identification. Throughout the identification process, the staff can consult or request the assistance of several specialized agencies such as Tripler Army Medical Center, the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Smithsonian Institution and the Naval Investigative Service. CILHI has obtained assistance from recognized leaders in many forensic specialties. Its Visiting Scientists Program has brought several members of the scientific community on the mainland to Hawaii for professional visits and consultations. REVIEW PROCESS FOR IDENTIFICATION CILHI's recommendation for identification is forwarded to the Chief, Armed Services Graves Registration Office, who presents the case to board certified forensic consultants for their review. After the consultants review the case and concur with the recommendation, it is sent to the Service to which the deceased was assigned. The Service representative then notifies the primary next of kin of the recommended identification and reviews the entire case file with them. The family can choose to have the case reviewed by an independent expert of their own choice. If the family's expert differs with CILHI's recommendation, the case file and the comments of the family's expert are returned to the Army's forensic consultants for further evaluation. The family may also submit additional information to the Armed Forces Identification Review Board (AFIRB) for consideration in the review process. The AFIRB is a board of senior officers with one voting member from the Departments of the Army, Navy and Air Force who are responsible for reviewing all information submitted with the recommendation for identification. If the case concerns a Marine, the Navy may designate a Marine Corps representative as its member. The AFIRB is the final approval authority for each recommendation. It bases its decision on the preponderance of all relevant facts and circumstances surrounding the case. After the AFIRB approves an identification, the case is forwarded to the appropriate Service Secretary who is responsible for returning the remains to the family for their final disposition. "I renew my pledge to the families of those listed as missing in action, that this nation will work unceasingly until a full accounting is made. It's our sacred duty and we will never forget them." Ronald Reagan President of the United States NAM VET Newsletter Page 33 Volume 3, Number 8 August 12, 1989 ================================================================= G E N E R A L A R T I C L E S ================================================================= A TRIP TOO FAR by M.A. Farber excerpted from: The Conde' Nast TRAVELER August 1989, pp.83 Input by: Kathleen Kelly The NY Transfer Independent 1033/0 1-718-448-2358 For Lars-Eric Lindblad -- who has been made to suckle the breasts of a New Guinea chief's eldest wife and devour a roasted monkey's hand in Ecuador, who has plotted a novel trip to Antarctica while lounging on the Gobi Desert and followed the starts from the hot spring pool in East Africa -- this has been a trying time in Washington. At 62, this naturalized American is, as the New York Times said in 1982, the "acknowledged leader of the haute tour" world-travel business; a man whom the king of Sweden made a Knight of the Order of the North Star and whom Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands made an officer of the Order of the Golden Ark; a man whom -- along with Neil Armstrong, Amelia Earhart, and Christopher Columbus -- the American Society of Travel Agents made a member of its Travel Hall of Fame. None of this matters to the Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury Department, United States government. Last October, after Lindblad decided to "promote a little civil disobedience," a dozen customs agents ... descended on the Spanish Renaissance headquarters of Lindblad Travel, Inc., in Westport, Connecticut, and carted off a dozen boxes of correspondence, telexes, and brochures. What was in those boxes, or otherwise already in the arsenal of federal prosecutors, was enough to cause Lindblad to plead guilty in May, on behalf of his corporation, to a violation of Treasury Department travel restrictions. The issue, in a strict sense, was Vietnam -- and newly enforced American regulations whose antecedents are in the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917, when Ho Chi Minh City was Saigon, of course, and everyone's eyes were trained on the Western Front. Lindblad knew he was guilty of violating those regulations when he continued to organize tours of Vietnam in 1988. His case, at least in the courts, is over; his company will pay a fine of $50,000. In broader terms, however, the issue is whether the United States, which is determined to reduce the flow of hard currency to a former foe, ought to be preventing American tour operators from helping American citizens to travel anywhere they want to go. And that issue, with Lindblad and others, some of whom are under investigation, is still very much alive. In early 1987, 12 years after the last Americans scrambled into helicopters on the roof of this nation's embassy in South Vietnam, the Hanoi government opened its doors to ordinary American tourists. Americans are not restricted by their government from going to Vietnam (as they are from going to Cuba), although NAM VET Newsletter Page 34 Volume 3, Number 8 August 12, 1989 Vietnam for many years confined its visas for Americans to a handful of politicians, humanitarians, scholars, and returning veterans. A half-dozen or more American tour operators took advantage of Vietnam's new economically motivated eagerness to attract tourists, as well as Western aid and investment. And until early last year, at least, a number of tours were run and others planned. But in March 1988 the Treasury Department issued "clarifying" regulations that made it impossible for American travel agents and tour operators to do anything with regard to Vietnam except book unsolicited passengers aboard the planes or ships of other countries. All other transactions -- organizing or promoting group or individual tours, arranging land accommodations, doing any kind of business with Vietnam -- were barred, except with special permission. In effect, Americans were free to go to Vietnam, but not with the help of American travel- service providers. "A major goal of the regulations is to deny Vietnam access to United States products and services and to prevent Vietnam from earning foreign exchange from transactions with US nationals," wrote Peter T. Madigan, the Treasury Department's deputy assistant secretary for legislative affairs, in a letter to Congress. "In the case of the prohibitions against providing travel-related services, the embargo is particularly important because of the potentially significant number of United States persons considering travel to Vietnam." Although no reliable figures are available on the number of Americans who have gone to Vietnam since 1987, it is believed that as many as one thousand non-Vietnamese Americans may be making the trip annually. If the numbers are vague, so too is the economic impact on Vietnam of the ban on group travel. Overall, Vietnam has probably not suffered more than what one expert called a "pinprick." In authorizing individual, but not group, travel to Vietnam -- in pursuing a bifurcated policy notably different from its benign stance toward the Soviet Union and China -- the government has entrapped itself in a tortured contradiction. And, ironically, the punitive nature of its Vietnam policy has taken its greatest toll on Americans, raising questions of constitutionality and, as with the Vietnam War itself, of morality. Lars Lindblad didn't like the government's position, and unlike most of his colleagues, he made a fuss publicly. He hired Washington lobbyists, went up to the Hill, and retained Dan Burt, a lawyer who defended [sic] General William C. Westmoreland, once American troop commander in Vietnam, in the general's libel suit against CBS. It availed Lindblad little, and he took it upon himself to defy the Treasury Department. [NOTE: Actually, CBS was the defendant in the suit brought by Westmoreland, who was REPRESENTED by Dan Burt.] "You know, it's very much an emotional matter with me," Lindblad said in a recent interview, seated by the tiled fireplace of his Westport office and surrounded by Ashanti figurines from Ghana, spearheads from Easter Island, and Hiroshige woodblock prints. "I believe that if Americans can travel to Vietnam, especially when we have no diplomatic representation there, American tour operators should be allowed to help see that they are taken care of and see what they want to see. It's not a matter of money for me; it's a matter of principle." When Lindblad took on the government -- thinking, really, he said, that it would not pursue him -- he had just emerged from a NAM VET Newsletter Page 35 Volume 3, Number 8 August 12, 1989 period of depression following the loss of his second wife, Cary, who died of cancer in 1984 at the age of 37. He had almost committed suicide by drinking morphine in 1985, after hearing what he thought was Cary's voice asking him to join her. For 2 years, until early 1988, he had given up ownership of what Arthur Frommer, the travel-guide author, called "the single most distinguished travel company in our nation." Few who know Lindblad, who has made himself a millionaire, could doubt that in his duel with the government he has acted as much for principle as for money. During four decades, this big, restless Swede -- who has opened vast and exotic tracts to tourists but emphatically does not run his business for "the taxi driver from New York with a big cigar" -- has nourished a vision of using travel "for conservation and for peace." In the process he has become the explorer he dreamed of being on those cold boyhood nights under the blankets in Stockholm. .... Lindblad's health took a turn for the worse in 1981 when enjoying a panda reserve 17,000 feet high in the Sichuan hills of China, he suffered chest pains. A year later, after collapsing on a street in Westport, he underwent a quadruple-bypass operation. But it was Cary's death in 1984 and his flirtation with suicide ... that led to his decision in February 1986 to sell Lindblad Travel to Ira D. Kaye, a Hong Kong-based businessman. With an honorary title of company "chairman," a $50,000 salary, and travel expenses from Kaye, Lindblad spent the better part of the next two years in Asia, introducing Kaye around and urging tourism upon governments. One of those governments was Vietnam's. On June 17, 1987, in Hanoi, Lindblad and Dang Dinh Ky, director of Vietnamtourist, signed an agreement approving Lindblad Travel itineraries for Vietnam, including side trips to Phnom Penh and Angkor Wat in Vietnamese-occupied Cambodia. Within weeks, a series of 16 tours, costing $3,820 including round-trip air fare from Seattle, were booked solid, with the first to leave on November 2, 1987. But in August and September of that year, "reacting to increasing interest in travel to Vietnam," according to federal prosecutors, the State and Treasury departments publicized what they said were actually "longstanding" regulations barring group travel to Vietnam. Lindblad immediately told the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control that he had been unaware of the regulations and was under great "pressure" from clients wanting to go to Vietnam. The Foreign Assets office gave him a "limited license" to, in effect, carry out his scheduled tours under the auspices of Lindblad Travel (Hong Kong), which was then owned independently by Ira Kaye. Nothing more was authorized. About 230 people went on those tours between November 1987 and March 1988. Lindblad, meanwhile, had bought back his company from Kaye. Married again, to an old family friend, Ruriko Hosaka, he had recovered mentally and physically. But despite the Vietnam initiative, he believed his company had lost its moorings and was being poorly managed. He wanted to resume control, and he did, in January 1988. One of Lindblad's first acts was to ardently promote cruises of Vietnam for late 1988. Although he had no permission for those trips, he suggested to prospective travelers that he still had "a special limited license" from Treasury. Apparently, some of his competitors in the travel industry complained to the government. In February the Office of Foreign Assets Control reminded Lindblad that his "limited license" had expired and that he should cease NAM VET Newsletter Page 36 Volume 3, Number 8 August 12, 1989 planning further Vietnam tours. And on March 8, Treasury amended the regulations on Vietnam group travel "to clarify its interpretation that the only service" American travel agents "may provide to persons subject to US jurisdiction is the booking of passage aboard a third-country carrier traveling to or from Vietnam, North Korea, or Cambodia." Lindblad wrote Treasury to deny that he had violated the license, adding that the late 1988 Vietnam cruises he had promoted in great detail were not firmed up. "I do confess to enthusiastic language and presentation characteristic of standard salesmanship," he wrote. Lindblad also turned the tables on his competitors. While "we remain restricted and under attack," he wrote, they were being allowed to "act freely." It is not clear how many Vietnam tours other than Lindblad's were run after August 1987; certainly some were. Unmoved, Treasury threatened to prosecute Lindblad for any future violations. Throughout the spring and summer of last year ... Lindblad continued to lobby for liberalization of the regulations, arguing that they were ineffective in stopping the flow of dollars to Vietnam and an unfair restraint of trade. Although Treasury ruled out another license for Lindblad, he wrote a memorandum to his staff on June 3, 1988, saying, "I have decided to go ahead with the Vietnam and Kampuchea program regardless." On June 17 he informed Vietnamtourist of the same thing. On that very day, coincidentally, Maryann Caggiano, an undercover agent for the US Customs Service, using the name Maryann Ambrose and, apparently, saying her brother had died in Vietnam and left behind a family she wanted to find, appeared at the offices of Lindblad Travel asking about a tour. She was told that nothing was available because of government regulations. But on September 13, after the Associated Press circulated a remark by Lindblad that he planned "a little civil disobedience," Caggiano returned. She was now told that reservations were being accepted for an October 16 tour, with government permission; twelve others had already made bookings. The Lindblad literature for the tour promised "many pleasant and unexpected surprises." Surprises were indeed in store. On September 25, Caggiano gave Lindblad Travel a $4,410 cashier's check for the trip, which was deposited in the company's account at Connecticut National Bank. On October 4 -- even while a company executive was saying publicly that "we have not received the necessary clearance to operate any tours to Vietnam" -- Lindblad was wiring $24,539 from the Connecticut National account to the Hong Kong & Shanghai Banking Corp. for transfer to Vietnam tourist in Hanoi as payment for the October 16 tour. On October 6 the Treasury Department put a block on the $207,903 left in the Connecticut account, and with a search warrant in hand, Caggiano and a dozen other agents surrounded the gracious white mansion that is home to Lindblad Travel. Hundreds of documents were seized for use by a federal grand jury. .... On June 14, 1989, Lindblad was ordered by Federal Court in Bridgeport to pay a maximum fine of $50,000; he could have faced 10 years' imprisonment as well. His guilty plea for Lindblad Travel, negotiated in May by his Connecticut lawyer ... eliminated any possibility of indictment. Lindblad was also forced to forfeit the $24,539 he was going to pay Vietnam tourist and to refund $46,000 paid out by people who had booked the October 16 tour. In Washington, Salvatore R. Martoche, Treasury's assistant secretary for enforcement, described Lindblad's plea as "a major victory" that "should send a strong message" to the travel NAM VET Newsletter Page 37 Volume 3, Number 8 August 12, 1989 industry. Lindblad walked out of court vowing to "continue our opposition to these regulations by all lawful means." .... Lindblad's legal costs in the battle over the regulations have run to several hundred thousand dollars. Some travel agents, concerned about Lindblad Travel's stability during the controversy, hesitated to recommend the company's non-Vietnam tours. And support from leaders in the travel industry, when it was forthcoming, was often late or lukewarm. It was not until three weeks after Lindblad pleaded guilty that the US Tour Operators Association wrote Treasury Secretary Nicholas F. Brady, saying it was time to lift travel restrictions that were "an anachronism held in place by a legal gimmick" and [that] were not even applied to such "potential aggressors" as China and the Soviet Union. The association did not mention the Lindblad case. Only after Lindblad pleaded guilty did the American Society of Travel Agents issue a statement on his case, saying his efforts will have "a long-term beneficial effect." .... The Vietnam regulations, [Lindblad] believes, will fall of their own weight. "Travel is not really trade," Lindblad says. "It's communication between people. And just as travel promotes understanding, understanding promotes peace." Yes, he broke the law, he admits. "But when I came here to Connecticut in 1951, there was a law that you couldn't use condoms or have oral intercourse -- it was strictly forbidden. My God," he said. "I broke that law all the time." The group-travel ban is part of broader economic embargoes, not just of Vietnam but also of other "designated" countries such as North Korea, Cambodia, and Cuba. The authority for the restrictions derives from the Trading with the Enemy Act, approved during World War I and revived by President Harry S Truman during the Korean conflict. In December 1950, when President Truman proclaimed a "national emergency," foreign-assets control regulations were drawn up. The regulations, administered by the Treasury Department and amended periodically, were applied to North Vietnam in 1964 and to South Vietnam in 1975 and have been extended annually by the White House. In 1977 Congress changed the Trading with the Enemy Act, substantially limiting the president's power to impose peacetime embargoes against another country. But in what is known as "grandfathering," Congress allowed then-existing embargoes to continue. The travel restrictions on Vietnam have not been tested before the Supreme Court. But on narrow grounds in 1984, the Court decided that the Cuban tourist regulations, which had been lifted temporarily during the administration of President Jimmy Carter, were "justified by weighty concerns of foreign policy." In the Lindblad case, the government said the Vietnam restrictions "strike a balance" between cutting down on the flow of hard currency to Hanoi while permitting individual travel. The government said it doesn't buy the "restraint of trade" argument sometimes made by tour operators, because without a special license no American companies -- travel or otherwise -- can do business with Vietnam. And, a government spokesman said, "We do not believe it should become Treasury policy to attempt to substitute commercial tour guides for United States consular officers for the protection of US travelers" in Vietnam. The government found an ally in Joel M. Abels, editor of TRAVEL TRADE, who twice printed an editorial during the Lindblad affair saying it was "morally indefensible and totally obscene for any member of NAM VET Newsletter Page 38 Volume 3, Number 8 August 12, 1989 the American travel industry to assist, encourage, and/or condone travel to a country such as Vietnam." Despite the Supreme Court decision in 1984, [Lindblad's attorney] Richard Albrecht does not believe the group-travel restrictions can withstand a careful constitutional attack. Had Lindblad been indicted, Albrecht would have argued that the barriers are a violation of rule-making power because, with individuals free to travel to Vietnam, the regulations do not serve the purpose of the law. Even if he is wrong on that point, Albrecht said, the regulations are an unconstitutional denial of equal protection of the laws for travel agents and an unwarranted and unconstitutional burden on an individual's right to travel. "What we have here," said Cord Hansen-Sturm, a former State Department official who directs a tourism-management program at the New School for Social Research, "is a couple of bureaucrats playing around with Vietnam for minor political advantage. Vietnam is no longer a security issue, it's a policy. And for that, we shouldn't be violating basic human rights. For long-haul travel, most Americans would use package arrangements, especially to countries they don't know well." Lindblad, he said, got into trouble with the government "because he was the only one who made a political statement." Only one "limited" license for group travel to Vietnam is currently authorized, according to the Treasury Department. That one-year license was issued on March 31 to the US-Indochina Reconciliation Project in Philadelphia, for "noncommercial educational exchange trips." Since December 1985 the project has organized 7 tours for educators and other professionals to Vietnam. But in November 1988 it was ordered by the Treasury Department to stop unless it got a license. John McAuliff, the project's director, recently told a congressional subcommittee that the license requires him to provide the government with the names, organizational affiliations, and occupations of those taking the trips. "While from an administrator's viewpoint this is no doubt a logical way of assuring that only appropriate, licensed types of persons go on our trips," he said, "it does place me in the odd position of reporting on people who are exercising a constitutionally protected right." In an interview, McAuliff commented that the government was "effectively saying to Americans, you can't organize" for travel to Vietnam. "The isolationist policy of the past," he continued, "has become a policy of stopping people from knowing what's going on." McAuliff said he knew of two teachers, in Pennsylvania and Utah, who had been taking student groups to Vietnam but who had now been forced by the regulations to give up the trips. So, of course, have commercial agencies other than Lindblad. Morris Schuster, president of Orient Flexi-Pax Tours and an early entrant in the Vietnam travel business, said he had "mixed feelings" about the government's position. "Fourteen years after the war, I think, enough is enough," he said. "But politics are important, and if the government wants to pressure Vietnam, it's okay with me. I'm not a politician; I thought the Hanoi Hilton was a hotel." The fight, however, hasn't gone out of two former soldiers, Donald Mills and John Myers, of the Akron, Ohio, chapter of the Vietnam Veterans of America. Twice yearly since 1984 they have conducted tours to Vietnam -- the most recent trip was in February, when they received a "cease and desist" letter from the Treasury Department. In May, Mills and Myers announced that they would defy the government and go ahead with a tour scheduled for NAM VET Newsletter Page 39 Volume 3, Number 8 August 12, 1989 November. And the American Civil Liberties Union said it would defend them, if prosecuted, on the First Amendment ground of freedom to associate with other Americans in travel. The ACLU is also supporting a bill, introduced by Representative Howard Berman of California, that would prohibit the use of economic embargoes to restrain travel. Mills and Myers said it was "too difficult and costly" for veterans to return to Vietnam individually. And Vietnam veterans, they said, should have the same opportunity as other veterans "to return to the battlefield where they served." NAM VET Newsletter Page 40 Volume 3, Number 8 August 12, 1989 THE LAST PATROL RANCH By: Glenn Toothman The Commo Bunker FidoNet 1:387/801 There is an organization here in South Texas that I have been following and have recently joined. I have followed the organization because I felt that at the time they organized it was just "another Vietnam Veteran rip-off" but through the last few years they have made an impression on me. I would like to tell you about them if I may. The "Last Patrol Ranch" is dedicated to the Missing In Action. The name comes from a song that is popular down here (and in other places) written by Tim Holliday and Mike Martin, one of the verses goes something like this "Sergeant Major may we please stand down now. Yes, but keep the home fire burning because there is one patrol still out and we don't want anyone brought down by friendly fire." The patrol spoken about is the MIA's, we are home and standing down, while they are still out there, and by keeping the home fire burning we still carry the torch for these men (both civilian and military) who are missing from tours in Nam. The Ranch is located close to San Diego, Texas (yep we got a San Diego down here also) It is a small ranch donated by some local ranchers for a retreat for Namvets. There is a small arms range there if you wish to fire weapons, but the real thing is a small area there to camp out, with a small tank (pond, to those who are not Texans) there with a bridge going over it. It is quite peaceful and you can commune with nature there. It is run by Namvets, and they are most helpful if you choose to stop. One of the things going on