Category Archives: Government

MCCAIN AND THE POW COVER-UP

MCCAIN AND THE POW COVER-UP

The ‘war hero’ candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam

Published: 12 hours ago

     1.6K

Sydney H. Schanberg won the Pulitzer Prize in 1975 for international reporting “at great risk” from Vietnam and Cambodia. After the war he served as city editor of the New York Times. The Academy Award-winning film “The Killing Fields” was based on his book “The Death and Life of Dith Pran.” Schanberg was a journalist for 50 years. 

This is an expanded version of a story that appeared in the Oct. 6, 2008, issue of The Nation. Research support was provided by the Investigative Fund of The Nation Institute.

By Sydney H. Schanberg

The Nation – John McCain, who has risen to political prominence on his image as a Vietnam POW war hero, has, inexplicably, worked very hard to hide from the public stunning information about American prisoners in Vietnam who, unlike him, didn’t return home. Throughout his Senate career, McCain has quietly sponsored and pushed into federal law a set of prohibitions that keep the most revealing information about these men buried as classified documents. Thus the war hero who people would logically imagine as a determined crusader for the interests of POWs and their families became instead the strange champion of hiding the evidence and closing the books.

Almost as striking is the manner in which the mainstream press has shied from reporting the POW story and McCain’s role in it, even as the Republican Party has made McCain’s military service the focus of his presidential campaign. Reporters who had covered the Vietnam War turned their heads and walked in other directions. McCain doesn’t talk about the missing men, and the press never asks him about them.

The sum of the secrets McCain has sought to hide is not small. There exists a telling mass of official documents, radio intercepts, witness depositions, satellite photos of rescue symbols that pilots were trained to use, electronic messages from the ground containing the individual code numbers given to airmen, a rescue mission by a special forces unit that was aborted twice by Washington – and even sworn testimony by two Defense secretaries that “men were left behind.” This imposing body of evidence suggests that a large number – the documents indicate probably hundreds – of the U.S. prisoners held by Vietnam were not returned when the peace treaty was signed in January 1973 and Hanoi released 591 men, among them Navy combat pilot John S. McCain.

Mass of Evidence

The Pentagon had been withholding significant information from POW families for years. What’s more, the Pentagon’s POW/MIA operation had been publicly shamed by internal whistleblowers and POW families for holding back documents as part of a policy of “debunking” POW intelligence even when the information was obviously credible.

The pressure from the families and Vietnam veterans finally forced the creation, in late 1991, of a Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs. The chairman was John Kerry. McCain, as a former POW, was its most pivotal member. In the end, the committee became part of the debunking machine.

One of the sharpest critics of the Pentagon’s performance was an insider, Air Force Lieut. Gen. Eugene Tighe, who headed the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) during the 1970s. He openly challenged the Pentagon’s position that no live prisoners existed, saying that the evidence proved otherwise. McCain was a bitter opponent of Tighe, who was eventually pushed into retirement.

Included in the evidence that McCain and his government allies suppressed or sought to discredit is a transcript of a senior North Vietnamese general’s briefing of the Hanoi politburo, discovered in Soviet archives by an American scholar in 1993. The briefing took place only four months before the 1973 peace accords. The general, Tran Van Quang, told the politburo members that Hanoi was holding 1,205 American prisoners but would keep many of them at war’s end as leverage to ensure getting war reparations from Washington.

Throughout the Paris negotiations, the North Vietnamese tied the prisoner issue tightly to the issue of reparations. They were adamant in refusing to deal with them separately. Finally, in a February 2, 1973, formal letter to Hanoi’s premier, Pham Van Dong, Nixon pledged $3.25 billion in “postwar reconstruction” aid “without any political conditions.” But he also attached to the letter a codicil that said the aid would be implemented by each party “in accordance with its own constitutional provisions.” That meant Congress would have to approve the appropriation, and Nixon and Kissinger knew well that Congress was in no mood to do so. The North Vietnamese, whether or not they immediately understood the double-talk in the letter, remained skeptical about the reparations promise being honored – and it never was. Hanoi thus appears to have held back prisoners – just as it had done when the French were defeated at Dien Bien Phu in 1954 and withdrew their forces from Vietnam. In that case, France paid ransoms for prisoners and brought them home.

In a private briefing in 1992, high-level CIA officials told me that as the years passed and the ransom never came, it became more and more difficult for either government to admit that it knew from the start about the unacknowledged prisoners. Those prisoners had not only become useless as bargaining chips but also posed a risk to Hanoi’s desire to be accepted into the international community. The CIA officials said their intelligence indicated strongly that the remaining men – those who had not died from illness or hard labor or torture – were eventually executed.

My own research, detailed below, has convinced me that it is not likely that more than a few – if any – are alive in captivity today. (That CIA briefing at the agency’s Langley, Virginia, headquarters was conducted “off the record,” but because the evidence from my own reporting since then has brought me to the same conclusion, I felt there was no longer any point in not writing about the meeting.)

For many reasons, including the absence of a political constituency for the missing men other than their families and some veterans’ groups, very few Americans are aware of the POW story and of McCain’s role in keeping it out of public view and denying the existence of abandoned POWs. That is because McCain has hardly been alone in his campaign to hide the scandal.

The Arizona senator, now the Republican candidate for president, has actually been following the lead of every White House since Richard Nixon’s and thus of every CIA director, Pentagon chief and national security advisor, not to mention Dick Cheney, who was George H. W. Bush’s defense secretary. Their biggest accomplice has been an indolent press, particularly in Washington.

Read WND’s related story, “POW case haunts McCain’s image as war hero”

McCain’s Role

An early and critical McCain secrecy move involved 1990 legislation that started in the House of Representatives. A brief and simple document, it was called “the Truth Bill” and would have compelled complete transparency about prisoners and missing men. Its core sentence reads: “[The] head of each department or agency which holds or receives any records and information, including live-sighting reports, which have been correlated or possibly correlated to United States personnel listed as prisoner of war or missing in action from World War II, the Korean conflict and the Vietnam conflict, shall make available to the public all such records held or received by that department or agency.”

Bitterly opposed by the Pentagon (and thus McCain), the bill went nowhere. Reintroduced the following year, it again disappeared. But a few months later, a new measure, known as “the McCain Bill,” suddenly appeared. By creating a bureaucratic maze from which only a fraction of the documents could emerge – only records that revealed no POW secrets – it turned the Truth Bill on its head. (See one example, when the Pentagon cited McCain’s bill in rejecting a FOIA request.) The McCain bill became law in 1991 and remains so today. So crushing to transparency are its provisions that it actually spells out for the Pentagon and other agencies several rationales, scenarios and justifications for not releasing any information at all – even about prisoners discovered alive in captivity. Later that year, the Senate Select Committee was created, where Kerry and McCain ultimately worked together to bury evidence.

McCain was also instrumental in amending the Missing Service Personnel Act, which had been strengthened in 1995 by POW advocates to include criminal penalties, saying: “Any government official who knowingly and willfully withholds from the file of a missing person any information relating to the disappearance or whereabouts and status of a missing person shall be fined as provided in Title 18 or imprisoned not more than one year or both.” A year later, in a closed House-Senate conference on an unrelated military bill, McCain, at the behest of the Pentagon, attached a crippling amendment to the act, stripping out its only enforcement teeth, the criminal penalties, and reducing the obligations of commanders in the field to speedily search for missing men and to report the incidents to the Pentagon.

About the relaxation of POW/MIA obligations on commanders in the field, a public McCain memo said: “This transfers the bureaucracy involved out of the [battle] field to Washington.” He wrote that the original legislation, if left intact, “would accomplish nothing but create new jobs for lawyers and turn military commanders into clerks.”

McCain argued that keeping the criminal penalties would have made it impossible for the Pentagon to find staffers willing to work on POW/MIA matters. That’s an odd argument to make. Were staffers only “willing to work” if they were allowed to conceal POW records? By eviscerating the law, McCain gave his stamp of approval to the government policy of debunking the existence of live POWs.

McCain has insisted again and again that all the evidence – documents, witnesses, satellite photos, two Pentagon chiefs’ sworn testimony, aborted rescue missions, ransom offers apparently scorned – has been woven together by unscrupulous deceivers to create an insidious and unpatriotic myth. He calls it the “bizarre rantings of the MIA hobbyists.” He has regularly vilified those who keep trying to pry out classified documents as “hoaxers,” charlatans,” “conspiracy theorists” and “dime-store Rambos.”

Some of McCain’s fellow captives at Hoa Lo prison in Hanoi didn’t share his views about prisoners left behind. Before he died of leukemia in 1999, retired Col. Ted Guy, a highly admired POW and one of the most dogged resisters in the camps, wrote an angry open letter to the senator in an MIA newsletter – a response to McCain’s stream of insults hurled at MIA activists. Guy wrote: “John, does this [the insults] include Senator Bob Smith [a New Hampshire Republican and activist on POW issues] and other concerned elected officials? Does this include the families of the missing where there is overwhelming evidence that their loved ones were ‘last known alive’? Does this include some of your fellow POWs?”

It’s not clear whether the taped confession McCain gave to his captors to avoid further torture has played a role in his post-war behavior in the Senate. That confession was played endlessly over the prison loudspeaker system at Hoa Lo – to try to break down other prisoners – and was broadcast over Hanoi’s state radio. Reportedly, he confessed to being a war criminal who had bombed civilian targets. The Pentagon has a copy of the confession but will not release it. Also, no outsider I know of has ever seen a non-redacted copy of the debriefing of McCain when he returned from captivity, which is classified but could be made public by McCain. (See the Pentagon’s rejection of my attempt to obtain records of this debriefing.)

All humans have breaking points. Many men undergoing torture give confessions, often telling huge lies so their fakery will be understood by their comrades and their country. Few will fault them. But it was McCain who apparently felt he had disgraced himself and his military family. His father, John S. McCain II, was a highly regarded rear admiral then serving as commander of all US forces in the Pacific. His grandfather was also a rear admiral.

In his bestselling 1999 autobiography, Faith of My Fathers, McCain says he felt bad throughout his captivity because he knew he was being treated more leniently than his fellow POWs, owing to his high-ranking father and thus his propaganda value. Other prisoners at Hoa Lo say his captors considered him a prize catch and called him the “Crown Prince,” something McCain acknowledges in the book.

Also in this memoir, McCain expresses guilt at having broken under torture and given the confession. “I felt faithless and couldn’t control my despair,” he writes, revealing that he made two “feeble” attempts at suicide. (In later years, he said he tried to hang himself with his shirt and guards intervened.) Tellingly, he says he lived in “dread” that his father would find out about the confession. “I still wince,” he writes, “when I recall wondering if my father had heard of my disgrace.”

He says that when he returned home, he told his father about the confession, but “never discussed it at length” – and the admiral, who died in 1981, didn’t indicate he had heard anything about it before. But he had. In the 1999 memoir, the senator writes: “I only recently learned that the tape … had been broadcast outside the prison and had come to the attention of my father.”

Is McCain haunted by these memories? Does he suppress POW information because its surfacing would rekindle his feelings of shame? On this subject, all I have are questions.

Many stories have been written about McCain’s explosive temper, so volcanic that colleagues are loathe to speak openly about it. One veteran congressman who has observed him over the years asked for confidentiality and made this brief comment: “This is a man not at peace with himself.”

He was certainly far from calm on the Senate POW committee. He browbeat expert witnesses who came with information about unreturned POWs. Family members who have personally faced McCain and pressed him to end the secrecy also have been treated to his legendary temper. He has screamed at them, insulted them, brought women to tears. Mostly his responses to them have been versions of: How dare you question my patriotism? In 1996, he roughly pushed aside a group of POW family members who had waited outside a hearing room to appeal to him, including a mother in a wheelchair.

But even without answers to what may be hidden in the recesses of McCain’s mind, one thing about the POW story is clear: If American prisoners were dishonored by being written off and left to die, that’s something the American public ought to know about.

10 Key Pieces of Evidence That Men Were Left Behind

1. In Paris, where the Vietnam peace treaty was negotiated, the United States asked Hanoi for the list of American prisoners to be returned, fearing that Hanoi would hold some prisoners back. The North Vietnamese refused, saying they would produce the list only after the treaty was signed. Nixon agreed with Kissinger that they had no leverage left, and Kissinger signed the accord on January 27, 1973, without the prisoner list. When Hanoi produced its list of 591 prisoners the next day, U.S. intelligence agencies expressed shock at the low number. Their number was hundreds higher. The New York Times published a long, page-one story on February 2, 1973, about the discrepancy, especially raising questions about the number of prisoners held in Laos, only nine of whom were being returned. The headline read, in part: “Laos POW List Shows 9 from U.S. – Document Disappointing to Washington as 311 Were Believed Missing.” And the story, by John Finney, said that other Washington officials “believe the number of prisoners [in Laos] is probably substantially higher.” The paper never followed up with any serious investigative reporting – nor did any other mainstream news organization.

2. Two defense secretaries who served during the Vietnam War testified to the Senate POW committee in September 1992 that prisoners were not returned. James Schlesinger and Melvin Laird, both speaking at a public session and under oath, said they based their conclusions on strong intelligence data – letters, eyewitness reports, even direct radio contacts. Under questioning, Schlesinger chose his words carefully, understanding clearly the volatility of the issue: “I think that as of now that I can come to no other conclusion … some were left behind.” This ran counter to what President Nixon told the public in a nationally televised speech on March 29, 1973, when the repatriation of the 591 was in motion: “Tonight,” Nixon said, “the day we have all worked and prayed for has finally come. For the first time in twelve years, no American military forces are in Vietnam. All our American POWs are on their way home.” Documents unearthed since then show that aides had already briefed Nixon about the contrary evidence.

Schlesinger was asked by the Senate committee for his explanation of why President Nixon would have made such a statement when he knew Hanoi was still holding prisoners. He replied: “One must assume that we had concluded that the bargaining position of the United States … was quite weak. We were anxious to get our troops out and we were not going to roil the waters …” This testimony struck me as a bombshell. The New York Times appropriately reported it on page one but again there was no sustained follow-up by the Times or any other major paper or national news outlet.

3. Over the years, the DIA received more than 1,600 first-hand sightings of live American prisoners and nearly 14,000 second-hand reports. Many witnesses interrogated by CIA or Pentagon intelligence agents were deemed “credible” in the agents’ reports. Some of the witnesses were given lie-detector tests and passed. Sources provided me with copies of these witness reports, which are impressive in their detail. A lot of the sightings described a secondary tier of prison camps many miles from Hanoi. Yet the DIA, after reviewing all these reports, concluded that they “do not constitute evidence” that men were alive.

4. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, listening stations picked up messages in which Laotian military personnel spoke about moving American prisoners from one labor camp to another. These listening posts were manned by Thai communications officers trained by the National Security Agency (NSA), which monitors signals worldwide. The NSA teams had moved out after the fall of Saigon in 1975 and passed the job to the Thai allies. But when the Thais turned these messages over to Washington, the intelligence community ruled that since the intercepts were made by a “third party” – namely Thailand – they could not be regarded as authentic. That’s some Catch-22: The U.S. trained a third party to take over its role in monitoring signals about POWs, but because that third party did the monitoring, the messages weren’t valid.

Here, from CIA files, is an example that clearly exposes the farce. On December 27, 1980, a Thai military signal team picked up a message saying that prisoners were being moved out of Attopeu (in southern Laos) by aircraft “at 1230 hours.” Three days later a message was sent from the CIA station in Bangkok to the CIA director’s office in Langley. It read, in part: “The prisoners … are now in the valley in permanent location (a prison camp at Nhommarath in Central Laos). They were transferred from Attopeu to work in various places … POWs were formerly kept in caves and are very thin, dark and starving.” Apparently the prisoners were real. But the transmission was declared “invalid” by Washington because the information came from a “third party” and thus could not be deemed credible.

5. A series of what appeared to be distress signals from Vietnam and Laos were captured by the government’s satellite system in the late 1980s and early ’90s. (Before that period, no search for such signals had been put in place.) Not a single one of these markings was ever deemed credible. To the layman’s eye, the satellite photos, some of which I’ve seen, show markings on the ground that are identical to the signals that American pilots had been specifically trained to use in their survival courses – such as certain letters, like X or K, drawn in a special way. Other markings were the secret four-digit authenticator numbers given to individual pilots. But time and again, the Pentagon, backed by the CIA, insisted that humans had not made these markings. What were they, then? “Shadows and vegetation,” the government said, insisting that the markings were merely normal topographical contours like saw-grass or rice-paddy divider walls. It was the automatic response – shadows and vegetation. On one occasion, a Pentagon photo expert refused to go along. It was a missing man’s name gouged into a field, he said, not trampled grass or paddy berms. His bosses responded by bringing in an outside contractor who found instead, yes, shadows and vegetation. This refrain led Bob Taylor, a highly regarded investigator on the Senate committee staff who had examined the photographic evidence, to comment to me: “If grass can spell out people’s names and a secret digit codes, then I have a newfound respect for grass.”

6. On November 11, 1992, Dolores Alfond, the sister of missing airman Capt. Victor Apodaca and chair of the National Alliance of Families, an organization of relatives of POW/MIAs, testified at one of the Senate committee’s public hearings. She asked for information about data the government had gathered from electronic devices used in a classified program known as PAVE SPIKE.

The devices were motion sensors, dropped by air, designed to pick up enemy troop movements. Shaped on one end like a spike with an electronic pod and antenna on top, they were designed to stick in the ground as they fell. Air Force planes would drop them along the Ho Chi Minh trail and other supply routes. The devices, though primarily sensors, also had rescue capabilities. Someone on the ground – a downed airman or a prisoner on a labor gang – could manually enter data into the sensor. All data were regularly collected electronically by U.S. planes flying overhead. Alfond stated, without any challenge or contradiction by the committee, that in 1974, a year after the supposedly complete return of prisoners, the gathered data showed that a person or people had manually entered into the sensors – as U.S. pilots had been trained to do – “no less than 20 authenticator numbers that corresponded exactly to the classified authenticator numbers of 20 US POWs who were lost in Laos.” Alfond added, according to the transcript: “This PAVE SPIKE intelligence is seamless, but the committee has not discussed it or released what it knows about PAVE SPIKE.”

McCain attended that committee hearing specifically to confront Alfond because of her criticism of the panel’s work. He bellowed and berated her for quite a while. His face turning anger-pink, he accused her of “denigrating” his “patriotism.” The bullying had its effect – she began to cry.

After a pause Alfond recovered and tried to respond to his scorching tirade, but McCain simply turned away and stormed out of the room. The PAVE SPIKE file has never been declassified. We still don’t know anything about those twenty POWs.

7. As previously mentioned, in April 1993, in a Moscow archive, a researcher from Harvard, Stephen Morris, unearthed and made public the transcript of a briefing that General Tran Van Quang gave to the Hanoi politburo four months before the signing of the Paris peace accords in 1973.

In the transcript, General Quang told the Hanoi politburo that 1,205 U.S. prisoners were being held. Quang said that many of the prisoners would be held back from Washington after the accords as bargaining chips for war reparations. General Quang’s report added: “This is a big number. Officially, until now, we published a list of only 368 prisoners of war. The rest we have not revealed. The government of the USA knows this well, but it does not know the exact number … and can only make guesses based on its losses. That is why we are keeping the number of prisoners of war secret, in accordance with the politburo’s instructions.” The report then went on to explain in clear and specific language that a large number would be kept back to ensure reparations.

The reaction to the document was immediate. After two decades of denying it had kept any prisoners, Hanoi responded to the revelation by calling the transcript a fabrication.

Similarly, Washington – which had over the same two decades refused to recant Nixon’s declaration that all the prisoners had been returned – also shifted into denial mode. The Pentagon issued a statement saying the document “is replete with errors, omissions and propaganda that seriously damage its credibility,” and that the numbers were “inconsistent with our own accounting.”

Neither American nor Vietnamese officials offered any rationale for who would plant a forged document in the Soviet archives and why they would do so. Certainly neither Washington nor Moscow – closely allied with Hanoi – would have any motive, since the contents were embarrassing to all parties, and since both the United States and Vietnam had consistently denied the existence of unreturned prisoners. The Russian archivists simply said the document was “authentic.”

8. In his 2002 book, Inside Delta Force, Retired Command Sgt. Major Eric Haney described how in 1981 his special forces unit, after rigorous training for a POW rescue mission, had the mission suddenly aborted, revived a year later and again abruptly aborted. Haney writes that this abandonment of captured soldiers ate at him for years and left him disillusioned about his government’s vows to leave no men behind.

“Years later, I spoke at length with a former highly placed member of the North Vietnamese diplomatic corps, and this person asked me point-blank: ‘Why did the Americans never attempt to recover their remaining POWs after the conclusion of the war?’” Haney writes. He continued, saying that he came to believe senior government officials had called off those missions in 1981 and 1982. (His account is on pages 314 to 321 of my paperback copy of the book.)

9. There is also evidence that in the first months of Ronald Reagan’s presidency in 1981, the White House received a ransom proposal for a number of POWs being held by Hanoi in Indochina. The offer, which was passed to Washington from an official of a third country, was apparently discussed at a meeting in the Roosevelt Room attended by Reagan, Vice-President Bush, CIA director William Casey and National Security Advisor Richard Allen. Allen confirmed the offer in sworn testimony to the Senate POW committee on June 23, 1992.

Allen was allowed to testify behind closed doors and no information was released. But a San Diego Union-Tribune reporter, Robert Caldwell, obtained the portion relating to the ransom offer and reported on it. The ransom request was for $4 billion, Allen testified. He said he told Reagan that “it would be worth the president’s going along and let’s have the negotiation.” When his testimony appeared in the Union Tribune, Allen quickly wrote a letter to the panel, this time not under oath, recanting the ransom story and claiming his memory had played tricks on him. His new version was that some POW activists had asked him about such an offer in a meeting that took place in 1986, when he was no longer in government. “It appears,” he said in the letter, “that there never was a 1981 meeting about the return of POW/MIAs for $4 billion.”

But the episode didn’t end there. A Treasury agent on Secret Service duty in the White House, John Syphrit, came forward to say he had overheard part of the ransom conversation in the Roosevelt Room in 1981, when the offer was discussed by Reagan, Bush, Casey, Allen and other cabinet officials.

Syphrit, a veteran of the Vietnam War, told the committee he was willing to testify but they would have to subpoena him. Treasury opposed his appearance, arguing that voluntary testimony would violate the trust between the Secret Service and those it protects. It was clear that coming in on his own could cost Syphrit his career. The committee voted 7 to 4 not to subpoena him.

In the committee’s final report, dated January 13, 1993 (on page 284), the panel not only chastised Syphrit for his failure to testify without a subpoena (“The committee regrets that the Secret Service agent was unwilling …”), but noted that since Allen had recanted his testimony about the Roosevelt Room briefing, Syphrit’s testimony would have been “at best, uncorroborated by the testimony of any other witness.” The committee omitted any mention that it had made a decision not to ask the other two surviving witnesses, Bush and Reagan, to give testimony under oath. (Casey had died.)

10. In 1990, Colonel Millard Peck, a decorated infantry veteran of Vietnam then working at the DIA as chief of the Asia Division for Current Intelligence, asked for the job of chief of the DIA’s Special Office for Prisoners of War and Missing in Action. His reason for seeking the transfer, which was not a promotion, was that he had heard from officials throughout the Pentagon that the POW/MIA office had been turned into a waste-disposal unit for getting rid of unwanted evidence about live prisoners – a “black hole,” these officials called it.

Peck explained all this in his telling resignation letter of February 12, 1991, eight months after he had taken the job. He said he viewed it as “sort of a holy crusade” to restore the integrity of the office but was defeated by the Pentagon machine. The four-page, single-spaced letter was scathing, describing the putative search for missing men as “a cover-up.”

Peck charged that, at its top echelons, the Pentagon had embraced a “mind-set to debunk” all evidence of prisoners left behind. “That national leaders continue to address the prisoner of war and missing in action issue as the ‘highest national priority,’ is a travesty,” he wrote. “The entire charade does not appear to be an honest effort, and may never have been. … Practically all analysis is directed to finding fault with the source. Rarely has there been any effective, active follow through on any of the sightings, nor is there a responsive ‘action arm’ to routinely and aggressively pursue leads.”

“I became painfully aware,” his letter continued, “that I was not really in charge of my own office, but was merely a figurehead or whipping boy for a larger and totally Machiavellian group of players outside of DIA. … I feel strongly that this issue is being manipulated and controlled at a higher level, not with the goal of resolving it, but more to obfuscate the question of live prisoners and give the illusion of progress through hyperactivity.” He named no names but said these players are “unscrupulous people in the Government or associated with the Government” who “have maintained their distance and remained hidden in the shadows, while using the [POW] Office as a ‘toxic waste dump’ to bury the whole ‘mess’ out of sight.” Peck added that “military officers … who in some manner have ‘rocked the boat’ [have] quickly come to grief.”

Peck concluded: “From what I have witnessed, it appears that any soldier left in Vietnam, even inadvertently, was, in fact, abandoned years ago, and that the farce that is being played is no more than political legerdemain done with ‘smoke and mirrors’ to stall the issue until it dies a natural death.”

The disillusioned colonel not only resigned but asked to be retired immediately from active military service. The press never followed up.

My Pursuit of the Story

I covered the war in Cambodia and Vietnam, but came to the POW information only slowly afterward, when military officers I knew from that conflict began coming to me with maps and POW sightings and depositions by Vietnamese witnesses.

I was then city editor of the New York Times, no longer involved in foreign or national stories, so I took the data to the appropriate desks and suggested it was material worth pursuing. There were no takers. Some years later, in 1991, when I was an op-ed columnist at Newsday, the aforementioned special Senate committee was formed to probe the POW issue. I saw this as an opening and immersed myself in the reporting.

At Newsday, I wrote thirty-five columns over a two-year period, as well as a four-part series on a trip I took to North Vietnam to report on what happened to one missing pilot who was shot down over the Ho Chi Minh trail and captured when he parachuted down. After Newsday, I wrote thousands more words on the subject for other outlets. Some of the pieces were about McCain’s key role.

Though I wrote on many subjects for Life, Vanity Fair and Washington Monthly, my POW articles appeared in Penthouse, the Village Voice and APBnews.com. Mainstream publications just weren’t interested. Their disinterest was part of what motivated me, and I became one of a very short list of journalists who considered the story important.

Serving in the army in Germany during the Cold War and witnessing combat first-hand as a reporter in India and Indochina led me to have great respect for those who fight for their country. To my mind, we dishonored U.S. troops when our government failed to bring them home from Vietnam after the 591 others were released – and then claimed they didn’t exist. And politicians dishonor themselves when they pay lip service to the bravery and sacrifice of soldiers only to leave untold numbers behind, rationalizing to themselves that it’s merely one of the unfortunate costs of war.

John McCain – now campaigning for the White House as a war hero, maverick and straight shooter – owes the voters some explanations. The press were long ago wooed and won by McCain’s seeming openness, Lone Ranger pose and self-deprecating humor, which may partly explain their ignoring his record on POWs. In the numerous, lengthy McCain profiles that have appeared of late in papers like the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Wall Street Journal, I may have missed a clause or a sentence along the way, but I have not found a single mention of his role in burying information about POWs. Television and radio news programs have been similarly silent.

Reporters simply never ask him about it. They didn’t when he ran unsuccessfully for the Republican nomination in 2000. They haven’t now, despite the fact that we’re in the midst of another war – a war he supports and one that has echoes of Vietnam.

The only explanation McCain has ever offered for his leadership on legislation that seals POW files is that he believes the release of such information would only stir up fresh grief for the families of those who were never accounted for in Vietnam. Of the scores of POW families I’ve met over the years, only a few have said they want the books closed without knowing what happened to their men. All the rest say that not knowing is exactly what grieves them.

Isn’t it possible that what really worries those intent on keeping the POW documents buried is the public disgust that the contents of those files would generate?

How the Senate Committee Perpetuated the Debunking

In its early months, the Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs gave the appearance of being committed to finding out the truth about the MIAs. As time went on, however, it became clear that they were cooperating in every way with the Pentagon and CIA, who often seemed to be calling the shots, even setting the agendas for certain key hearings. Both agencies held back the most important POW files. Dick Cheney was the Pentagon chief then; Robert Gates, now the Pentagon chief, was the CIA director.

Further, the committee failed to question any living president. Reagan declined to answer questions; the committee didn’t contest his refusal. Nixon was given a pass. George H.W. Bush, the sitting president, whose prints were all over this issue from his days as CIA chief in the 1970s, was never even approached.

Troubled by these signs, several committee staffers began asking why the agencies they should be probing had been turned into committee partners and decision makers. Memos to that effect were circulated. The staff made the following finding, using intelligence reports marked “credible” that covered POW sightings through 1989: “There can be no doubt that POWs were alive … as late as 1989.” That finding was never released. Eventually, much of the staff was in rebellion.

This internecine struggle (see coverage, at left) continued right up to the committee’s last official act – the issuance of its final report. The “Executive Summary,” which comprised the first forty-three pages – was essentially a whitewash, saying that only “a small number” of POWs could have been left behind in 1973 and that there was little likelihood that any prisoners could still be alive. The Washington press corps, judging from its coverage, seems to have read only this air-brushed summary, which had been closely controlled.

But the rest of the 1,221-page Report on POW/MIAs was quite different. Sprinkled throughout are pieces of hard evidence that directly contradict the summary’s conclusions. This documentation established that a significant number of prisoners were left behind – and that top government officials knew this from the start. These candid findings were inserted by committee staffers who had unearthed the evidence and were determined not to allow the truth to be sugar-coated.

If the Washington press corps did actually read the body of the report and then failed to report its contents, that would be a scandal of its own. The press would then have knowingly ignored the steady stream of findings in the body of the report that refuted the summary and indicated that the number of abandoned men was not small but considerable. The report gave no figures but estimates from various branches of the intelligence community ranged up to 600. The lowest estimate was 150.

Highlights of the report that undermine the benign conclusions of the Executive Summary:

* Pages 207-209: These three pages contain revelations of what appear to be either massive intelligence failures, or bad intentions – or both. The report says that until the committee brought up the subject in 1992, no branch of the intelligence community that dealt with analysis of satellite and lower-altitude photos had ever been informed of the specific distress signals US personnel were trained to use in the Vietnam war, nor had they ever been tasked to look for any such signals at all from possible prisoners on the ground.

The committee decided, however, not to seek a review of old photography, saying it “would cause the expenditure of large amounts of manpower and money with no expectation of success.”

It might also have turned up lots of distress-signal numbers that nobody in the government was looking for from 1973 to 1991, when the committee opened shop. That would have made it impossible for the committee to write the Executive Summary it seemed determined to write.

The failure gets worse. The committee also discovered that the DIA, which kept the lists of authenticator numbers for pilots and other personnel, could not “locate” the lists of these codes for Army, Navy or Marine pilots. They had lost or destroyed the records. The Air Force list was the only one intact, as it had been preserved by a different intelligence branch.

The report concluded: “In theory, therefore, if a POW still living in captivity [today], were to attempt to communicate by ground signal, smuggling out a note or by whatever means possible, and he used his personal authenticator number to confirm his identity, the U.S. Government would be unable to provide such confirmation, if his number happened to be among those numbers DIA cannot locate.”

It’s worth remembering that throughout the period when this intelligence disaster occurred –from the moment the treaty was signed in 1973 until 1991 – the White House told the public that it had given the search for POWs and POW information the “highest national priority.”

* Page 13: Even in the Executive Summary, the report acknowledges the existence of clear intelligence, made known to government officials early on, that important numbers of captured US POWs were not on Hanoi’s repatriation list. After Hanoi released its list (showing only ten names from Laos – nine military men and one civilian), President Nixon sent a message on February 2, 1973, to Hanoi’s Prime Minister Pham Van Dong. saying: “U.S. records show there are 317 American military men unaccounted for in Laos and it is inconceivable that only ten of these men would be held prisoner in Laos.”

Nixon was right. It was inconceivable. Then why did the president, less than two months later, on March 29, 1973, announce on national television that “all of our American POWs are on their way home”?

On April 13, 1973, just after all 591 men on Hanoi’s official list had returned to American soil, the Pentagon got into step with the president and announced that there was no evidence of any further live prisoners in Indochina (this is on page 248).

*Page 91: A lengthy footnote provides more confirmation of the White House’s knowledge of abandoned POWs. The footnote reads:

“In a telephone conversation with Select Committee Vice-Chairman Bob Smith on December 29, 1992, Dr. Kissinger said that he had informed President Nixon during the 60-day period after the peace agreement was signed that U.S. intelligence officials believed that the list of prisoners captured in Laos was incomplete. According to Dr. Kissinger, the President responded by directing that the exchange of prisoners on the lists go forward, but added that a failure to account for the additional prisoners after Operation Homecoming would lead to a resumption of bombing. Dr. Kissinger said that the President was later unwilling to carry through on this threat.”

When Kissinger learned of the footnote while the final editing of the committee report was in progress, he and his lawyers lobbied fiercely through two Republican allies on the panel – one of them was John McCain – to get the footnote expunged. The effort failed. The footnote stayed intact.

* Pages 85-86: The committee report quotes Kissinger from his memoirs, writing solely in reference to prisoners in Laos: “We knew of at least 80 instances in which an American serviceman had been captured alive and subsequently disappeared. The evidence consisted either of voice communications from the ground in advance of capture or photographs and names published by the Communists. Yet none of these men was on the list of POWs handed over after the Agreement.”

Then why did he swear under oath to the committee in 1992 that he never had any information that specific, named soldiers were captured alive and hadn’t been returned by Vietnam?

* Page 89: In the middle of the prisoner repatriation and U.S. troop-withdrawal process agreed to in the treaty, when it became clear that Hanoi was not releasing everyone it held, a furious chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Thomas Moorer, issued an order halting the troop withdrawal until Hanoi complied with the agreement. He cited in particular the known prisoners in Laos. The order was retracted by President Nixon the next day. In 1992, Moorer, by then retired, testified under oath to the committee that his order had received the approval of the President, the national security advisor and the secretary of defense. Nixon, however, in a letter to the committee, wrote: “I do not recall directing Admiral Moorer to send this cable.”

The report did not include the following information: Behind closed doors, a senior intelligence officer had testified to the POW committee that when Moorer’s order was rescinded, the angry admiral sent a “back-channel” message to other key military commanders telling them that Washington was abandoning known live prisoners. “Nixon and Kissinger are at it again,” he wrote. “SecDef and SecState have been cut out of the loop.” In 1973, the witness was working in the office that processed this message. His name and his testimony are still classified. A source present for the testimony provided me with this information and also reported that in that same time period, Moorer had stormed into Defense Secretary Schlesinger’s office and, pounding on his desk, yelled: “The bastards have still got our men.” Schlesinger, in his own testimony to the committee a few months later, was asked about – and corroborated – this account.

*Pages 95-96: In early April 1973, Deputy Defense Secretary William Clements “summoned” Dr. Roger Shields, then head of the Pentagon’s POW/MIA Task Force, to his office to work out “a new public formulation” of the POW issue; now that the White House had declared all prisoners to have been returned, a new spin was needed. Shields, under oath, described the meeting to the committee. He said Clements told him: “All the American POWs are dead.” Shields said he replied: “You can’t say that.” Clements shot back: “You didn’t hear me. They are all dead.” Shields testified that at that moment he thought he was going to be fired, but he escaped from his boss’s office still holding his job.

*Pages 97-98: A couple of days later, on April 11, 1973, a day before Shields was to hold a Pentagon press conference on POWs, he and Gen. Brent Scowcroft, then the deputy national security advisor, went to the Oval Office to discuss the “new public formulation” and its presentation with President Nixon.

The next day, reporters right off asked Shields about missing POWs. Shields fudged his answers. He said: “We have no indications at this time that there are any Americans alive in Indochina.” But he went on to say that there had not been “a complete accounting” of those lost in Laos and that the Pentagon would press on to account for the missing – a seeming acknowledgement that some Americans were still alive and unaccounted for.

The press, however, seized on Shields’ denials. One headline read: “POW Unit Boss: No Living GIs Left in Indochina.”

*Page 97: The POW committee, knowing that Nixon taped all his meetings in the Oval Office, sought the tape of that April 11, 1973, Nixon-Shields-Scowcroft meeting to find out what Nixon had been told and what he had said about the evidence of POWs still in Indochina. The committee also knew there had been other White House meetings that centered on intelligence about live POWs. A footnote on page 97 states that Nixon’s lawyers said they would provide access to the April 11 tape “only if the Committee agreed not to seek any other White House recordings from this time period.” The footnote says that the committee rejected these terms and got nothing. The committee never made public this request for Nixon tapes until the brief footnote in its 1993 report.

McCain’s Catch-22

None of this compelling evidence in the committee’s full report dislodged McCain from his contention that the whole POW issue was a concoction by deluded purveyors of a “conspiracy theory.” But an honest review of the full report, combined with the other documentary evidence, tells the story of a frustrated and angry president, and his national security advisor, furious at being thwarted at the peace table by a small, much less powerful country that refused to bow to Washington’s terms. That President seems to have swallowed hard and accepted a treaty that left probably hundreds of American prisoners in Hanoi’s hands, to be used as bargaining chips for reparations.

Maybe Nixon and Kissinger told themselves that they could get the prisoners home after some time had passed. But perhaps it proved too hard to undo a lie as big as this one. Washington said no prisoners were left behind, and Hanoi swore it had returned all of them. How could either side later admit it had lied? Time went by and as neither side budged, telling the truth became even more difficult and remote. The public would realize that Washington knew of the abandoned men all along. The truth, after men had been languishing in foul prison cells, could get people impeached or thrown in jail.

Which brings us to today, when the Republican candidate for President is the contemporaneous politician most responsible for keeping the truth about his matter hidden. Yet he says he’s the right man to be the Commander-in-Chief, and his credibility in making this claim is largely based on his image as a POW hero.

On page 468 of the 1,221-page report, McCain parsed his POW position oddly: “We found no compelling evidence to prove that Americans are alive in captivity today. There is some evidence – though no proof – to suggest only the possibility that a few Americans may have been kept behind after the end of America’s military involvement in Vietnam.”

“Evidence though no proof.” Clearly, no one could meet McCain’s standard of proof as long as he is leading a government crusade to keep the truth buried.

To this reporter, this sounds like a significant story and a long overdue opportunity for the press to finally dig into the archives to set the historical record straight – and even pose some direct questions to the candidate.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/07/mccain-and-the-pow-cover-up/#7D3K04Samg7yUMYM.99

Advertisements

Reagan-Medicare-Socialism

LIBERAL & PROUD
REAGAN’S ALARMING WORDS ABOUT MEDICARE
Exclusive: Ellen Ratner revisits Gipper’s warning about U.S. becoming socialist country
Published: 2 days ago
image: http://www.wnd.com/files/2011/12/Ellen-Ratner_avatar.jpg

author-image ELLEN RATNER About | Email | Archive
image: http://www.wnd.com/wp-content/themes/worldnet-theme/_/images//feed.png

rss feed Subscribe to feed

image: http://www.wnd.com/wp-content/plugins/wp-print/images/print.png

Printer Friendly
Text smaller
Text bigger
19
Republish Reprint
This week was the 50th anniversary of Medicare. When Medicare became law, I was living in Memphis, Tennessee. My mother had married a physician after my father died, and she was railing about Medicare and how it would destroy medical practice and doctors. It was a very memorable rant. Until this week, when talk-show host Thom Hartmann gave me the background to mother’s anger at Medicare, I had no idea where her vocal rant came from.

It came directly from the American Medical Association, or AMA, and a little-known recording by then private citizen Ronald Reagan. It was titled, “Ronald Reagan Speaks Out Against Socialized Medicine.”

It was a little over 10 minutes long and was handed out by the AMA in a public relations attempt called “Operation Coffee Cup.” This effort by the AMA was designed to have wives of doctors contact Congress so there would be an end to President Kennedy’s efforts to help older Americans get health care. The health-care fight, brought into focus by President Kennedy, was in the 1948 election platform by the Democrats, and it also included clinics and hospitals as well as mental health care.

The 1961 bill (HR 4222) expanded government care for the elderly. It was the impetus for the American Medical Association’s “Operation Coffee Cup” and the dissemination of Ronald Reagan’s vinyl record.

In his recording, Ronald Reagan takes on what would eventually become Medicare by saying government “has invaded the precincts of private citizens.” He said, “One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine.”

Ronald Reagan went after what was then known as the Ferrand bill. He said, “This was the idea that all people of Social Security age should be brought under a program of compulsory health insurance.”

Reagan believed that his this bill was a foot-in-the-door philosophy to make America a socialist country.

Reagan continued, “But let’s also look from the other side. The freedom the doctor uses. A doctor would be reluctant to say this. Well, like you, I am only a patient, so I can say it in his behalf. The doctor begins to lose freedoms. It’s like telling a lie. One leads to another. First you decide the doctor can have so many patients. They are equally divided among the various doctors by the government, but then the doctors are equally divided geographically, so a doctor decides he wants to practice in one town and the government has to say to him he can’t live in that town. They already have enough doctors. You have to go some place else. And from here it is only a short step to dictating where he will go.”

Reagan, exhorts the wives of the AMA physicians to write to their member of Congress: “You and I can do this. The only way we can do it is by writing to our congressmen even we don’t believe that he’s on our side to begin with. Write to strengthen his hand. Give him the ability to stand before his colleagues in Congress and say that he has heard from my constituents and this is what they want. Write those letters now call your friends and them to write.

“If you don’t, this program I promise you, will pass just as surely as the sun will come up tomorrow.”

He ends his recording by saying that if this bill is not stopped, “we are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it once was like in America when men were free.”

Somehow, the current GOP, which has fought Obamacare, or the Affordable Care Act, tooth and nail, missed the message that Ronald Reagan gave in that 1961 recording. The National Republican Campaign Committee released a press release on July 30, the 50th anniversary of Medicare, touting the accomplishments of this Republican Congress on one aspect of Medicare.

It said, “In the spirit of working to best serve American families and getting things done in Congress, the House earned praise this spring for finally putting an end to the ‘annual scramble’ known as the Medicare ‘Doc Fix.’ Under the new policy, taxpayers will see real savings, seniors will receive better health care, and doctors will provide better patient care.”

If Ronald Reagan was right in 1961 and what became Medicare was going to turn the U.S. into a socialist country, somehow the Republicans of 2015 missed his message, as this week they were touting the Medicare program. Times have clearly changed, or the voters they want in 2015 have gotten older.

Media wishing to interview Ellen Ratner, please contact media@wnd.com
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/08/reagans-alarming-words-about-medicare/#PHrUh7XJdf5OBivV.99

72 Types Of Terrorists

72 Types Of Americans That Are Considered “Potential Terrorists” In Official Government Documents

Prison Camp 450x299 72 Types Of Americans That Are Considered Potential Terrorists In Official Government Documents

Are you a conservative, a libertarian, a Christian or a gun owner?  Are you opposed to abortion, globalism, Communism, illegal immigration, the United Nations or the New World Order?  Do you believe in conspiracy theories, do you believe that we are living in the “end times” or do you ever visit alternative news websites (such as this one)?  If you answered yes to any of those questions, you are a “potential terrorist” according to official U.S. government documents.  At one time, the term “terrorist” was used very narrowly.  The government applied that label to people like Osama bin Laden and other Islamic jihadists.  But now the Obama administration is removing all references to Islam from terror training materials, and instead the term “terrorist” is being applied to large groups of American citizens.  And if you are a “terrorist”, that means that you have no rights and the government can treat you just like it treats the terrorists that are being held at Guantanamo Bay.  So if you belong to a group of people that is now being referred to as “potential terrorists”, please don’t take it as a joke.  The first step to persecuting any group of people is to demonize them.  And right now large groups of peaceful, law-abiding citizens are being ruthlessly demonized.

Below is a list of 72 types of Americans that are considered to be “extremists” and “potential terrorists” in official U.S. government documents.  To see the original source document for each point, just click on the link.  As you can see, this list covers most of the country…

1. Those that talk about “individual liberties”

2. Those that advocate for states’ rights

3. Those that want “to make the world a better place”

4. “The colonists who sought to free themselves from British rule”

5. Those that are interested in “defeating the Communists”

6. Those that believe “that the interests of one’s own nation areseparate from the interests of other nations or the common interest of all nations”

7. Anyone that holds a “political ideology that considers the state to be unnecessary, harmful,or undesirable”

8. Anyone that possesses an “intolerance toward other religions”

9. Those that “take action to fight against the exploitation of theenvironment and/or animals”

10. “Anti-Gay”

11. “Anti-Immigrant”

12. “Anti-Muslim”

13. “The Patriot Movement”

14. “Opposition to equal rights for gays and lesbians”

15. Members of the Family Research Council

16. Members of the American Family Association

17. Those that believe that Mexico, Canada and the United States “are secretly planning to merge into a European Union-like entity that will be known as the ‘North American Union’”

18. Members of the American Border Patrol/American Patrol

19. Members of the Federation for American Immigration Reform

20. Members of the Tennessee Freedom Coalition

21. Members of the Christian Action Network

22. Anyone that is “opposed to the New World Order”

23. Anyone that is engaged in “conspiracy theorizing”

24. Anyone that is opposed to Agenda 21

25. Anyone that is concerned about FEMA camps

26. Anyone that “fears impending gun control or weapons confiscations”

27. The militia movement

28. The sovereign citizen movement

29. Those that “don’t think they should have to pay taxes”

30. Anyone that “complains about bias”

31. Anyone that “believes in government conspiracies to the point of paranoia”

32. Anyone that “is frustrated with mainstream ideologies”

33. Anyone that “visits extremist websites/blogs”

34. Anyone that “establishes website/blog to display extremist views”

35. Anyone that “attends rallies for extremist causes”

36. Anyone that “exhibits extreme religious intolerance”

37. Anyone that “is personally connected with a grievance”

38. Anyone that “suddenly acquires weapons”

39. Anyone that “organizes protests inspired by extremist ideology”

40. “Militia or unorganized militia”

41. “General right-wing extremist”

42. Citizens that have “bumper stickers” that are patriotic or anti-U.N.

43. Those that refer to an “Army of God”

44. Those that are “fiercely nationalistic (as opposed to universal and international in orientation)”

45. Those that are “anti-global”

46. Those that are “suspicious of centralized federal authority”

47. Those that are “reverent of individual liberty”

48. Those that “believe in conspiracy theories”

49. Those that have “a belief that one’s personal and/or national ‘way of life’ is under attack”

50. Those that possess “a belief in the need to be prepared for an attack either by participating in paramilitary preparations and training or survivalism”

51. Those that would “impose strict religious tenets or laws on society (fundamentalists)”

52. Those that would “insert religion into the political sphere”

53. Anyone that would “seek to politicize religion”

54. Those that have “supported political movements for autonomy”

55. Anyone that is “anti-abortion”

56. Anyone that is “anti-Catholic”

57. Anyone that is “anti-nuclear”

58. “Rightwing extremists”

59. “Returning veterans”

60. Those concerned about “illegal immigration”

61. Those that “believe in the right to bear arms”

62. Anyone that is engaged in “ammunition stockpiling”

63. Anyone that exhibits “fear of Communist regimes”

64. “Anti-abortion activists”

65. Those that are against illegal immigration

66. Those that talk about “the New World Order” in a “derogatory” manner

67. Those that have a negative view of the United Nations

68. Those that are opposed “to the collection of federal income taxes”

69. Those that supported former presidential candidates Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin and Bob Barr

70. Those that display the Gadsden Flag (“Don’t Tread On Me”)

71. Those that believe in “end times” prophecies

72. Evangelical Christians

The groups of people in the list above are considered “problems” that need to be dealt with.  In some of the documents referenced above, members of the military are specifically warned not to have anything to do with such groups.

We are moving into a very dangerous time in American history.  You can now be considered a “potential terrorist” just because of your religious or political beliefs.  Free speech is becoming a thing of the past, and we are rapidly becoming an Orwellian society that is the exact opposite of what our founding fathers intended.

Please pray for the United States of America.  We definitely need it.

About the author: Michael T. Snyder is a former Washington D.C. attorney who now publishes The Truth.  His new thriller entitled “The Beginning Of The End” is now available on Amazon.com.

Jade Helm 15 Fact or Fiction?

Jade Helm Official Reveals True Purposes of JH-15: This Is a Must Read!

Finally, we are getting some much-needed honesty with regard to the true nature of Jade Helm. The information is not overly forthcoming, but in this clumsily-made presentation to local Texas officials, one can pretty much ascertain the true nature of the drill, that is, if one can get around the obvious lies being told to the public by this Jade Helm official.

The Jade Helm official, Tom Meade, a Senior Non-commissioned officer from Army Special Forces (Retired) is now working as a private military contractor and he recently briefed local officials in Big Spring, Texas as to the purposes and the scope of the Jade Helm exercise.
Why Do Military Contractors Know More About the Drill Than Senior Command Leaders in the Jade Helm Exercise?
Two of my military sources were agitated beyond words when they watched this briefing. To quote one of my sources, “This goddamn retired Non-com knows more than the command officers running Jade Helm about what they are going to be doing. And now this SOB military contractor, who’d sell their own mother down the river, are running this operation instead of the General, Colonels and senior Non-Coms. Only in the Obama administration could this happen.”
Collectively, we watched this 15-minute tape and my two sources used profanity more times than in the years that I have known them. I have never seen them this angry.
The Truth Will Out
Below is a transcript of key information revealed by the private military contractor, Tom Meade. Please note that Meade repeatedly admits throughout the tape that Jade Helm is NOT training for Iraq and Afghanistan, despite the repeated lies told by National Public Radio, KHOU TV in Houston, the Washington Post and Fox and Friends. The tape has been out for a few weeks, however, a word by word analysis has not been conducted.
Key Statements
1:30: We are asking Big Spring city council for a letter of invitation which would invite “forces” to train within your city limits in areas that have low population density.
Analysis: As the readers will soon see, this is about military personnel who are in hiding in rural areas and trying to live off of the land.
1:38: “We are not training for Afghanistan and Iraq…This is about unconventional warfare.”
Analysis: This clearly indicates that the anticipated conflict is likely to be Guerrilla warfare.
2:21: “We won’t come on someone’s property without a land-use agreement.”
Analysis: Ask the people in Pinon Canyon, Colorado if Ft. Carson asks if they can come on to your property and wreck your land. This is about training personnel that total warfare is about; not worrying about private property rights. Private property owners in Texas better watch their properties.
2:50: “We do a full risk assessment and full medical plan (prior to coming on private property) and we have already linked into the hospital…we also have medical personnel that will be on site to assist if anything should happen.”
Analysis: It is clear that in this drill, citizens are at risk of injury and death. What could the military be doing that is so dangerous, in a drill, that they need to have medical personnel on hand and on alert? If the people in Texas are not yet afraid of what is coming, they are either totally ignorant, or are abject fools.
3:01: “What is Jade Helm? Jade Helm is an 8-week exercise (LIE)… We also have our interagency partners participating such as the FBI, the DEA….”
Analysis: Why the DEA? The DEA tracks the Mexican drug cartels. Judicial Watch has linked the drug cartels to ISIS in base camps just on the other side of the border. Please note that a few weeks ago, a Texas Ranger told me that the Walmarts were being converted into supply centers for the military. The military? “The military that we will use to fight against ISIS incursions into Texas,” he stated.
3:50: “The operation is going to be in 7 states (Lie). Texas is going to be the main bulk of the activity.”
Analysis: We have photographic, video and live eyewitness evidence that demonstrate that Jade Helm is in every state and is already underway.
image: http://cdn5.freedomoutpost.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/jh-15-ft-lauderdale.jpg
jh-15-ft-lauderdale

4:44: “The Navy Seals will be conducting operations over in Mississippi and Louisiana”… The Air Force Special Operations Command will be flying specialty aircraft for us, uh… for infiltration and resupply for the operators on the ground… The Marine Special Operators will be working down in the San Antonio area…The 82nd Airborne Division will jump into Camp Bullis and take down targets within the camp.”
Analysis: The Jade Helm lie that the drill is in only 7 states (i.e. Texas, Arizona, Utah, Nevada, Colorado (formerly), California, and New Mexico is fully exposed here with the admission that the Navy Seals will be conducting operations in Mississippi and Louisiana. These two states are not on the Jade Helm list of seven.

image: http://cdn5.freedomoutpost.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/jh-15-map-2.jpg
jh-15-map-2

The admission that Jade Helm will use the Air Force Special Operations to assist in “infiltration” is very telling. To Special Forces, infiltration is accomplished with the goal of (1) Destroying command and control as an action in anticipation of invasion; and, (2) Kidnapping and/or assassinating high-value targets. This speaks to the political dissident extractions that I have been writing about. It also speaks to Red List executions by death squads who also use infiltration techniques.
The mention of Marines operating around San Antonio is very telling. We now are seeing a shift in operational mission status to include conventional military forces. This is very important because under several different Continuity of Government (COG) programs throughout the years, COG’s always speak about using conventional forces to isolate metropolitan areas deemed to be in rebellion. I cannot stress how unusual it is, and how unorthodox it is to use Special Forces and conventional military in the same drill. This action clearly speaks to a civil war scenario being practiced in the Jade Helm drill which will follow Red List extractions.
Also noteworthy is the revelation that the 82nd Airborne, a conventional force, is going to be parachuted into a simulated war zone at Camp Bullis and practice taking out selected targets. The clear implication here is that the 82nd is going to be taking out armed dissidents or rogue military units who would oppose a martial law takeover.
6:20: “We require areas of undeveloped land with low population densities…We desire to have a very rural area for us to be able to operate in…In Afghanistan and Iraq they receive aerial resupply by helicopter…they have connectivity to the internet to be able to talk to their command but also to be able to talk to home. When they come out here to Martin and Howard County, they are not going to have those luxuries. In the scenario that we have built, they are going to have to operate outside these normal support mechanisms and rely on the folks err, the civilians that are in the area to be able to support them… We can’t do the exercise without the public’s help. Things that we look for from that perspective are people that are willing to be role players…Someone who goes and give a little nugget of information… We look for people that are willing to transport our guys because they have to move around in a clandestine manner…for example, in the back of a horse trailer in the middle of the night so nobody can see them…these are the ways that they have to operate in foreign countries when they are not supposed to be in those countries (lie)…we want to be able to use a barn to do a planning meeting in the middle of the night…”
Analysis: My sources tell me that the mere severing of communications, through satellites, is enough to abort a Special Forces mission. ARSOF, or Green Berets, or Navy Seals do not need satellites to communicate. They have several alternative modes that can be used including the building of communications in an impromptu fashion. Therefore, the need to practice for Special Operations to be without communications speaks to a total “grid down” scenario. I have a hard time believing that localized EMP weapons would be used because of the catastrophic collateral damage done to the infrastructure. This is a surprising and shocking development, but my sources say the intent, in this instance is clear. An EMP will wipe out all communications.
Meade speaks to the need to solicit informants similar to what the Gestapo did in Germany. Clearly, the drill also calls for the commandeering of assets similar to what we see called for in Executive Order 13603.
12:25: A country commissioner asked Meade how the DEA and the FBI are a part of the drill. Meade stammered for several seconds but eventually responded that “in Arizona, they will actually do some questioning for us at one of the airports.”
Analysis: The consensus is that DEA and the FBI will assist in the apprehension of Red List fugitives at airports.
13:30: Private citizen, Kimberly York, strongly criticized her County Commissioners sneaking the invitation to Jade Helm without first consulting with their constituents…”It is being hidden from us…”What the press is putting out is really different than what we are seeing here today…the press is telling us that Oh, you are not going to hear about it, you’re not going to see it, you know it is just not going to affect your lives. Well, what we are reading here is that it might affect our lives. As citizens of this country we should have a voice as to whether that invitation is issued…I have real concerns, there are safety issues for civilians. Why are we looking at safety issues if there is nothing to see here…I am a military brat and I support the military but there are other ways to do training than to inflict it on the citizens of this county.”
Analysis: Clearly, every citizen in every Jade Helm state should be addressing their public officials who are drinking from the Jade Helm Kool-aid.
Connecting the Dots
Clearly, and we have it from an original Jade Helm source, Jade Helm is not about training for combat operations in the Middle East as repeatedly claimed in the mainstream media.
The most striking aspect of this drill is the admission that Gestapo tactics will be utilized (e.g. recruiting informants, use of infiltration techniques, commandeering private vehicles, private residences and business for Jade Helm “activities”). In the face of this evidence, those that say that Jade Helm is not about martial law do not know what martial law is.
If you suddenly discovered that you were placed on the Red List, what would you do? Some people would head to the airport and try to immediately leave the country. This explains why the FBI and the DEA will be at an Arizona airport. They will be looking for Red List fugitives.
Stunningly, we appear to be looking at a grid down scenario that is so complete that alternative military communications will not work. This is completely surprising because this is not something that I thought the bad guys would employ. An EMP attack upon America might be the final trump card that will be employed if other means to subjugate the country fail.
The use of conventional forces (i.e. 82nd Airborne and the Marines) speaks to the fact that medium and large cities must be subdued because several will be in rebellion. This clearly speaks to a civil war event.
Finally, I cannot help feeling that there is a futuristic Red Dawn scenario involved here. The use of conventional forces to parachute into an area and engage an enemy speaks to the possibility that we could be looking at foreign armies on our soil.
Conclusion
There is not a lot of new information that I have not previously written about. However, it is interesting that the Jade Helm source confirmed much of what many of us have been writing about for a few months

Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2015/06/jade-helm-official-reveals-true-purposes-of-jh-15-this-is-a-must-read/#Ity2fu0rigYbQf5V.99

Obeying the Law Bad?

5 Times “Obeying the Law” in America Was a Terrible Idea

Carey Wedler
The AntiMedia
January 7th, 2015

obey

In the midst of outrage against police brutality, cop apologists argue that to avoid police brutality, people should simply be obeying the law. This justification however, reveals itself as unwise at best (and flat out stupid at worst) when applied to previous laws in American history.

1. The Fugitive Slave Act– In times of slavery, the federal government attempted to pacify slave owners by passing the Fugitive Slave Act. The 1850 law mandated that even though slavery was banned in the North, if a Northern citizen (or government employee) happened upon escaped slaves from the South, they had to help return them to their owners. Escaped slaves were also denied a jury trial.

This law was challenged by abolitionists and decent human beings and many slaves escaped to Canada. But if all Americans had simply “followed the law,” further injustice (than was already enforced with the whole “owning” other human beings policy) would have been committed. The law was later repealed.

2. Pornography Prohibition– For as long as humans have existed, they have been interested in sex. In 1873, the federal government decided it could alter human instinct. Under the puritanical Comstock laws, pornography, sex toys, contraception, and information about contraception became illegal to send in the mail, as well as to sell, give away, or own. There is no evidence that the law stopped the human sex drive, even with the threat of up to five years in prison with hard labor and a fine up to $2,000. It eventually ceased to be enforced and was undermined by Roe v. Wade, but for years, engaging in these activities meant violators “deserved” the punishment they received.

3. Alcohol Prohibition– The prohibition of alcohol was an unpopular and unsuccessful constitutional amendment enacted in 1918. It attempted to stop people from drinking by banning liquor. It unwittingly encouraged the formation of gangs, who sold bootleg drinks while underground speakeasies flourished.

This, by the logic of cop defenders, should have been brutally punished-because those heathens were breaking the sanctity of the law! (It was repealed three years later.) No matter how nonsensical or ineffective the law, dogma to and obedience of it pervades the logic of authority worshipers. It applies today with the failed war on drugs, which like alcohol prohibition, has failed to curtail usage and created waste and black markets, as well as an excess of police violence and prison populations.

4. Sedition Acts-Shortly after the creation of the United States, in 1798 President James Madison signed the Sedition Act-intended to ban criticism of the government . It was sparked by the government’s fear of Democratic-Republican rebellion and dissent against the Federalists and accompanied other laws that persecuted immigrants.

Right out of the gate of the American revolution, the federal government was doing exactly what the Constitution was intended to prevent: running away with power. A similar law, also titled The Sedition Act, was passed in 1918 to silence dissent against World War I. It was an extension of the Espionage Act of 1917, which Obama has used to prosecute whistleblowers (the other acts were repealed). The 1918 incarnation made it illegal to

“willfully utter, print, write, or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of the Government of the United States.“

In both the 18th and 20th centuries, the state was attempting to crush free speech, so anyone who had an opinion (legally guaranteed by the first amendment and philosophically by natural human rights) should have just learned to shut up to avoid a beating and prison. Right?

5. Modern Day America– It can be amusing to examine old laws and point out their absurdity and injustice (this is only a small sampling that doesn’t cover Plessy v. Ferguson, the banning of Native Americans from Boston, or bans on interracial marriage, for example). But the reality is that many unjust laws are on the books today.

The National Defense Authorization Act allows the government to indefinitely detain anyone it deems a terrorist threat or having ties to terrorists. That judgment is entirely up to the state, but if those it deems dangerous try to resist, they will be violating “the law.” Is this fair? At what point do political dissidents and activists become threats to the state when the Pentagon has already stated that protesters are “low level terrorists?”

One of the major problems in American society and politics is the belief that the law is infallible, such as the cigarette law that led to Eric Garner’s murder. In spite of so many examples to the contrary, people still believe that the law is sacrosanct and to violate it is to be an immoral, bad person who deserves whatever the government does to them. This is directly contradicted by the fact that most of the laws listed in this article were eventually repealed.

Rather than glorifying “the law,” Americans should revere the morals government claims underpin them. As long as individuals view government decrees as the gold standard of ethics, however, the government will continue to destroy humanity. Perhaps it’s time to stop making excuses for police officers and politicians and instead, judge them by how they treat their fellow humans.

– See more at: http://www.thedailysheeple.com/5-times-obeying-the-law-in-america-was-a-terrible-idea_012015#sthash.fNq1haRK.dpuf

21,000 new regulations on businesses

During President Obama’s administration, a record 21,000 new regulations on businesses were enacted, most of them without Congressional approval.

Last year alone Obama issued regulations costing American taxpayers and businesses an estimated $762 million in regulatory costs per day, according to the American Action Forum.

All told, President Obama’s administration has filled 468,500 pages in new regulations in the Federal Register.

Moreover, according to the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the president is poised to unleash another 2,375 new rules on American businesses this year, and again without first giving Congress an up or down vote.

Strangling the economy? Which in turn strangles the global economy? You bet! No amount of money printing can offset excessive regulation and uncertainty.

Was Sandy Hook Used To Bury Obama’s SSN Records?

Was Sandy Hook Used To Bury Obama’s SSN Records?

Sunday, February 8, 2015 5:19
Was Sandy Hook Used To Bury Obama’s SSN Records?
By: “Barry Soetero, Esq” | Memory Hole Blog –

The real owner of Obama’s STOLEN SSN, Harrison J Bounel, was a patient at Fairfield Hills Psychiatric Hospital in Newtown Connecticut.

Would access to Harrison Bounel’s Death Records prove Obama stole Bounel’s SSN?

After the Sandy Hook “school shooting,” the State of Connecticut made a bizarre move.

CT locked down ALL Death Certificates — for any deaths in the entire State of CT.

Governor Malloy signed three Orwellian bills into law, after they were crammed thru at 2AM, “for the children.”

As a result, CT Death Certificates are NO LONGER public record — you cannot obtain them.  Death Certificates have been PUBLIC RECORD for hundreds of years…. but suddenly, NOT ANYMORE.

Was the Sandy Hook “massacre” a ruse to lock down the Death Records of Harrison J Bounel — the real owner of Obama’s STOLEN SSN:  #042-68-4425 ?

Harrison J Bounel died at Fairfield State Mental Hospital (circa 1978) in Newtown CT. Where is that location?  It’s 1 mile from Sandy Hook Elementary school.

In other words, the rightful owner of Obama’s SSN died in the SAME TOWN where the historic “Newtown school massacre” occurred.  Just 1 mile away.

Same State (CT). Same town (Newtown). Same town clerk’s office with same records (Newtown town clerk).

Amazing coincidence – or the reason for the Sandy Hoax coverup?  Could this be why approximately $200 Million in taxpayer money changed hands surrounding this “massacre?”

Bounel’s SSN starts with an (042) Prefix, which was allocated only to Connecticut.

Yet Obama is from Hawaii/Chicago – he never lived in Connecticut.  So why did Obama use this (stolen) Connecticut SSN on Obama’s 2009 Federal Tax Return?

Would access to Bounel’s Death Certificate (from his death in NEWTOWN CT) prove Obama used Bounel’s SSN?

Is that why Governor Malloy locked down Public Records for ALL DEATHS in the entire State of CT?

Is that why the White House funneled $2.5 Million to CT Police (for “healing,” as Eric Holder said)? As a reward for their silence on Sandy Hoax?

The official report claims “Adam Lanza shot his way thru” the school’s glass entrance with his Bushmaster AR-15 rifle.

But here is Forensic Proof that a shotgun “breaching round” (Police equipment) shattered the front window of Sandy Hook Elementary (NOT the much-demonized AR-15 rifle):

Was the “biggest school shooting in US history” just another staged Gun Grab Hoax to trick the American people into surrendering their guns?

Or was Sandy Hook orchestrated to bury documents PROVING that Obama stole Harrison Bounel’s Connecticut-issue SSN?

Is his stolen SSN why Obama cannot pass E-Verify?  Does it explain why Obama’s famed application for Obamacare got rejected?

Shocking Facts – Sandy Hook COVERUP  explores the (3) bizarre “public-record lockdown” bills crammed into law after Sandy Hook. We discuss WHO likely staged Sandy Hook, and WHY they took such a huge risk.

An Eerie Visit To Sandy Hook  explores (citizen journalist) Barry’s trip to the spooky Newtown Mental Hospital, where Harrison Bounel died.  We show you Barry’s stunning photos, and discuss what really happened at the historic “Sandy Hook Massacre.”