News-Info-Alerts

To: ALL

From: Andi Wolos & Bob Necci
(POW-MIA InterNetwork)

Re: Chip Beck on Buyer Hearings

Date: September 19, 1998

CONGRESSMAN BUYER'S POW CHARADE

Are POW/MIA "Hearings" A Campaign Gimmick?
by CDR Chip Beck, USNR (ret)(BeckChip@aol.com)

On October 2, 1998 Congressman Steve Buyer (R-IL) will convene the House Subcommittee on Military Personnel to hold what is billed as "POW/MIA Hearings." The standard emphasis will be on MIAs, not POWs.

Based on experience with the Congressman's office dating back 18 months, and following recent conversations with House Staffers setting up the hearings, as well as with other Congressional sources, it appears that Mr. Buyer is simply using the POW stage to "secure" veteran and military votes in his district for the upcoming November election. There is no serious interest, or intention, on the Congressman's part, as far as I can tell, to substantially illuminate the deception, and deceptive practices, that surround the POW topic and pertinent issues.

My analysis of the situation is based on a series of meetings and events that cover the time span in which Congressman Buyer has been Chairman of the House Subcommittee charged with POW oversight. He asked for the job, but has done nothing remarkable with his responsibilities.

In late winter/early spring 1997, Carol Hrdlicka (wife of POW David Hrdlicka) and I visited the Congressman in his office, shortly after he assumed control of the Subcommittee following Congressman Bob Dornan's departure. We briefed the Congressman on the families' concerns (Carol's bailiwick) and my own experiences as a POW investigator who uncovered improprieties within the Defense POW/MIA Office and testified about them.

Throughout the 30 minute meeting, Mr. Buyer sat impassively, letting a Staffer do the talking for him. In the 18 months since that meeting, Congressman Buyer never re-contacted Mrs. Hrdlicka or myself, nor did he engage in any substantive activity that demonstrates a serious, leading role in executing his POW responsibilities. Granted, he met with family groups at various, infrequent settings, but none of these were little more than rote observations of protocol.

When I learned of the upcoming POW hearings, originally set for mid- September, I called Mr. Buyer's office and volunteered to testify, or speak, before the committee, stating that I had new information that the families, and his Subcommittee, had not heard before. The information I offered to share is derived from investigations pursued since I left DPMO. It does however, also include unclassified information I and 5 others provided Congressman Dornan's Subcommittee in 8 hours of Closed-hearing testimony on October 1, 1996 - the last POW Hearing Mr. Dornan ever held, a meeting which was not open to the public, but was of interest to it.

That unclassified information, which should be released, and which I authorized to be disclosed prior to providing the testimony, was not made available to the POW/MIA families, the press, or the public. It is their right to know that information, and the upcoming Buyer POW Hearings could have provided a new opportunity for open disclosure of that data.

I also expressed my willingness to share information that I obtained this year from travels to a former Warsaw Pact country, which contradicts standard official statements about our POWs, statements issued by both DPMO and the Vietnamese Government.

Mr. Buyer's office directed me to speak with Staffer Tom Hawley, whom I had met before. I explained to Mr. Hawley, in more detail than is provided here, what I was prepared to offer and talk about. Mr. Hawley declined to accept my offer to testify, but invited me to "write down some questions that the Congressman could ask" of the usual government officials who will parade before the Subcommittee with their canned presentations.

I expressed my dissatisfaction and disappointment to Mr. Hawley, but initially said I would provide some questions. In retrospect, and after talking with other Congressional sources in his own party, former POWs, and selected family members, I have decided not to assist Mr. Buyer in what I now perceive to be an election period charade to win votes, not uncover facts.

The reason for my decision is that I had information to impart, not seek. Posing questions to people from offices where I uncovered deception and untruths before, is not the way to expose the mendacity surrounding their work or enlighten the families.

Through intermediaries, a few POW family members sought to give Mr. Buyer's Subcommittee an opportunity to reverse its decision and invite me to testify. The word that I just received, on POW/MIA Recognition Day, is that the Congressman and his Staffers are of the opinion that I have nothing "new" to offer, and they are not inviting people who testified before, to testify again.

In fact, at least two persons scheduled to appeare before the Subcommittee, and who adhere to the "party line," are "reappearing" to testify, again.

If Congressman Buyer can instruct Committee Staffer Mr. John Chapla to release the unclassified testimony that I, Norm Kass, Al Graham, Joe Douglass, John Quirk, and even General James Wold (reluctantly in his case) provided during 8 hours on October 1, 1996, then Mr. HawleyÍs statement that my information is "not new" will at least be "half-true."

If that information, which deals with the specifics of data and files that DPMO officials improperly concealed, and the legtimate investigations they subverted, is not released, then what I could say in public would be completely new, at least to the families.

Subsequent information that I obtained in Europe, which includes never-before published photos of Warsaw Pact intelligence operatives manipulating our POWs in Hanoi (without the presence of the Vietnamese), is also new to the families and the public.

The information I offered to provide via the Buyer Subcommittee is of interest to those who count most - the POW families. I was assured of this by three respected family members with whom I have confided and worked to obtain parts of the data in hand. By declining to provide a forum from which to disseminate the new information, Congressman Buyer signals to me that his priorities are focused on obtaining votes, not facts.

For the veterans and military voters who will go to the polls in Indiana, they might consider that the limelight of a POW Hearing can cast a shadow as well as a light. They can decide whether this representative is a serious advocate for the rights of Unrepatriated POWs, or whether his concern is a standard-politicianÍs charade.

Those not voting in Indiana, but who share a unified distaste for the political glad-handing that the upcoming POW Hearings are poised to promote, might simply register their dissatisfaction to the Congressman in general.

I have requested the assistance of Mr. Reed Irvine, of Accuracy In Media (AIM), as well as Mr. Bob Brown of SOF Magazine, in finding appropriate platforms by which this information can be shared, before and after the Subcommittee meets. If Mr. Buyer is uninterested in helping, there are others who will.

(End)

©1998 Reprint of the above is authorized as is."