September 10, 1996
Mr. Chairman and committee members, thank you for inviting me to give testimony before this committee. I am very concerned about the McCain amendment which in essence made the Missing Service Personnel Act ineffective in the protection of our men who are sent into harms way. This legislation had not been changed since 1942. I would think with all the advanced technology it should have been updated.
I would like to know the rationale behind Senator McCain's changes. Let's just go through the changes and if anyone here can explain how these changes offer MORE PROTECTION to the men who are sent into harms way, I would appreciate your input. I am mystified why Senator McCain of all people is NOT INTERESTED in protecting our men NOW and in the future:
Section 1502(a) changes the time period to report someone missing from 48 hours to 10 days. In a civilian community you are reported missing after 24 hours. IF Senator McCain had the misfortune to have landed in the jungle with his broken arms, would he have minded waiting 10 days to be reported missing? How can this be of benefit to our service members?
Section 1502(b) has unit commanders reporting directly to the appropriate Service Secretary. Is the Service Secretary going to be in the combat theater or sitting in the Pentagon in Washington D.C.? How will that benefit our service members. Does an investigating detective sit in his office and not go to the scene of a crime?
Section 1505(b) change review boards from three years until there is new information. In many cases there HAS BEEN NEW INFORMATION that has not been relayed to the families. At the present time government agencies and their personnel have a license to lie to the families under the guise of men have to be sacrificed for the "greater good". I WOULD LIKE to know, for what "GREATER GOOD" DAVID L. HRDLICKA HAS BEEN SACRIFICED?
Section 1506(c) changes the penalization of any government official who knowingly and willfully withholds information of a missing person. Don't future generations deserve better treatment than the families have received in the past. Shoud we be asked to sacrifice our loved ones and never know the truth about their fate? Would any of you be willing to sacrifice your children, brothers, sisters, or any member of your family and never know what happened to them? Why shouldn't the people in charge of government agencies be held accountable?
Section 1507 repeal of the requirement that a person can be declared dead (3) without credible proof (4) that a body or remains have to have certification by a practitioner or appropriate forensic science, if it can't be identified by visual means. Would you be willing to accept pig bones in the place of your family member? Would you be willing to have your family member declared dead with no credible proof? Is there no COMMON SENSE or LOGIC left in Washington? How can you ask us, as family members, to accept such a DEGRADING PRACTICE for our loved ones?
Section 1513 takes away the rights of DOD civilian contract employees to be covered by the Act. Why shouldn't the civilian employees have the right to be accounted for if they become missing during a military operation?
What POSSIBLE RATIONALE could there be for these changes. I would personally like to hear Senator McCain's own explanation. What agenda could Senator McCain possibly have to "STRIP" the Missing Service Personnel Act of all it's protection for service members who could possibly end up in captivity as he did? Why would Senator McCain want to protect men that have LIED TO THE FAMILIES?
A group of family members tried to hand letters to Senator McCain to ask that he NOT MAKE these changes and he refused to accept our letters. Senator McCain stated on the Senate floor that the families and the veterans agreed with his amendment. Nothing could be further from the truth -- in other works that is a LIE. Senator McCain does not speak for the families nor does he care what we want. Senator McCain won't even meet with the families or accept our letters. Senator McCain does not care about the regular military man that is shown in his comment, "CINCs don't have time to worry about lieutenants or sergeants." Does that mean, lieutenants and sergeants are NOT IMPORTANT? Maybe the CINCs should be on the front lines.
Why is it that Senator McCain SUPPORTS anything the VIETNAMESE COMMUNISTS want -- for instance lifting of the trade embargo, normalization, or most favored nation. Yet, Senator McCain's voting record shows a lack of support on many of the American veterans issues OR our abandoned POWs! Why would a former POW HUG HIS FORMER CAPTOR??? I believe Senator McCain's "ACHILLES HEEL" is his behavior during his captivity.
There is much arguing as to who is to BLAME in the POW issue -- well I believe there is enough blame for everyone to share, DEMOCRAT -. Let's just look at the record of the presidents over the years. First, we have Johnson who escalated the war, then we have Nixon who got on television and LIED about all the POWs being home, then we have Carter who declared ALL the men dead with NO credible evidence; then we have Reagan, who meant well, but was surrounded by people who DID NOT WANT THE POW "CAN OF WORMS" EXPOSED, so he refused the offer to sell the USG 57 POWs in 1981, then there was Bush who knew the WHOTE TRUTH as a former CIA director and could have asked the Vietnamese to return our men, and, finally we have Clinton who was a draft dodger and protestor that does not like the military, so he has also turned a blind eye to the plight of our men. As you can see both sides are well represented, Democrat and Republican.
We have heard for 23 years how the POW issue is the HIGHEST NATIONAL PRIORITY. If that is the case, why haven't the cases where the men were known to be alive in captivity been solved? In 1992 the Senate Select Committee, finally after 19 years, admitted men had been left behind in captivity.
Allow me to give you my view on DPMOs investigation on my husbands case. My son and I viewed the "classified file" DPMO has on my husband, David L. Hrdlicka, in May of this year. This "classified file" is nothing more than a record of their own feeble attempts at what THEY CALL investigating. The DPMO hires underachievers and buries them in paper work. There is no effort made to investigate leads unless you actually show the DPMO "THE LEAD". Example: Three was no effort made to contact the Russian reporter that interviewed David several times in captivity. This last December of 1995, I asked if they had ever made such an effort, the answer was "NO". At which time the DPMO then began their 1996 INVESTIGATION, some 30 years later. The DPMO will not have to re-think their position that David died in 1968. David was seen alive in 1969 at a press conference in the caves of Laos. (Read DPMO Letter). Of course, there is NO EVIDENCE to back up the DPMO 1968 date, just their ASSUMPTION. DPMO is nothing more than a data dump.
The DPMO has not even made a request for the cables referring to a rescue attempt that was testified to by General Secord where he states, "There should be a raft of cables in the CIA". Why hasn't the DPMO requested those cables!? During our three day viewsing of the file, one of the analysts admitted he had no training in the analytical field. Is that the way investigations are done, hire people that have no experience and let them LEARN or NOT LEARN on the job? Does this sound like "HIGHEST NATIONAL PRIORITY"?
In 1992 I sent a Freedom of Informatino to the Defense Intelligence Agency requesting all documents pertaining to rescue attempts for David and specifically requested anything on the code name of "Duck Soup". I received a response on 10 August 92 from Mr. Charles Trowbridge denying any rescue attempts were made for David. (Read Trowbridge letter & Duck Soup documents) I have received the deposition of Thomas Moorer from a researcher wherein it addresses a rescue operation in 1972 to rescue approximately 60 American POWs held in Laos. Now, I will have to assume someone is LYING, is it casualty and Moorer, or could it be Mr. Trowbridge is deliberately lying, and if so, WHY?
In the beginning the Air Force Casualty did not send any documents to me, they just kept me informed by telephone and letter I was informed in 1966 there had been an rescue attempt, but were not sure whether they had Hrdlicka or Shelton out. Whoever it was, had been recaptured. Now, I will have to conclude that IF what Mr. Trowbridge says is true and there were NO RESCUE ATTEMPTS for David, then the Air Force casualty was LYING to me from the very beginning. You must be informed that Mr. Charles Trowbridge has made a career out of the POW issue. I have reports as early as 1966 with Mr.Trowbridge's signature on the bottom. Mr. Trowbridge says I CAN GO to the Library of Congress and get the information on David's case -- I would like to know, as a TAXPAYER, what they have done with the budget they have had for over 30 years. I SHOULD NOT HAVE to spend my limited resources on investigating David's case -- that is WHAT Mr. Trowbridge had been PAID TO DO for years.
Mr. Trowbridge seems to have difficulty telling the truth! During the Senate Select Committee Hearings Senator Bob Smith wanted to call Trowbridge a "LIAR" in public. You can CANDY COAT what Mr. Trowbridge has done any way you want and call it misrepresentation or misinformation. I call it, as they are, LIES. I DO Understand that my husband and the other men are expandable by Mr. Trowbridge's standards and that is JUST the cost of war in his eyes. Mr. Trowbridge is under an umbrella that gives him the authority to lie to Congress and me, as a family member. With all this in mind, do you think Mr. Trowbridge should be re-hired to continue his career off the backs of our men?
During the period of time after Col. Peck resigned from the DIA, Trowbridge filled in until a replacement could be found. On one occasion my son, David M., was visiting me and wanted to know who the U.S. Postal Worker was, that was referenced in a 1990 letter from DIA stating Col. David L. Hrdlicka had tried to escape. We then placed a call to Mr. Trowbridge and put the question to him. During the conversation Mr. Trowbridge suggested my son come to see him in person at which time he indicated he would give my son the name of the postal worker. When my son arrived, Trowbridge back tracked, he then made a statement that there may not have been a postal worker. After repeated attempts to get the original report this letter was taken from, a researcher found a report, WHICH I BELIEVE, the letter was taken from. However, it DOES NOT MENTION A POSTAL WORKER but says information came from a FEDERAL AGENT. If that is the case why did Mr. Trowbridge misrepresent (LIE) about the facts. The "Frenchman" referred to in the letter (Mr.TROWBRIDGE, was the Deputy Chief of POW/MIA in the Defense Intelligence Agency and he isn't sure who a source is! That does not give me a great deal of confidence in the intelligence gathering capabilities of the DIA.
This should be a good example why the families can no longer trust the individuals in these agencies and the need for drastic changes. We need legislature that will give us power to get at the truth. How is it, that in February 1996 we were able to get the Missing Personnel Act passed into law and by August we have that law totally "GUTTED"! There have been many committees on the problems, but there is never any follow up ACTION. We, as families have been PROMISED time and time again there will be ACTION! I would liken the PROMISES of Washington to a Barnam & Bailey Circus, just entertainment for the public's benefit and no substance. ( I mean no disrespect to Barnam & Bailey) Thank You.
Carol's attachment:
Date: 21 Sep 1992 US GOVERNMENT MEMORANDUM
Reply to Attn of: PW -/PW To: DSP-1 (FOIA)
Ref: DAP-1 memo2,450,) 10 Aug 92 (enclosure 1).
1. Reference requested that DIA (PW) conduct a file search in response to a request from Mrs. Carol Hrdlicka, wife of Colonel David Hrdlicka, USAF, missing in Laos. Mrs. Hrdlicka is requesting "all documents that have recently been declassified concerning MIA/POW's in Laos." Specifically, she is requesting "all the documents pertaining to rescue attempts made to gain the freedom of Col. David L. Hrdlicka USAF and Col Charles Shelton USAF." Mrs. Hrdlicka believes the first rescue attempt was code named "Duck Soup."
2. Regarding her broad general request, please inform Mrs. Hrdlicka that all declassified documents pertaining to missing in action from the war in Southeast Asia have been placed in the public domain and will be available through the Library of Congress. In answer to her specific request, please inform Mrs. Hrdlicka that we have no records that the U.S. Government has ever mounted a rescue attempt for either Colonel Hrdlicka or Colonel Shelton. Based upon numerous inquiries due to articles in the public media, DIA undertook a records search, with the help of other government offices, to determine whether any operation by the name of "Duck Soup" ever actually occurred. The results of our inquiries revealed that, in 1949, a limited U.S. Government operation code named "Duck Soup" did occur. The nature of the operation still remains classified. However, the operation was completely unconnected with the POW/MIA issue and was completely unconnected with the area of Southeast Asia.
3. A DD Form 2086 is provided as enclosure 2.
4. POC for this action is John Horn, (703) 908-2761.
(signature here)
F. Trowbridge, Jr.
Deputy Chief
Special office for Prisoners of War and Missing in Action
2 Enclosures Charles
1. DSP-1 Memo 2,450),
2. DD Form 2086
on the back of the above is this: INCOMING TELEGRAM DEPARTMENT OF STATE
002 NNHHVV HJA47?J7A373
""""" ZZ RUENOR RUENDA
82 Action DE RUNJFS 150A 21/?252Z
FM RUEMOR/SECST ??? UASMDC FLASH (2051)
INFO RUNJ?/AMEMBASEY SAIGON IMMEDIATE 1016 18509
SS info RUWTEK/AMEMBASSY BANGKOK IMMEDIATE 1507 (1965 JUN 20 PM 11:03)
RUHLHQ/CINCPAC IMMEDIATE 1569
RUEKDA/JCS IMMEDIATE
RU?ALC/USAF CA? PI IMMEDIATE DECLASSIFIED
RUMSALA/2ND AIR DIV TSN R.O. 12336, Sec. 3A
STATE GRNC NIJ 91-278
BT by ???? NARA D??? 1-28-69
S E C crossed out JUNE 21
L I M D I S
OUR MIGHTY MEO REPORT FROM ONE OF THEIR OUTPOSTS IN SAM NEUA THAT THEY HAVE SUCCEEDED IN RECAPTURING ONE OF U.S. PILOTS CA DURING PAST FEW WEEKS BY PATHET LAO AND HAVE WALKED HIM OUT TO FRIENDLY TERRITORY, WE ARE SENDING A CHOPPER TO THEIR COMM?? POST TO PICK HIM UP.
IT IS NOT REPEAT NOT YET CLEAR WHETHER THIS IS HRDLICKA OR SHELTON BUT WE ASSUME IT IS ONE OR THE OTHER, WE WILL FLY HIM DIRECT TO UDORN AND PRESUME OTHER WORD WILL COME THROUGH AIR FORCE CHANNELS
PAGE TWO RUMJFS ISA
I WOULD LIKE TO STRESS OVERWHELMING IMPORTANCE THAT THIS RESCUE NOT REPEAT NOT BE GIVEN PUBLICITY. I HAVE ALREADY PASSSED THIS WORD TO UDORN AND TRUST IT CAN BE PUNCTUATED BY INSTRUCTIONS THAT ALL ECHELONS, PARTICULARLY PENTAGON PRESS SERVICES, SAME INJUN??? SHOULD BE PASSED TO NEXT OF KIN.
THIS OFFICER IS ONLY ONE OF THREE FOR WHICH WE CURRENTLY HAVE MEO RESCUE OPERATIONS IN PROGRESS. THOSE OPERATIONS, AS WELL AS LIVES OF U.S. OFFICERS AND OUR MEO AND LAO FRIENDS, COULD BE COMPROMISED AND JEOPARDIZED BY PUBLIC HULLABALOO ABOUT THIS RESCUE
WHEN WE HAVE MORE FACTS IN HAND, WE WILL BE IN TOUCH RE BEST METHOD HANDLING THIS MATTER WITH JCRC AND OTHER ENTITIES WHICH NEED TO KNOW ABOUT PILOT'S RECOVERY. PLEASE ADVISE ACTION TAKEN.
GP-3 SULLIVAN
NOTE: ADVANCE COPY TO SS/O, 6/20/65, 11:08 P.M.
PASSED WHITEHOUSE 6/20/65, 11:20 P.M.
HANDLED E??? PER SSO REPRODUCTION FROM THIS COPY PROHIBITED UNLESS UNCLASSIFIED
SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE HEARINGS SUMMER OF 1992 TESTIMONY OF MAJOR GENERAL RICHARD SECORD, LAOS CHIEF O
AIR, CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, 1966-1968; LAOS DESK OFFICER, DEFENSE DEPARTMENT, 1072-1975.
General Secord: Yes, sir. Well first let me just say for the record that I had a lot of years of experience with Laotian matters, as I think most of the committee knows. I served in Central Intelligence Agency in the field in Laos for 1966. '67, and '68. And I was back there again, briefly, in '69. And then I was the Laos desk officer in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, International Security Affairs, for a while in '72. And then by the time you're talking about here, I guess I was the head of the Southeast Asia Branch, having been promoted to Colonel.
So I served as a middle level officer during the time that you are focusing on here. And I wish I could take credit for that memorandum, because I think it's a good one, but it only represented -- it was the input of a number of officers who were working on this matter. And a memorandum of this nature to the Secretary of Defense himself would have had to have been coordinated, as a minimum, with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and probably all the Chiefs. Roger Shields undoubetedly chopped on this message, or coordinated I should say. And probably a number of other DIA and others.
So it was an action officer and it was my job -- I'm sure I was told by probably Assistant Secretary Eagleburger, after a SECDEF staff meeting would be my guess. When this was first showed to me by your staff I didn't remember it. You know, there was a blizzard of memoranda.
And then when I read it I did remember it, but it was unusual for us in my section to draft POW-type correspondence, because we had an office for POW affairs. I believe that my office was assigned the primary drafting responsibility in this case because this memorandum was kind of operational in nature rather than just an accounting kind of report.
Because, after all, it recommended a diplomatic track and a military track. Which we knew, of course.... we could read the papers too, those of us who drafted it -- that the force option would be one that would be hard for the decisionmakers to take given the environment that existed in the country at that time. Nonetheless, we thought it was feasible. So I guess I part company with some who have testified who said that they did not think that the force option was even remotely available. We obviously felt it was.
But what was going on with respect to the POW's is we were tracking as carefully as we could all the intelligence informatin available on POW's, especially after it became clear that there was going to be a Paris Accord. Because we knew this would -- knowing the Vietnamese as we knew them, we knew this was going to be a really tough -- a tough matter.
We also knew that the notion that there was a Pathet Lao, as Ambassador Godley said -- you know they existed but they didn't have any power. The North Vietnamese army had them completely in their control.
Vice Chairman Smith: Can I just interrupt.
General Secord: Yes.
Vice Chairman Smith: I do not want to interrupt your story at all, I just want to ask you a point right there. So based on your tracking, then, there were confirmed U.S. POW's in Laos during the war.
General Secord: Indeed. You've mentioned some of their names earlier this morning.
Vice Chairman Smith: Do you have any idea how many?
General Secord: No, sir, I can't remember. But there were a number of names that we knew with -- what do you know for sure. I mean with reasonable certitude we knew.
For instance, the famous case of Hrdlicka and two others. I had personal knowledge of that because I was involved in an abortive attempt to rescue those guys back in late '66 or '67, I think it was. You would have to go to CIA to get all thsoe cables, but there's a raft of cables on that. We knew that they existed alive because we had an agent inside. We knew their names, we knew where they were.
Vice Chairman Smith: And I just want -- again for the record, and again I apologize for interrupting your flow there.