From: jewell@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Larry Jewell)
Subject: 'NamVet Newsletter, Vol.4, no.11 (2/6)
Organization: Purdue University
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 21:01:43 GMT

   
     individual.  The  second is eyewitness accounts of the loss event. 
     The  third  is the so-called "incident  report"  --  the  official 
     report of the loss incident.
       If  a  year  passes  without  new  information,  the  respective 
     military  service can convene a commission to determine whether  a 
     presumptive finding of death should be declared.
       The  April,  1973 statement of policy was a political statement, 
     rather  than  a  finding according to statutory  authority.  As  a 
     result,   the   military   services  subsequently  reviewed   each 
     individual  case of those who previously had been declared dead en 
     masse.  And  in  every  case except one,  the commissions  made  a 
     determination of a presumptive finding of death.
       Because of this procedure,  the bureaucratic necessity arose for 
     discrediting  any  evidence  that  might cast doubt  on  the  mass 
     presumptive finding of death of April,  1973.  From the standpoint 
     of  law and military regulations,  the procedure followed in  each 
     case gave a legal affirmation to the original political statement.
       Therefore,  in  order  to discredit any information which  might 
     undermine the political thesis, the analysis of intelligence files 
     fell  into a systematic pattern of debunking information  contrary 
     to the thesis.
       This  systematic  debunking  included discrediting  of  reports, 
     possible intimidation of witnesses, dismissal of credible evidence 
     through technicalities, and -- if all else failed -- the arbitrary 
     disregard  of  evidence  contrary to  the  thesis.  DOD's  Working 
     Hypothesis:  An  analysis  of DOD's working hypothesis  for  fully 
     accounting  for  American  MIAs is the key  to  understanding  the 
     discrepancies  between  DOD's  position on the POW issue  and  the 
     evidence uncovered by the staff.
       DOD's premise, beginning in April, 1973,  has been that all MIAs 
     are dead;  the corollary,  therefore,  is that DOD must never find 
     
     NAM VET Newsletter                                        Page 13
     Volume  4, Number 11                           November 10, 1990

     any  evidence that any MIA is alive.  The best evidence,  in DOD's 
     opinion,  is a set of physical remains that can be identified as a 
     specific   individual   on  the  POW/MIA  list.   Once   such   an 
     identification  has been made,  the case of that individual can be 
     removed  forever  from the list.  This is an easier task  than  to 
     accept  live-sighting  reports  that might point to a  living  POW 
     necessitating appropriate follow-up action.
       It  is a reasonable assumption to remove POW/MIAs from the  list 
     when remains are identified, if the identification is correct. But 
     the  fact is that such identifications have been made on the basis 
     of inadequate physical evidence, using presumptive deductions that 
     may  or may not be true.  The pressure to identify sets of remains 
     has resulted in specific cases where caskets have been buried with 
     full military honors as the "remains"  of the individual when,  in 
     fact, the casket is empty.
       Therefore,  DOD  acts on its premise by vigorously investigating 
     for  the  remains  of dead MIAs.  The list of MIAs  presumed  dead 
     following  the  conclusion  of the war  totalled  2,383.  DOD  has 
     received  and  claimed to have identified a total of 280  sets  of 
     remains since 1973.
       Any  full  accounting  of  MIAs,   according  to  DOD's  working 
     hypothesis,  would  necessarily involve only those cases in  which 
     either a presumptive finding of death could be made,  or else full 
     or  partial  remains  could be  discovered.  As  each  presumptive 
     finding of death is declared or set of remains is identified,  DIA 
     would  remove,  as accounted for,  the names that matched those on 
     the  original MIA list.  In this respect,  DOD claims that DIA has 
     vigorously  investigated and resolved hundreds of such cases.  The 
     policy  of  DOD  is  to focus attention on the  cases  where  some 
     evidence,  no  matter  how  small,  of  physical  remains  can  be 
     recovered.  But  even  while DOD enthusiastically  and  vigorously 
     investigates remains cases -- no matter how fragmentary -- it just 
     as vigorously discredits live-sighting and other witness accounts. 
     Throughout  the  1970s and 1980s hundreds of thousands  of  Asians 
     fled  Vietnam,  Cambodia  and Laos.  These refugees provided  many 
     first-hand  reports,  or knew by second or third-hand reports,  of 
     American prisoners being held in their respective countries.
       To date,  over 11,700 accounts have been received by DOD;  1,400 
     of these are first-hand, live-sighting reports. DIA claims to have 
     analyzed  fully each of these live-sighting reports,  and to  have 
     left "no stone unturned" in searching for living prisoners.  After 
     analyzing  the live-sighting reports,  DIA has concluded that  the 
     majority  are  not  related  to living  American  POWs,  with  the 
     possible  exception  of  a small percentage of  reports  that  DIA 
     describes as "unresolved."
       However, no "resolved"  case has ever concluded that an American 
     POW  remains captive in Southeast Asia.  In this way DIA concludes 
     that  there  is  no  evidence of Americans  currently  being  held 
     captive in Southeast Asia. This contention is consistent with both 
     the  working  hypothesis described above and with  DIA's  apparent 
     success  at  removing  from the MIA list names that  involve  only 
     those cases in which remains are identified, or a finding of death 
     declared.
       Insofar  as  these discrepancies relate to the 1,400  first-hand 
     reports  of  living prisoners,  DOD's original premise comes  into 
     question.  Numerous  live-sighting  reports have been  erroneously 
     discredited by DIA analysts. Moreover, staff has reason to believe 
     that DOD has misidentified the remains of scores of MIAs,  and has 
     incorrectly presumed dead many others.
     
     NAM VET Newsletter                                        Page 14
     Volume  4, Number 11                           November 10, 1990

       This  analytical  bias is typical of a bureaucracy defending  an 
     established  policy  at all costs,  even if it means  denying  the 
     obvious.  It  is  also  a typical characteristic of  an  out-moded 
     paradigm  that can no longer explain the real world or real facts. 
     If  the  original  premise of DOD were that at least some  of  the 
     2,383  MIAs  were  alive,  then  the evidence  collected  by  DOD, 
     including the thousands of live-sighting reports, would have to be 
     viewed  as  valid or potentially valid.  Therefore,  the  evidence 
     would have to be presumed worthy of consideration.
       The  same  could  be said of problems relating to  the  forensic 
     identification  of  remains and the presumptive finding of  death: 
     Unless convincing or conclusive evidence were known, remains cases 
     and presumptive finding of death would not be prematurely made.
       Importance of the Problem:  The resolution of these questions is 
     important  not  only to any MIA/POWs who may be still  alive,  but 
     also to the families involved. It is also important to the fate of 
     any  possible POWs in a future military action.  With 200,000 U.S. 
     troops now deployed to the Persian Gulf,  the question of possible 
     prisoners  of war once again becomes an urgent  matter.  Moreover, 
     the  resolution  of  issues relating to Southeast Asia  is  a  key 
     priority of our nation's foreign policy.  Secretary of State James 
     A.  Baker  III stated recently that the POW/MIA issue is the  last 
     remaining  obstacle to resumption of relations with the government 
     of  Vietnam.  But if it turns out that Vietnam has been concealing 
     the  existence of POWs,  then it would be a complicating factor in 
     initiating relations with the present regime.
       --  From  POW-MIA Fact Book,  Department of Defense,  July 1990: 
     "The  fullest possible accounting for the missing,  the return  of 
     all  Americans  who  may  still be  held  in  captivity,  and  the 
     repatriation of all recoverable remains is required to resolve the 
     POW/MIA  issue.  While  the  life prisoner issue  remains  at  the 
     forefront   of  our  negotiation  and  intelligence  efforts,   we 
     recognize  that  accountability  is both a complementary  goal  to 
     resolving  this  pressing  question  and vital  to  obtaining  the 
     answers  which  the  POW/MIA  families of  our  nation  so  richly 
     deserve."
       --Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense, July 1990.
     "Accountability lies in oversight by Congress or in criticism from 
     the electorate, but not in the judgement of the courts."
     



















     NAM VET Newsletter                                        Page 15
     Volume  4, Number 11                           November 10, 1990

     
                         W       W          M     M
                         W       W         M M   M M
                         W       W   \ /   M  M M  M
                  OOOO   W   W   W  --*--  M   M   M   IIII
                 O    O  W  W W  W   / \   M       M    II
                 O    O  W W   W W         M       M    II
                 O    O   W     W          M       M    II
                 O    O                                 II
       PPPPPP    O    O            .....                II       AA
       PP   PP    OOOO        .  ''       '' ..        IIII    A    A
       PP    PP            ..'                  '..            A    A
       PPPPPPP          ..'                        ''.         A    A
       PP            ..'                              '.       AAAAAA
       PP          .'                                  ''.     A    A
       PP         .'                                      '.   A    A
                .'                   .:::::..              '.
               .'                  .::::::::::.              '
              .'                 .::::::::::::::.             '.
             .'       __       .::::::::::::::::;:...          '.
            .'      _-  -_   .:::::::::::::::::::::::.          '.
           .'     _-_ _ _ -_ ::::::::::::::::::::::::'           '.
          ..    _- -!!___!!!-_:::::::::::::::::::::::.            ..
          .'       ==_ _- _= .::::::::::::::::::::::::            ',
          .        =-_= _= = ::::::::::::::::::::::::              .
          .'       =-_ =_- = :::::::::::::::::::::::              '.
          .'       = - -_ =_:::::::::::::::::::::.                '.
          .'       -_ -_- .:::::::::::::::::::;;;.                '.
          .'      _-_  ..::::::::::::::::::::::::;                '.
          .     _ _  .:;:::::::::::::::::::::;,                    .
           '    _  .:::::::::::::::::::::::::.                    '.
        Y  .'.....::::::::::::::::::::::::::;'                    '. N
           ::::::::::::::::::::::::'    `'''                      ':
         O `:::::::::::::::::::::::           \v/          \ /    :'E
            `:::::::::::::::::::::: ===========================  :'
           U `:::::::::::::::::::::.          /^\            \  :'T
               `::::::::::::::::::::                          .:
               A `::::::::::::::::::                        .:'T
                  `::::::::::::::::::.                    .;'
                  R `:::::::::::::::::.                 .;' T
                      `::::::::::::::::.              .;'
                      E `:::::::::gjp:::            .:'  O
                          `:::::::::::::...........'' G
                          N   O   T       F   O   R
     
                       " Bring them home --- NOW !!! "
     












     NAM VET Newsletter                                        Page 16
     Volume  4, Number 11                           November 10, 1990

                       WALKIN' POINT
                    By: Michael A. Harris
                     Republic of Vietnam
                          1968-69
     
            Walkin Point was a risky place.
            Sixteen on auto, ready to fire.
            Might see Charlie, face to face.
            Always watchin, where's that wire?
     
            Skin whether Black, Brown, or White.
            Don't mean nothin, in no man's land!
            The long green line, followed til night.
            Depending on you, to deal their hand.
     
            Point Man, Point Man, where are you?
            I've been lost, these last few years.
            Broken and bitter, depressed and blue.
            I've even come, to shedding some tears.
     
            Who's this Jesus, up on the trail?
            I want to follow, it seems a must!
            Upon the Cross, He did travail?
            He walked Point, so I could trust?
     
            Oh Glory be!  Now I'm able to see!
            I'm made alive, His oil can anoint!
            It's hard to believe, He has chosen me.
            Now He's asking me, to walk the Point.
     
            Come along Brothers, there's healing and peace!
            Many, many, years, you've had to cope.
            Your rucksacks are heavy, you need to release.
            Give Him your burdens, He is your hope!
     
            Let's march again, down a different road.
            We're on the Point, only by His Grace.
            Just ask Him in, He'll take your load.
            Giving you strength, to start a new race!
     



















     NAM VET Newsletter                                        Page 17


     =================================================================
       A T T A C K   o n   t h e   U . S . S .   L i b e r t y ! ! !
     =================================================================

                        USS LIBERTY: 23 YEARS LATER
                          Why reinvestigate now?
                          By: James M. Ennes, Jr.
                          Input by: Joe Meadors
                     SeaBat BBS - Corpus Christi, TX
                              (512) 387-6638
     
       Last  summer  marked 23 years since Israeli forces attacked  the 
     American intelligence ship USS Liberty during the Arab-Israeli Six 
     Day  War.   The attack,  which killed 34 Americans and wounded 171 
     others from a crew of 294, remains controversial even today, while 
     the call for a serious investigation becomes more urgent with each
     passing year.
       Probably no other event in American naval history is the subject 
     of such widespread dispute.
       Yet the only official inquiry ever held by the United States was 
     a  patently inadequate shipboard inquiry into little more than the 
     performance   of  the  crew  while  under  fire.    That   limited 
     investigation  ignored its mandate to inquire into all aspects  of 
     the attack, violated U.S.  Navy regulations concerning the conduct 
     of investigations,  took no evidence concerning the intentions and 
     culpability  of  the  attackers,  and failed to  answer  the  most 
     pressing questions.
       As a result, the attack is even more controversial today than it 
     was when it occurred.
     
     The situation cannot be allowed to continue.
     
     THE CONTROVERSY:
       The  circumstances are clear enough.   Both sides agree that the 
     ship  was  strafed  and bombed repeatedly by Israeli  aircraft  in 
     international waters during calm,  clear weather,  then torpedoed. 
     Israel  ultimately  apologized  and paid almost  $13  million  for 
     deaths,  injuries,  and  damage to the ship.   There the consensus 
     ends.
       Survivors insist that the attack was deliberate and have amassed 
     a  great body of evidence to support their case.   An ever-growing 
     number  of  eyewitnesses and former leaders of the era agree  that 
     the  attack  was  deliberate  and that  the  Israelis  are  lying.  
     Experts  agree  that the evidence is overwhelming.   The  problem, 
     survivors feel, is not in proving their case but in persuading the 
     government to listen.
       Israel and its many spokesmen, however, insist just as adamantly 
     that the attack was a mistake,  and they have managed for 23 years 
     to block all attempts to review the case.  As a result,  Americans 
     who  ask  about  the  attack cannot get  a  straight  answer  from 
     Washington.   Instead,  "boilerplate"  paragraphs  repeat the same 
     responses that were originally drafted as early as 1967.
       
     Result: stalemate.
     
     CONTRADICTORY ACCOUNTS:
       According to the Israelis, the ship flew no flag,  operated in a 
     war  zone  where  she had no legitimate  business,  "attempted  to 
     escape  when  spotted,"  and brought the attack on herself by  her 
     
     NAM VET Newsletter                                        Page 18
     Volume  4, Number 11                           November 10, 1990

     suspicious and unfriendly behavior.
       By this account, the Israeli aircraft circled three times at low 
     level  looking for identification and attacked only after  finding 
     none.   The  Israeli torpedomen launched torpedoes only after  the 
     ship  "arrogantly"  refused  to  identify  herself.    The  attack 
     occurred,  say  the  Israelis,  because  the ship's  behavior  and 
     appearance  convinced them that she was a hostile Egyptian vessel. 
     Firing  stopped  immediately,  they claim,  when the ship  finally 
     hoisted her American flag.
       Survivors call the Israeli story contrived and untrue.  The ship 
     was  clearly identified by standard markings and a bright,  clean, 
     oversize American flag, they say.
       Crewmen  and  an  American intercept station  in  Germany  heard 
     Israeli  reconnaissance pilots reporting to their headquarters  by 
     radio  that this was an American ship.   The Israeli war room that 
     ordered  the  attack  tracked the ship on a chart  by  name.   The 
     Israelis,  survivors  say,  attacked deliberately and pursued  the 
     attack  long  after examining the ship and American flag  at  very 
     close range.
     
       According   to  survivors,   the  Israelis  used   sophisticated 
     equipment  to jam U.S.  Navy radio frequencies used by the ship to 
     call  for  help--frequencies  they could not  have  known  without 
     knowing  they  were American.   The ship's signalman flashed  "USS 
     LIBERTY  -  U S NAVY SHIP"  at the approaching torpedo boats until 
     his lamp was shot out, but the torpedomen ignored the signals.
       After  disabling the ship with a torpedo,  the Israelis  ignored 
     the ship's hull number, the oversize American flag, and the ship's 
     name  in  English  on  her stern.   For another  40  minutes  they 
     continued  to fire upon firefighters and litter carriers from very 
     close range.
       Finally, the boatmen drew closer and methodically machine-gunned 
     the  ship's  empty liferafts waiting in the water  for  survivors.  
     Then  they  took a deflated liferaft aboard,  with its large "U  S 
     NAVY" markings, and returned toward their base -  still supposedly 
     unaware that they had been killing Americans.
       Even  if  it  were  possible  to  have  misidentified  the  ship 
     initially, these men insist,  the Israelis could not possibly have 
     continued  to attack from close range over such an extended period 
     without recognizing their target as American.
       And if it was an accident, survivors say, the Israelis should at 
     least  be  able  to tell a story that can be  verified.   But  the 
     Israelis keep changing their story,  and no Israeli version agrees 
     with the eyewitness reports of American survivors.
       
     THE QUESTIONS:
       Did  the ship fly a flag or didn't she?   Was she clearly marked 
     or  wasn't  she?   Did she identify herself when asked or did  she 
     refuse  to  do so?   Did she look like an Egyptian vessel or  not?  
     Did  the  Israelis fire upon the ship's liferafts in the water  or 
     did they not?   Did they cease firing after examining the ship and 
     flag at close range or did they not?  Are the Israelis telling the 
     truth? Or are the Americans?  Did the Israelis deliberately attack 
     a ship they knew to be American, or did they not.
       These  are easy questions.   The answers are readily  available.  
     Yet the U.S.  Navy and the Congress of the United States have been 
     sidestepping  these questions for 23 years.   The time has come to 
     face the facts.
      
     
     NAM VET Newsletter                                        Page 19
     Volume  4, Number 11                           November 10, 1990

     OTHER INCIDENTS:
       With  the  single  exception of the Israeli attack  on  the  USS 
     Liberty,  every  serious naval and maritime incident since  before 
     the  bombing of the Maine has been thoroughly investigated by  the 
     United  States  Congress.   Pearl  Harbor,  Tonkin  Gulf,   Maine, 
     Scorpion, Thresher, Mayaguez, Pueblo, Stark, all were exhaustively 
     probed.
       When  the  USS Stark was struck by Iraqi missiles in  1987,  the 
     circumstances  were never in doubt.   Missiles were launched  from 
     many  miles  away  at night and the entire attack was  over  in  a 
     matter of seconds.  Yet investigators probed that attack for eight 
     months!  Investigators interviewed the Iraqi pilot, reviewed Iraqi 
     flight  procedures and gunnery practices and interviewed  everyone 
     even remotely connected.
       Not  so  the USS Liberty.   The Liberty  affair,  with  bitterly 
     disputed circumstances and a two hour coordinated attack involving 
     Israeli air,  sea,  reconnaissance,  intelligence and headquarters 
     forces  --  and a crew which has complained of a cover-up from the 
     beginning -- was resolved to the satisfaction of the entire United 
     States Government after barely four days of Navy inquiry and not a 
     word  of  testimony  from Israel.   Crewmen were  browbeaten  into 
     frightened silence.   No member of Congress ever felt compelled to 
     ask an official question.
       The  USS Liberty Court of Inquiry violated Navy Regulations  and 
     ignored  rules  of evidence and procedure.   The Court  failed  to 
     interview  bridge  lookouts,  gunners,   signalmen,   key  conning 
     officers,  and the ship's surviving second-in-command,  and failed 
     to review such vital documents as the ship's deck log, weather log 
     and  quartermaster's notebook--all of which argued that the attack 
     was deliberate.
       Although  otherwise  ignored by the Court,  the ship's  official 
     deck  logs  were rewritten and refiled with the Navy  without  the 
     knowledge  or  permission of the officers who actually  stood  the 
     watches.
       Even  the legal advisor for the convening authority rejected the 
     completed  Court  of Inquiry report as inadequate and advised  his 
     boss,  a  four star admiral,  not to sign it.   But his advice was 
     ignored  and the report was officially approved despite its warts.  
     That  badly  flawed  and ambiguous report now stands as  the  only 
     inquiry into the attack.
       No  one  in  authority has ever wondered  why  rescue  aircraft, 
     dispatched  from  the  carrier  Saratoga in time  to  prevent  the 
     torpedo  attack,  were called back while the ship was still  under 
     fire.  That act probably cost 25 additional American lives. Yet no 
     one in authority has ever asked why the airplanes were recalled or 
     bothered  to ask the Saratoga's skipper a single  question.   This 
     issue alone justifies an inquiry.
       Responsible  people  charge that our government ordered a  hasty 
     and  ill-advised  "retaliatory"  raid on the Egyptian  capital  of 
     Cairo.   The  then-  American Ambassador to Cairo,  among  others, 
     reports  that  he  received  official messages  warning  him  that 
     American aircraft were en route to bomb the city.   Does no one in 
     our government wonder about this?
       Survivors  repeatedly ask our government to explain the official 
     lack-of-interest  in eyewitness reports that Liberty's life  rafts 
     were   machine-gunned   in  the  water--a  serious  violation   of 
     international law.  Our government evades the questions.
       Survivors have twice produced Israeli citizens who claim to have 
     observed  the attack from the Israeli side and who have offered to 
     
     NAM VET Newsletter                                        Page 20
     Volume  4, Number 11                           November 10, 1990

     testify  that it was deliberate.   No government official has ever 
     been willing to listen.
       And  while  the Court was still in session,  the  ship's  Acting 
     Commanding  Officer  leaked to the press a report that the  attack 
     was deliberate and the investigation a sham.  The story was widely 
     printed,   but   even  this  failed  to  generate  questions  from 
     Washington.   Clearly  the facts in this case were of no interest. 
     Washington wanted a whitewash.
     
     POWERFUL SUPPORT:
       Then-Secretary   of  State  Dean  Rusk  now  calls  the   attack 
     deliberate  and the Israeli excuse untrue.   So does Rusk's  legal 
     advisor Carl Salans and his Assistant Secretary Lucius Battle.
       Then-Chairman  of the Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board  Clark 
     Clifford  is  on record having told President Lyndon Johnson in  a 
     closed  National  Security  Council meeting that  the  attack  was 
     deliberate;  he said so again a few days later in a written report 
     for the president.   A Central Intelligence Agency official made a 
     similar report to a committee of Congress.
       The  committee  report,  however,  is  still withheld  from  the 
     public.
       Then-director  of the National Security Agency General  Marshall 
     Carter  and  his deputy Louis Tordella agree that the  attack  was 
     deliberate;  so  does  their  senior aide  Walter  G.  Deeley  who 
     prepared a still-secret in-house report.   So do then-chief of the 
     Central Intelligence Agency Richard Helms and former deputy George 
     Carver.   So does Admiral Bobby Inman who headed both intelligence 
     agencies.   So  do  former Under Secretary of the Navy  Dr.  James 
     Johnson,  former  Air  Force Chief of Intelligence General  George 
     Keegan  and  then-Senior National Security Advisor to SecDef  Paul 
     Warnke.
       Former  Joint  Chiefs  of Staff Chairman Admiral  Thomas  Moorer 
     insists  that the attack could not possibly have been a mistake as 
     the Israelis claim.  "Even a rag-tag Navy could not have made such 
     a mistake,"  he says.   That beloved patriarch of the modern Navy, 
     Admiral Arleigh "31 knot" Burke, agrees.
       Lyndon  Johnson's press secretary George Christian reports  that 
     "no  one  in  the  White House"  believed the  Israeli  excuse  or 
     believed that the attack was accidental.   Even Ronald Reagan once 
     cited   the  Liberty  to  his  staff  as  an  example  of  Israeli 
     untrustworthiness.
       These  are responsible people whose views deserve respect.   Yet 
     none  of  that  select  group was able or  willing  to  speak  out 
     publicly  in 1967 when that could have made a difference.   And no 
     one  in government since Dean Rusk has ever challenged the Israeli 
     version  of events.   Even Rusk did so only under the cloak of top 
     secret diplomatic communications.
       These  views  are important.   Eyewitness reports  of  survivors 
     deserve  attention.    Israeli  military  officers  who  offer  to 
     describe  the  attack as seen from the Israeli side should  arouse 
     some curiosity in Washington.  Yet, any examination of these views 
     and  the  reasons  for them is blocked by spokesmen for  the  very 
     people  who attacked the ship.   Except for some brief and highly-
     classified  exceptions,  no  Member  of  Congress  and  no  senior 
     government   official  has  ever  shown  the  slightest   official 
     curiosity  about this affair.   Americans should wonder why  their 
     government seems not to care.
     
     POLICY OF EVASION:
     
     NAM VET Newsletter                                        Page 21
     Volume  4, Number 11                           November 10, 1990

       For 23 years,  survivors and other concerned Americans have been 
     asking their government to examine this subject seriously, and for 
     all of that time they have received short shrift.
       The  stock  answer,  no  matter what question or to whom  it  is 
     addressed,  is,  "Israel apologized and paid damages.   The matter 
     was  investigated  by the Navy.   There is no evidence to  support 
     charges that the attack was deliberate."
       Recently,  in attempts to evade the boilerplate,  survivors have 
     been  asking very specific questions.   "Why were rescue  aircraft 
     recalled  while  my ship was still under attack?"   "Why  did  the 
     Court  of  Inquiry ignore the machine-gunning of our  life-rafts?"  
     "Why  did  the Court of Inquiry report that the flag hung limp  at 
     the  mast  when logs and testimony say otherwise?"   "Why were  so 
     many key witnesses not interrogated by the court?"
       Such  questions bring more boilerplate,  if they are answered at 
     all.   "There is no evidence to support charges.  .  ."   the Navy 
     says.
       Early  this year survivors wrote directly to the Judge  Advocate 
     General  of  the Navy,  Rear Admiral J.  H.  Campbell.   "If  your 
     records  lack evidence,"  they wrote,  "it is because the Navy has 
     for more than twenty years refused to accept the evidence that has 
     been  offered.   We can provide eyewitness testimony by survivors, 
     sworn statements by eyewitnesses on and off the ship, and official 
     U.S. Government files.  To whom should we send our evidence?"
       "Israel  apologized and paid damages,"  a staff officer replied.  
     "The USS Liberty matter is closed."
       Occasionally, briefly, we get to peek behind the boilerplate.  A 
     few  days  ago,  for  instance,  a  senior aide  to  a  California 
     congressman  called to say,  "My Congressman agrees with what  you 
     say, and he would like to help.  But what can he do?   Any support 
     for Liberty survivors would just bring the wrath of the pro-Israel 
     Lobby  and  my  congressman  would be out of office  at  the  next 
     election.  Better just to keep quiet."
     
     Patrick Henry would have wept.
     
     DEAD CREWMEN ARE DISHONORED:
       Men  who  are  sent  to  die for  their  country  deserve  their 
     country's support in battle.   If they give their lives,  they and 
     their  families  deserve their country's honor and respect and  an 
     honest accounting of how they died.
       That  has  not  been the case with the  USS  Liberty.   The  USS 
     Liberty  was  abandoned by her country while under fire,  and  has 
     been treated disgracefully ever since.
       Recently,  for  instance,  the mother of a dead shipmate told me 
     she feels, because of our country's attitude toward the attack, as 
     if her son died,  not in honorable combat for his country,  but in 
     shame.
       That should not be.  This mother should at least temper her loss 
     with the knowledge that her son died proudly for his country.  But 
     she has been denied even that.
       Meanwhile,  the  cover-up  continues.   Every year,  more  vital 
     records mysteriously vanish.   Memories fade.   Key witnesses die.  
     Every year the truth becomes more elusive.
       And  every  year our country's refusal to face the facts of  the 
     USS  Liberty  becomes a larger blot on American honor and  on  the 
     historical integrity of what passes for American naval history.
     
     COVER-UP KEEPS THE ISSUE ALIVE:
     
     NAM VET Newsletter                                        Page 22
     Volume  4, Number 11                           November 10, 1990

       The  issue remains alive today because spokesmen for Israel have 
     managed  for 23 years to persuade our leaders that any examination 
     of the circumstances might become a platform for political attacks 
     on Israel.
       That  may be true.   But domestic crimes don't go unreported for 
     fear  of damage to the accused's reputation and this one shouldn't 
     either.
       In  1990,  after 23 years of official cover-up,  it is time  for 
     forces  on both sides of this controversial issue to join together 
     in  calling on the Congress for a  complete,  thorough,  no-holds-
     barred  investigation  of what really happened to the USS  Liberty 
     during the Six Day War.
       If  Israel is innocent,  as her supporters maintain,  then  they 
     have  nothing  to  fear.    Israel  will  be  vindicated  and  the 
     controversy  will end.   If they believe in Israel's innocence  as 
     strongly  as they claim,  they should insist upon this inquiry  to 
     clear her name.
       If  Israel is guilty,  as survivors and others  maintain,  then, 
     too, the matter will finally be laid to rest.
       If it is not resolved, the controversy will haunt us forever.
       I  was  present  in 1980 when then-senator Adlai  Stevenson  III 
     explained  to  his Senate staff why he had decided to call for  an 
     investigation into the Liberty attack.
       "Because  the  American people deserve to know the  truth,"  the 
     senator said.  To Adlai Stevenson, that was reason enough.
     
     Years later, that is still reason enough.
     
                                --++END++--
     BIO:
       James  Ennes  retired  from  the Navy in 1978  as  a  lieutenant 
     commander after 27 years of enlisted and commissioned service.  He 
     was  a  lieutenant on the bridge of the USS Liberty when the  ship 
     was  attacked.   His book on the subject,  Assault on the  Liberty 
     (Random House, 1980; Ballantine, 1987),  is a "Notable Naval Book" 
     selection  of  the U.S.  Naval Institute and was "editors  choice" 
     when reviewed in The Washington Post.
     
     SIDE BAR:
                              IN THEIR MEMORY
       Several  government  bodies have remembered the men who died  in 
     the  USS Liberty by proclaiming June 8 "USS Liberty Memorial Day." 
     Those include such major population centers as St. Louis, Boulder, 
     Omaha,   Lincoln,   Washington,   D.C.;   Grafton  and  Milwaukee, 
     Wisconsin;  the  town of Greece and the county of Monroe,  in  New 
     York; and the States of Colorado, Nebraska,  New York,  Washington 
     and Wyoming.
       Citizens  in  other  cities have arranged to install  in  public 
     places  small  monuments  in memory of the  men  who  died.   Such 
     monuments  are  now installed or under construction  in  Sheridan, 
     Wyoming; Bay City and Flint, Michigan; Fond du Lac, Wisconsin; and 
     Hicksville,  New York.   A major memorial is planned for the Naval 
     and Maritime Museum, Patriot's Point, South Carolina.
       U.S.  Navy  buildings  in Japan,  Florida,  California and  West 
     Virginia  have been named after men who died in the ship.   And  a 
     public  library has been constructed in  Grafton,  Wisconsin,  and 
     named, "The USS Liberty Memorial Public Library."
       At their 1987 national convention,  the Veterans of Foreign Wars 
     passed  a resolution calling upon the United States to construct a 
     
     NAM VET Newsletter                                        Page 23
     Volume  4, Number 11                           November 10, 1990

     national monument in memory of these men.
     
     THE AMERICAN LEGION STONEWALLS:
       Numerous  attempts at getting a resolution through The  American 
     Legion have proven unsuccessful.
       There is currently an appeal being made to the Department of New 
     York to determine the correctness of the procedure followed by one 
     Post (China Post One, Slidell, LA).   In rejecting the resolution, 
     China Post One's Board of Directors (two of whom are not qualified 
     for  membership  in The American Legion)  decided to  unilaterally 
     reject  the resolution without submitting it to the membership for 
     a vote.
       The  effect  of  that action was to  confer  upon  non-qualified 
     members  a  voice in establishing The American  Legion's  National 
     Agenda while denying that same right to qualified members.
       The  appeal  was  made  five years ago and  repeated  calls  and 
     letters  to the Department have proven unsuccessful in obtaining a 
     ruling from them.
     =================================================================

                 USS LIBERTY VETERANS ASSOCIATION REUNION
                              By: Joe Meadors
                     SeaBat BBS - Corpus Christi, TX
                              (512) 387-6638
     
     Time:  June 7-9, 1991
     Place:  Embassy Suites, Washington, DC
     For Info, Contact: Bob Hrankowski
                        Airport Systems Travel
                        One Airport Systems Way
                        Suite 100
                        Rochester International Airport
                        Rochester, New York  14624
                        Phone: (716)328-8747 (Call Collect)
                        Fax: (716)328-4058
     
     For more information on the USS Liberty incident, contact:
     
                     USS Liberty Veterans Association
                              3 Burns Avenue
                         New York, New York  11801
          Volume  4, Number 11                           November 10, 1990



     =================================================================
                              I n - T o u c h
     =================================================================

             "In Touch" Unites Families, Friends and Strangers
                       Input by: Ray "Frenchy" Moreau
                      NamVet's IN-TOUCH Section Editor
                     Herndon Byte eXchange - Herndon, VA
                               (703) 471-8010
     
     "We  deeply loved our son...  but until we met and spoke with  his 
     friends and fellow veterans, we did not realize what an impact his 
     short life had made."
     
     These  words  of Frances Rufty,  mother of Joe Herne  Rufty,  were 
     spoken  when she and Joe's dad,  Archie Rufty,  participated  with 
     Joe's  fellow veterans,  Bob Evans and Ken Strafer,  in placing  a 
     wreath  near panel 14 West of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial.  This 
     panel  bears the names of Joe and many of his fellow officers  who 
     were killed in an intense battle on January 29, 1970.
     
     Bob  Evans  remembers that day in 1970 only too well.  He and  Joe 
     were  1st Lieutenants and platoon leaders who had met the previous 
     Christmas  Day.  Bob  liked Joe's warmth his sense of  humor.  "He 
     helped  us  laugh  when there was nothing  to  laugh  about",  Bob 
     recalls.  And  when he (Joe)  was hit,  37 men from Bob's  platoon 
     offered to risk their own lives to attempt to rescue Joe.  "That's 
     how much they thought of him.  They were willing to die to try and 
     save him."
     
     For years, Bob wanted to contact Joe's family. Thus, he became one 
     of  the  first  participants in the  Friends  "In  Touch"  locator 
     program designed to help families,  friends and fellow veterans of 
     those lost in Vietnam to find each other.
     
     After  "In  Touch"  located the Rufty family,  Bob called them  to 
     share  his  memories of Joe.  Bob says that he had mixed  feelings 
     about  contacting the Rufty's.  He was afraid that he might  cause 
     them  more  pain.  But once he heard the receptiveness  in  Archie 
     Rufty's voice, he was very glad he had called.
     
     Another  connection that "In Touch":  made for Bob and the Rufty's 
     was  that  of Lt.  Col.  Ken Strafer who served with Joe in  basic 
     training, OCS, and Vietnam. In their first phone conversation, the 
     Rufty's  told Bob that Ken had written to them,  but that they had 
     lost contact with him.  They believed that Ken was in the Army and 
     could be in the Washington, DC area.
     
     After  Ken  was  located,  he invited Bob and the Rufty's  to  his 
     retirement  ceremony scheduled for June 28th.  The Rufty's flew in 
     from  Las Vegas to attend Lt.  Col.  Strafer's retirement ceremony 
     *and*  to  join  their  son's friends in placing a wreath  at  the 
     Memorial.  Other  vets  who served with Joe were also present  for 
     this tribute.
     
     As the wreath was placed, a group gathered to watch and listen, to 
     smile and to cry -- family,  friends,  and strangers,  united by a 
     common  bond  of  gratitude for a young man whose life  and  death 
     continues to be remembered.
     
     NAM VET Newsletter                                        Page 24
     Volume  4, Number 11                           November 10, 1990

     
     This  tribute  to  Joe Rufty was filmed  by  *Reunions*,  a  newly 
     syndicated  television program which will feature this "In  Touch" 
     story  in one of its premiere episodes this Fall.   *Reunions*  is 
     also  working  on another "In Touch"  story about Layna  McConkey, 
     daughter  of Army Capt.  Wayne McConkey who was killed in Vietnam, 
     September 17, 1970. Layna's mother died in July, 1989.  When Layna 
     was  going through her mother's papers,  she discovered tapes that 
     her father had sent from Vietnam.  On these tapes,  Wayne McConkey 
     spoke  with fondness of some of his fellow veterans.  Layna  would 
     like to find these veterans,  and *Reunions*  is going to help "In 
     Touch" in this search.
     
     "In  Touch"  *IS*  AN IDEA WHOSE TIME HAS COME.  As  expected,  Al 
     Santoli's moving article, "We Never Knew Our Fathers" which ran in 
     Parade  magazine on Memorial Day week-end,  resulted in over 1,000 
     calls,  letters,  pleas  for  help, and offers of  assistance.  An 
     especially  nice  benefit is the fact that all four of  the  young 
     adults  featured in the article,  Tony Cordero,  Michelle Mitchel, 
     Sharrie  Downing and Wende Ruffin,  have been contacted by persons 
     who knew their fathers.
     
     Danielle Sanville, another daughter for whom "In Touch" has made a 
     connection, learned that her dad had printed her name and those of 
     her mother and sister on his helmet.  He said, "Here I am with the 
     names of three girls on my helmet. The guys must think I'm quite a 
     lover,  and I am because I sure do love my girls."  Danielle wrote 
     us, "I sat on the floor and cried.  To me,  it was my dad's way of 
     telling me he loved me. Only I didn't hear it for 22 years."
     
     The *Parade* article has also produced a positive response to Sons 
     and  Daughters  In  Touch,  a network to  facilitate  support  and 
     communication among children of men who died in Vietnam.  Hundreds 
     of  letters  express  gratitude to Tony Cordero  who  founded  the 
     network  and  initiated the *Parade*  article.  Lynn Welch  Davis, 
     daughter of SFC. Donald Walter Welch,  killed in Duc Lap on August 
     23, 1968, Wrote:
     
         "All  my  life  I grew up wondering if  there  were  other 
         children  like  me.   None  of my friends had  lost  their 
         fathers,  and I found it difficult to talk with them about 
         my feelings. I had always prayed that someday I would find 
         others like me, someone who could understand how I felt... 
         When  I read your story I broke into tears because at long 
         last  my  prayers  had  been  answered...  I  hardly  know 
         anything about my father and would like to find anyone who 
         might have served with him...  I have nowhere else to turn 
         for help in my search."
     
     AN UNEXPECTED BONUS OF THE PUBLICITY ABOUT "IN TOUCH" AND SONS AND
     DAUGHTERS  IN TOUCH HAS BEEN THE FORMATION OF ADDITIONAL NETWORKS. 
     Siblings  In Touch is being coordinated by Melinda Knapp and JoAnn 
     Seyfried whose brothers died in Vietnam. A Vietnam Widows Research 
     Project has been initiated by Peggy Borsey,  Ph.D.,  whose husband 
     died in Vietnam, and Jacki M. Beatty, MSN, RN, sister of a Vietnam 
     Veteran. They want to hear from any Vietnam widows (whether or not 
     they have remarried) and will, in turn, furnish their participants 
     with printed summaries of their research.
     
     
     NAM VET Newsletter                                        Page 25
     Volume  4, Number 11                           November 10, 1990

     Also,  sons  and  daughters of veterans lost in World War  II  and 
     Korea  have  written  that they,  too, have longed for  a  support 
     network  as  well  as a means of finding persons  who  knew  their 
     fathers.  The World War II Orphans network is being coordinated by 
     Ann Bennet Mix, daughter of Sidney Bennet, KIA, April 19, 1945.
     
     "In  Touch"  has been likened to a tree with the locator  program, 
     Sons and Daughters In Touch, the Vietnam Widows Project,  Siblings 
     In  Touch,  and even sons and daughters of persons killed in Korea 
     and World War II,  being branches of the "In Touch"  tree.  If you 
     are  a leaf on one of these branches and would like to participate 
     in any of these programs, please write to 
                                "In Touch"
                                 c/o FVVM
                               1224 M St. NW
                          Washington D.C. 20005. 
     Your letter will be forwarded to the appropriate coordinator.
     
     The  tremendous  response  to "In Touch"  would not have  been  as 
     overwhelming had it not been for some special groups.   Electronic 
     Data Systems (EDS) has designed the data management system. Zenith 
     Data Systems, Hewlett-Packard, Borland International,  Quarterdeck 
     Office   Systems  and  Fastcomm  Communications  have  contributed 
     computer equipment and peripherals.  EDS and Zenith employees have 
     volunteered  to  help  with  publicity  and  data  entry.    These 
     contributions really make the difference for "In Touch".
     
     Many  people write or call to ask how they can help.   We  suggest 
     that  they spread the word to friends,  churches,  and local  news 
     media.  This will do two things.  First,  the more participants in 
     the locator program, the more "matches" we will have, that is, the 
     more  people who will locate those persons with whom they need  to 
     be "In Touch".
     
     Secondly, we need funding to operate this program. If  you help us 
     tell  people about "In Touch",  please emphasize that there is  no 
     charge to participate, but that so far "In Touch"  has received no 
     government  or  corporate  funds.  For this reason  donations  are 
     needed.
     
     If  you would like to help with "In Touch",  please write or call. 
     If you live in the Washington D.C. metro area,  we need volunteers 
     in  the office.  And wherever you live,  you can help by spreading 
     the word.
     














     NAM VET Newsletter                                        Page 26
     Volume  4, Number 11                           November 10, 1990

                         In-Touch.  What is it ???
     
                       Input by: Ray "Frenchy" Moreau
                      NAM VETs IN-TOUCH Section Editor
                     Herndon Byte eXchange - Herndon, VA
                               (703) 471-8010
     =================================================================
     
     |+++++++++++++++++++++++++ IN TOUCH ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|
     |  There are some 43 million people in the United States whose  |
     |  lives were directly and irrevocably touched by the Vietnam   |
     |  War.                                                         |
     |                                                               |
     |  Almost four million people served in Vietnam -- the longest, |
     |  and perhaps most difficult, war in our history.  More than a |
     |  quarter of a million were seriously wounded. 58,175 are dead |
     |  or missing.                                                  |
     |                                                               |
     |  Each of those who returned recognizes the true cost of war.  |
     |  But so too do the families and friends, wives and lovers of  |
     |  those listed on the Wall.  They too paid a tremendous price, |
     |  not always recognized... many still do.                      |
     |                                                               |
     |  Though twenty years have passed, it seems that is the period |
     |  people have needed to get the distance necessary to begin to |
     |  address the unresolved, deeply personal issues that have     |
     |  been haunting them since the war.  Perhaps that is a measure |
     |  of the pain.                                                 |
     |                                                               |
     |  But, the "healing of a nation" that was intended by the      |
     |  building of the Memorial, has begun.                         |
     |                                                               |
     |  In the office of the Friends of the Vietnam Veterans         |
     |  Memorial, we hear them on the other end of the phone on      |
     |  any given day, and far into the night, they call from all    |
     |  corners of the country.                                      |
     |                                                               |
     |  "If only I could find out..."                                |
     |  "I need to find his family so I can keep my promise..."      |
     |  "I just want to talk to someone who was with him... "        |
     |  "Please, can you help...?"                                   |
     |                                                               |
     |  At the Wall, we find them every day. Veterans who have not   |
     |  spoken of their experiences even to their most intimate      |
     |  family members are now beginning, tentatively, to seek a     |
     |  responsive ear.                                              |
     |                                                               |
     |  Brothers and sisters, parents and even wives who were simply |
     |  never allowed full expression of their grief because of the  |
     |  fierce pressures of the time, are now coming forward,        |
     |  looking for someone who can help with their healing.         |
     |                                                               |
     |  We hear from children, now 15 - 25 years old, who are        |
     |  searching for bits and pieces of information they can        |
     |  assemble to help fill that empty place in their lives that   |
     |  is the father they never knew well, if at all. And they want |
     |  to talk to each other, to share their special needs and the  |
     |  unique experience of growing up with a father on the Wall.   |
     |  They understand each other all too well.                     |
     
     NAM VET Newsletter                                        Page 27
     Volume  4, Number 11                           November 10, 1990

     |                                                               |
     |  Millions of Americans need to meet and talk because of the   |
     |  Wall, and only the Friends can help them.                    |
     |                                                               |
     |  Initial discussions with many other national organizations   |
     |  whose work brings them into contact with Vietnam veterans    |
     |  and their loved ones have attested to the need for IN TOUCH  |
     |  and their willingness to help.                               |
     |                                                               |
     |  Simply put, the Friends will draw on its special work at the |
     |  Memorial,  its acquired and available data bases and         |
     |  programs designed and integrated by Electronic Data Systems  |
     |  (EDS), and the commitment and concern of its volunteers to   |
     |  place people with a common association to a name on the Wall |
     |  to be in voluntary communication with each other.            |
     |                                                               |
     |  From there, we will let human nature take its good course.   |
     |  And let the healing begin.                                   |
     |                                                               |
     |  The starting point for the data base will be the more than   |
     |  twenty thousand names of people who have requested name      |
     |  rubbings from our volunteers in Washington. Each will be     |
     |  contacted and given the opportunity to participate by being  |
     |  listed in the IN TOUCH central data base file.               |
     |                                                               |
     |  Confidentiality is the keyword to cooperation and IN TOUCH   |
     |  will respect the integrity of all lists and records.  Lists  |
     |  will be unavailable for public use and will not be           |
     |  distributed for any commercial purpose.                      |
     |                                                               |
     |  By its nature, IN TOUCH must reach far beyond the veterans   |
     |  community in order to be successful. With professional       |
     |  guidance, the Friends will develop a program of on-going     |
     |  articles and other coverage in major media markets, high-    |
     |  lighting the personal experiences of people as they are put  |
     |  "in touch."  The International Vietnam Veterans Echo         |
     |  Conference via the Herndon Byte eXchange 1:109/316 node as   |
     |  the enter point for gathering and disseminating information  |
     |  will be used.  Aside from bringing the program  into public  |
     |  awareness, these articles and stories will serve as a val-   |
     |  uable tool for public education on a wealth of matters       |
     |  relating to the Vietnam era.                                 |
-- 
#L.W. Jewell Moderator at the Veterans Information Site (veteran@cc.purdue.edu)#
#& WWII-L Listowner: "Sunday's horoscope is note worthy because of its strange,#
#sudden and wholly unpredictable and inexplicable occurrences, affecting all   #
#phases of life." "Your Horoscope" L.A. Evening Herald Express, Sat, 12/06/41  #