POW vs. MIA/C -- Why do we care what a captured service member is called? The first reason is obvious. Neither International Law, nor the Geneva Conventions provide for a Missing/Captured status. DPMO representatives have stated that those listed MIA/C are afforded the same protection as someone listed POW.

 Yet, Professor Michael Noone, a former JAG officer and Professor of Law, at the Catholic University, responding to our concerns, outlined on a 2004 Press Release, stated: "In response to your inquiry, I would make the same response: that "missing/captured" is not a Geneva Convention term. As you know, the Third Convention is intended to protect captives - POWS - , so it's not surprising that it's silent on MIAs. The fact that neither term used by DoD is found in the Convention, doesn't make the term illegal, but does raise the kinds of concerns your organization expresses in the press release."

Other reasons are more insidious. Eliminating the POW status insures that no Prisoner of War will, ever again, be left behind. With no POWs to look for, DPMO can move toward their stated objective of "rapid post-hostility accounting." The goal is to insure that the U.S. government will never again be caught up in a 35, 40, or 55 year recovery operation.

We also object to the ambiguity of the Missing/Captured designation. Missing has a very clear meaning, as does captured. The status is an oxymoron, designed to confuse and mislead an unknowing public and a media who can't or won't ask hard questions.

Various DOD and branch of service spokespersons have said that since we are not fighting a recognized army but an insurgency, the POW status does not apply. The Viet Cong were not a recognized government. They were an insurgency with one goal, the over throw of the recognized government of South Vietnam. Under today’s controlling directives service members captured by the Viet Cong would never have been listed as Prisoners of War. Instead they would have been listed as Missing/Captured. Under today’s directive those shot down over North Vietnam would also have been listed as MIA-C. Imagine telling a hero like Capt. Red McDaniel or Col. Ted Guy, they weren’t POWs?

We at the National Alliance of POW/MIA Families first became aware of the DoD's proposed plan to eliminate the POW designation in early 2000. The replacement designation first considered was "Isolated Personnel." The term was first used in a 1999 Department of Defense Personnel Recovery Conference Report dated Oct. 26-28, 1999. By our count the new designation, "Isolated Personnel," appeared 13 times, while the phrase, "Prisoner of War," was used only once, as the acronym POW.

Then on Oct. 5, 2000, the National Alliance of POW/MIA Families received a letter from James F. Gravelle, General Counsel of the Defense POW/MIA Office (DPMO.) Gravelle wrote: "Let me assure you prisoner of war is not being replaced by [the term] isolated personnel [emphasis added]. There is no initiative to do so and, basically, prisoner of war and isolated personnel are not interchangeable. Prisoner of war is a legal status of military personnel captured during an international armed conflict between two countries, and entitles those

captured to humanitarian treatment under the Geneva Conventions. You may recall this status was claimed for our three soldiers who were captured in the Kosovo conflict in 1999. Claiming isolated personnel status for our captured personnel would be meaningless."

What Gravelle's letter failed to mention was that there were plans to replace the designation, "Prisoner of War," with another new designation, "Missing/Captured," and the bureaucratic steps were almost in place to put the change into effect.

On Dec. 18, 2000, almost two months after Gravelle's letter, the Defense Department issued Instruction No. 1300.18. Its subject: "Military Personnel Casualty Matters, Policies, and Procedures. New Casualty categories are defined in Section E2.1.1.6.

It is in this section that you will find the Missing/Captured status along with various others classifications including Missing/Beleaguered, and Missing/Besieged.

Words paint pictures. The phrase, "Prisoner of War," paints a clear picture. A picture, like the ones aired around the world, of PFC Matt Maupin, a bruised and battered American soldier held by Iraqi insurgents. The phrase, "Missing/Captured," suggests nothing but a question mark.

Call to Action - We must demand that the Dept of Defense reinstate the Prisoner of War status. To accomplish this we need your help. If you haven’t already done so send your letters to your senators and congressional representatives. Sample letters and fax numbers may be found at www.nationalalliance.org/powstatus/index. Use the letters or write your own.

If you’ve already sent a letter, send another and another and make phone calls. If you can, visit your local congressional office. Get representatives from your organizations to do the same.

Together, we will find someone DPMO will have to answer to. Together, we can restore the POW status.

Attention World War II POW/MIA Family Members - The following is from Japan Today, dated Jan. 18 2005, “A Japanese citizen's group recently released a list of about 3,500 Allied prisoners of war who died after being taken captive by the Japanese military during World War II, disclosing their names, nationality and cause of death.”

“It is the first time such a list has been released to the public, Taeko Sasamoto, one of the co-founders of the POW Research Network Japan, said. "Relatives would like to know where and why they died. We also want the Japanese people to properly know the truth," Sasamoto, 56, said. The information can be accessed via the group's website at http://homepage3.nifty.com/pow-j/

Another One - Dateline South Korea – “Seoul, Jan. 11 (Yonhap) -- The issue of former South Korean prisoners of war (POWs) has resurfaced following reports that a 72-year-old POW was recently arrested by Chinese police after escaping North Korea.”

“Chinese sources said that Han Man-tack, a former South Korean POW, managed to flee the North and hole up in China as he was in the process of organizing safe passage home.”

Lawmaker says 500 South Korean POWs still in North – from the South Korean news agency Yonhap Seoul, 11 January: “ The issue of former South Korean prisoners of war (POWs) has resurfaced following reports that a 72-year-old POW was recently arrested by Chinese police after escaping North Korea.”

“Chinese sources said that Han Man-tack, a former South Korean POW, managed to flee the North and hole up in China as he was in the process of organizing safe passage home. After being apprehended by Chinese police, he now risks being returned to the communist country where he is likely to face severe punishment, they added.”

“Family members who remain in South Korea confirmed that both Han and his older brother fought in the 1950-53 Korean War. "Both were recorded as being killed in action," said nephew Han Jung-goo. "We confirmed last year that my uncle is alive in North Korea and his older brother passed away." Han's relatives visited the Foreign Ministry in Seoul Tuesday [11 January] to urge the government to initiate measures that would lead to his release and repatriation.”

“Sources familiar with North Korean affairs say that Han is among a growing number of former POWs to abscond from the North, where they are locked in a daily struggle with destitution and discrimination.

"There are several former POWs who crossed the border between North Korea and China, and more are planning to do so," a source told Yonhap News Agency.”

“However, many of the would-be escapees are frustrated in their efforts to return home as their relatives cannot afford to pay brokers who demand high sums to facilitate their passage, the source added. Roughly 500 former South Korean POWs are estimated to still live in North Korea, according to Representative Chun Yu-ok of the main opposition Grand National Party (GNP).”

“The Defence Ministry said that 33 of them have been repatriated over the past decade. "We have no exact data on POWs, as Pyongyang refuses to discuss the issue," a Defence Ministry official said. The sensitive matter has never been high on the inter-Korean agenda. North Korea maintains that it has already returned all POWs and none remain within its borders.”

“Representative Kim Moon-soo and three other GNP lawmakers, who are currently on a visit to China, said they urged Kim Ha-joong, the South Korean ambassador to China, to make diplomatic efforts to prevent Han being forcibly returned to the North.”

We’ll Ask the Question, Again – If South Korean POWs survived all these years, in North Korea, why not American POWs?

A Little Humor - This past week we needed to go to the DPMO website. Not remembering the web address, we did a Google search. We found the DPMO site, but decided to scroll down to see how many hits there were. We found a site called Six Sigma, that mentioned DPMO. So, we decided to check it out.

The site had nothing to do with the Defense POW/MIA Office (DPMO). Instead it described a calculation used to indicate the amount of defects in a process per one million opportunities or Defects Per Million Opportunities. In order to do the calculation you first have to determine the Defects Per Opportunity before you can determine the Defects Per Million Opportunities or DPMO. After you read the next page, you may decided this does have something to do with the Defense POW/MIA Office.

We’re Still Waiting – Last May, a DPMO representative asked that we submit a list of questions we’d like addressed at our June 2004 meeting. We submitted a list containing 8 questions. None were answered. In fact the DPMO representative attending our meeting said he was unaware of the list of questions but assured us he would inquire about the status of our request. Well, you guessed it. We’re still waiting for answers.

We had intended to share the question with you months ago. Somehow, we never got to it, until today. After reading the list of questions, you’ll understand why DPMO hasn’t answered them and probably never will.

Our Questions:

1.         Please provide a full briefing on a report held by DPMO and referred to internally as “The 185 Report.” Specifically, we want to know what the figure 185 refers to; the originating agency; date of information; and date of acquisition. Does the document involve a government in Southeast Asia; if it does involve a government in SEA, when was that government challenged to explain the report; what was its response. When was the report received by DPMO, and detail all actions taken by DPMO on this report including dates of action. What is the DPMO assessment as to the credibility of the information and credibility of the source?

2.         A classified report, released under FOIA, indicates that in 1987 the Lao maintained a file cabinet of POW/MIA-related information relative to Americans, which the Vietnamese removed when some of the information was compromised. The Lao President was the custodian of the file cabinet. What research has DPMO conducted into the location of the file cabinet, i.e., was the cabinet returned to the Lao by the Vietnamese; has this subject been discussed with the Lao Government; with the Vietnamese Government? Which of the communist governments has provided information from the file cabinet? Isn't it true that DPMO has a number of credible reports that the Lao maintained wartime records, in addition to the file cabinet, all of which would have contributed to the search for Americans in Laos, and all of which have not been made available to the U.S. Government? If the U.S. Government has elected to not surface the information with the communists, please explain why.

3.         Please provide a copy of the report referred to in question 2, as previously released under FOIA.

4.         How many reports has DPMO received since 1990 to the effect that live Americans, POW or MIA, were being held in Southeast Asia? We would like to know the originating agency, date of information, date of acquisition of information for each report and when each report was received by DPMO and all actions taken by DPMO on this report including dates of action?

5.         Do you have reporting that live Americans are being held in SEA at this moment?"

6.         As relations with Libya thaw, what initiatives has DPMO taken or plans to take to resolve the fate of Capt. Paul Lorence, lost during operation El Dorado Canyon?

7.         With regard to the Speicher case, we would like a report on the wooden beam with initials MSS carved in it found in Iraq. Specifically, we would like to know where and when the beam was found and the results of FBI examination?

8.         With regard to mt-DNA identifications, we would like to know how many multiple loss incidents have been encountered where testing revealed that one or more individuals from the same loss have had the same mt-DNA?

For more information on questions one and two, check our September 11^th 2004 newsletter.