There are no circumstances under which American Service Personnel would be designated Prisoner of War. The Dept of Defense Controlling Directive 1300.18 simply does not provide for a Prisoner of War status.

Do we need a better source than Secretary of the Navy Gordon R. England. In his memo changing the status of Navy Capt. Scott Speicher, from Missing in Action to Missing-Captured, England wrote;

"If the government of Iraq is holding Captain Speicher, he is entitled to Prisoner of War status under international law and the Geneva Convention and would have been entitled to such status from the day he first came under Iraqi control. Although the controlling missing persons statute and directives do not use the term Prisoner of War the facts supporting a change in Captain Speicher's category from Missing in Action to Missing/Captured would also support the conclusion that if alive, he is a Prisoner of War."

Secretary England's statement is clear; "the controlling missing persons statute and directives do not use the term Prisoner of War..." Had the status Prisoner of War been provided for in the "missing persons statute and directives," Scott Speicher would be listed as Prisoner of War.

So why is it that a "Background Paper," from the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense, Office of Legislative Affairs, accuses an unnamed organization ( the Alliance) and unnamed individuals of spreading mis-information. The "paper" is being distributed to Congressional Offices making inquiries about the lack of a POW status for captured Service personnel.

The Background Paper begins; "This paper addresses current misinformation being circulated by a small group of individuals and organizations alleging there is a recent governmental effort to replace the term "prisoner of war" (POW) with terms such as "missing-captured" and "isolated personnel." It appears the purpose of the effort may be to deter the concern of the public about captured personnel by not using the term "POW." This myth is evident in recent articles published in certain organization newsletters, discussions with individuals, and letters from individuals and organizations."

The Dept of Defense has, through the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense Office, of Legislative Affairs, accused everyone who has made a Congressional inquiry on the lack of a POWs status of spreading mis-information.

We challenge the Department of Defense to produce the Controlling Directive that provides for a designation of Prisoner of War for captured Service Personnel. Produce the Controlling Directive that details the circumstances under which a captured Service Members would be listed as Prisoner of War by the United States Government.

Dolores Alfond personally requested a copy of the Controlling Directive governing a POW status, at both the 2004 Denver and Portland DPMO Family Outreach Briefings. At the first meeting Assistant to the Assistant Deputy Secretary of Defense Adrian Cronaur said a copy would be provided. By the second meeting, the copy had not been received. When questioned about this Mr. Cronaur, quite rudely responded that the directive was mailed. Do we really need to add no directive was ever received.

Unfortunately, most congressional representatives will accept the information contained in the "Background Paper" as fact and dismiss the concerns of the National Alliance of Alliance, our members and supporters.

This is one of the most blatant attempts by those within the Dept of Defense to mislead Congressional Representatives, on the POW issue, that we've seen in a long time.

We've often wondered why we get nowhere with Congress on the POW/MIA issue? We've suspected that when inquiries are made, Congressional staffers contact DPMO or some other office within the DOD. The response received contains enough mis-leading information or double talk to convince the staff member that the individual making the inquiry is wrong and dismisses their concerns.

The "Background Paper" prepared by the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense Office of Legislative Affairs contain just such information. It also confirms something we suspected but could not confirm until now. The Missing-Captured designation has existed far longer then we suspected.

The "paper" states, very clearly ""POW" is not being replaced by any other term."

Yet, as the paper continues it also states; "The legal status of missing-captured is a domestic status found in statute; for example, it is found in 10 United States Code Section 1513."

However, the statement within this "paper" providing our point that the Dept of Defense has no POW designation is the following:

"A prisoner of war, or POW, would be classified domestically as "missing-captured," but would still have the status of "POW" internationally." To view the full text of the Background Paper click here

We have continually stated the Dept of Defense does not have a POW status for captured Service Personnel, Secretary of the Navy, Gordon England said it and this "Background Paper" confirms that. The key sentence within the paper is the following: "A prisoner of war, or POW, would be classified domestically as "missing-captured," but would still have the status of "POW" internationally."

So, where is the misinformation? The Dept of Defense now "domestically" classifies captured Service Personnel as "missing-captured" while expecting the world to recognize them as Prisoner of War.

If the Dept of Defense is "domestically" designating captured Service Personnel as "Missing-Captured" and not Prisoner of War, doesn't that mean the POW designation has been replaced by the MIA-C designation.

The paper relies heavily on the premise that international law and Geneva Conventions designate captured American's as Prisoner of War and that "the status of "POW" is automatic; there is no action required by any country in the conflict to have that status applied to their personnel."

Our concern, however, is not international law and how it designates a captured American. Our concern is how our own Dept of Defense designates them.

We object to the DOD using an ambiguous term such as "missing-captured" to describe captured American's. The Geneva Conventions provides for Prisoners of War not "missing-captured." The paper's author tries to confuse the situation by stating the " terms "missing" and "captured" are not recent additions to the statues; their use can be traced back at least to World War II." We have no doubt that the terms existed as far back as World War II. What we object to is the combination of the two used as a "domestic status" in the Controlling Directives governing captured Americans.

By referring to prior directives this paper proves that the designation "Missing-Captured" existed far longer than we knew. It does not make the designation any less objectionable.

According to this "Background Paper" "A prisoner of war, or POW, would be classified domestically as "missing-captured," but would still have the status of "POW" internationally. It is interesting to note that the term "missing-captured" includes, but is not limited to, a missing person who is a "POW."

If "Missing-Captured includes a missing person who is a "POW" why isn't that stipulated in the Controlling Directive 1300.18? Nowhere in the Controlling Directive 1300.18 will you find the phrase Prisoner of War of the acronym POW? In fact the author of this paper admits "that neither 10 United States Code Section 1501, nor DODI 1300.18, nor its predecessors include the term "POW."

According to this "paper" "prisoner of war connotes legal status." While the designation POW is an internationally recognized legal status and addressed in the Geneva Conventions the designation "missing-captured" is not.

We expect international law and by extension Geneva Conventions to provide a status of POW to captured American. Yet our own Defense Department insists on classifying these individuals domestically, under the ambiguous designation of "Missing-Captured."

Our enemies routinely violate the rules of international law and the Geneva Conventions regarding the care and treatment of captured Americans. Terminology will not change that. Terminology does change world perception regarding the value we place on our captured personnel.

In the eyes of the enemy, doesn't it downgrade the worth of a battered American, displayed on television worldwide, for the Department of Defense to designate him/her "domestically" as "Missing-Captured" rather than Prisoner of War, while expecting international law to protect him/her as a Prisoner of War?

Our concerns are supported by Professor Michael Noone, the former Air Force Judge Advocate General (JAG) and current Professor of Law at the Catholic University in Washington DC.

Professor Noone, responding to our email wrote; "I share your concern over the status of missing service personnel.... 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."

To view the Press Release referred to by Professor Noone click here

Cast Your Vote – We've added a new section to our web site in order to give our readers a chance to voice their opinions. Today's question:

Currently the Dept of Defense "domestically" designates captured American Service Members as "Missing- Captured." Do you believe the DOD should reinstate the Prisoner of War designation for captured Service Members? To vote click here

A Note on Timing – According to the "Background Paper" "Department of Defense Instruction (DODI) 1300.18, entitled "Military Personnel Casualty Matters, Policies, and Procedures," provides for a casualty accounting category of "missing-captured." A review of the earliest edition, dated December 27, 1991, of this Instruction also finds the casualty category "missing ---captured."

It is interesting that the designation "Missing-Captured" came into being and was revised during period between a Presidential election and the time the new President was sworn in.

Should we be concerned about what DOD/DPMO has planned for the POW/MIA issue between Election Day November 2008 and Inauguration Day, January 2009. Think about it! Any negative fall out can not hurt an outgoing President and the incoming President is not responsible for the decisions made.

You Are Now the Head of DPMO – We are giving you each the opportunity to be the head of the DPMO and you have a decision to make. What would be the best way for you to spend $800,000.00 on the POW/MIA issue? Send your ideas to us at lynnp@nationalalliance.org We will post your ideas and in the near future we will tell you how DPMO actually thought $800,000.00 was best spent.

H.Res 123 - To establish, in the House of Representatives a Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs. The purpose of this Committee is to "conduct a full investigation of all unresolved matters relating to any United States personnel unaccounted for from the Vietnam era, the Korean conflict, World War II, Cold War Missions, or Gulf War, including MIA's and POW's."

If this sounds familiar, it should. The legislation formerly known as H.Res 103, in the 108th Congress, was re-introduced in the 109th Congress by Congressman Peter King (R-NY).

Last year, we ended up with 54 cosponsors, but the legislation died in committee. Of the 54 congressional representatives who co-sponsored the previous legislation, 50 are still serving in Congress. If we can get all 50 onboard and add additional co-sponsors, we have a chance of passing H.Res 123.

The Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs concluded in 1993 that; "In 1976, the Montgomery Committee concluded that because there was no evidence that missing Americans had survived, they must be dead..... This Committee has uncovered evidence that precludes it from taking the same view. We acknowledge that there is no proof that U.S. POWs survived, but neither is there proof that all of those who did not return had died. There is evidence, moreover, that indicates the possibility of survival, at least for a small number, after Operation Homecoming...."

Information recently provided, by former DPMO Intelligence Research Officer Warren Gray, details a string of failures within DPMO to actively pursue information relating to our POW/MIAs. One of his many concerns was the DPMO failure to investigate a report, known in house, as the "185 Report." Could the 185 POWs referred to in this report be the "small number" of POWs mentioned in the conclusion of the Senate Select Committee's 1993 Report? We don't know because DPMO buried the report.

With the recent release of the 5th Edition of the Gulag Study, this legislation has never been more important. According to the study; "Americans, including American servicemen, were imprisoned in the former Soviet Union . . . "

We ask you all to contact your congressional representatives and request that they co-sponsor H.Res 123. We've posted a list of all 435 congressional representatives on our web site. The list also indicates previous co-sponsors. We've also posted sample letters. Use the samples, alter them to make them more personal, or write your own letter. Make sure you contact your congressional representative, asking them to co-sponsor H.Res 123.

To view the Congressional list and get your sample letters, click here

As of now, the legislation has one co-sponsor Representative Anna G. Eshoo from California's 14th District.

Russia Releases Names of Japanese POWs Sent to North Korea – From the Mainichi Daily News April 1, 2005, dateline Moscow -- "The Japanese Embassy here has received a list of some 27,000 Japanese people detained in Siberia and later sent to North Korea after World War II. After the war came to an end in August 1945, about 575,000 Japanese people were detained in Russia and sent to camps in Siberia as prisoners of war."

"Of them, 473,000 later returned to Japan, and some 55,000 died in Russia, according to the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare. What became of the remaining 47,000 people has long been unknown, and some suspected they might have been sent to North Korea or the Manchurian region in China."

"The list of the 27,000 Japanese people handed over by the Russian State Military Archive is the first official document that underscores the sending of Japanese detainees to North Korea after the war. Japanese diplomats believe that the 27,000 were mostly sick people as officials of the Russian archive said that those who were not regarded as labor forces were sent to North Korea. The names of the Japanese people in the list are written in Russian. Japanese diplomats and the Health Ministry are set to closely examine the document."

Who Is Going To Ask The Question – If the Japanese Government can get information and the names of their POWs from the Russians, why can't the American Government?

"Missing . . . Presumed Dead: THE SEARCH FOR AMERICA's POWs" – is a documentary, produced by Bill Dumas. Bill is the nephew of Bob Dumas, who has spent the last 50 years trying to bring his Korean War POW brother Roger home. The documentary chronicles Bob's search for his brother and the government's cover-up of abandoned POWs.

While primarily focused on the Dumas case, the production deals with the broader aspect of the POW/MIA issue as it relates to Korea and Vietnam. The film contains interviews with many well-known figures in the issue, some of whom haven't spoken publicly in years.

To order your copy in VHS or DVD format visit www.MissingPresumedDead.com

Why Does Johnie Webb Still Have A Job?

National Alliance of Families 16th Annual Forum is scheduled for June 16th - 18th, 2005. Our forum is conducted to coincide with the Governments annual Vietnam POW/MIA Family Briefings. We urge all family members to attend this years government briefings. The government will provide free airfare to two family members to attend the government briefings. There is no charge or registration fee to attend the government briefings and you do not have to belong to an organization to attend these briefings.

As stated above, this year we will meet at the Crowne Plaza Hotel located at 1489 Jefferson Davis Highway. The Crowne Plaza is a short walk from the Doubletree Hotel, site of the government briefings. Room rates for the Alliance are $109.00 per night plus tax. Parking is $7.00 per day. Call 1-800-2CROWNE. Reservations can be made after March 16th. The deadline for reservations is May 20th.

The Alliance is an all volunteer organization. Our meetings are open to all, without charge. At this time of year, we actively seek contributions to finance our forum. If you wish to contribute, donations may be mailed to:

National Alliance Of Families
P.O. Box 40327
Bellevue, Wa. 98015.

Remember all contributions are tax deductible.