POWs unacknowledged in China, Libya and Laos?

[armada1651]

I agree wholeheartedly that this publication deserves to be treated with a large pinch of salt.

Even a very large pinch of salt can only do so much for 100% pure bullshit. And you can be pretty sure that any site supporting the "9/11 truth" movement is exactly that.

 

[A4sForever]

Even a very large pinch of salt can only do so much for 100% pure bullshit....

Speaking from experience?? Or have you done anything of note in the POW/MIA accountability field that would help tweak your bullshit detector ??

 

[armada1651]

Speaking from experience?? Or have you done anything of note in the POW/MIA accountability field that would help tweak your bullshit detector ??

I'll admit I'm not an expert on the POW/MIA issue. I'm just saying, I have a hard time giving any credibility to a site that supports the idea that the US government planned September 11.

And to the OP: no offense, nothing personal. I understand you just weren't familiar with AFP.

 

[Flash]

I was not aware that AFP have a reputation for fabrication. That clearly puts this article into a different light.

I was not aware of the American Free Press at all until I looked at their website and quickly found a lot of 'interesting' articles. A little bit of research goes a long way.......

 

[Steve Davies]

And to the OP: no offense, nothing personal. I understand you just weren't familiar with AFP.

Armada

No worries; no offense taken.

 

[JSF_Dreamer]

it's just an article to try and suggest that mccain doesn't care about POW's. Funny how that would come out during a presidential race. I think McCain having been a POW himself might be more sympathetic to their suffering than Obama.

Either way, I am sure there are still POW's out there. I wish the government would do more to find them, but I'm also sure that they view it as a costly endeavor (both manpower wise and financially) to try and find/rescue them.

To whoever might still be holding them: you can all burn in hell.

 

[Steve Davies]

I wish the government would do more to find them, but I'm also sure that they view it as a costly endeavor (both manpower wise and financially) to try and find/rescue them.

A good question, and one that even a former head of the DIA also pondered in 1991:

...In May, 1991, the former head of DIA's special office on POW/MIA affairs testified before Congress that reports were not being adequately researched or followed up in a timely fashion. Further, he said the notion that the issue of an accounting for POW/MIAs being the "highest national priority" was a "travesty" and that efforts were reduced to "digging a few holes" looking for remains, while live-sighting reports were largely ignored or debunked.

I don't know if the policy has changed significantly, or if things have improved since then. A lot of time has passed since then, so I hope that they have.

 

[Catmando]

I'm hesitant to stir this old POW issue further.

But I also feel that the terribly tragic and inconclusive fate of former Blue Angel lead Harley Hall (and too many others like him captured, but not returned), be remembered, and their memory honored.

[Note the sources of these two links concerning his fate are the Blue Angels and the Tailhook Association, and not some tabloid.]

http://www.tailhook.org/HallSu99.htm

http://www.blueangels.org/History/Hall/POWMIA.htm

 

[phrogdriver]

The thing that has always seemed crazy about the POW issue is this. Why would anyone in the region hold Americans covertly? In the years immediately following the war, captives could have been used as leverage against the US, if used openly. Secret hostages are useless.

Of course now, over 30 years later, having POWs still in SE Asia would be disastrous for the country that held them. It would bring the full wrath of the American people and government against the captors and the nation they were found in.

Why would anyone undergo such a risk? For slave labor? The going wage rate for locals down there isn't much better than slave wages, without the risk of a US airstrike. And how valuable are slaves who are all pushing their late 50s at a minimum? Even if some were held after hostilities ceased, their usefulness has long passed--they were killed or died a long time ago (which I don't think happened, anyway).

The idea that Vietnam-era POWs are still held in SE Asia is ludicrous.

 

[armada1651]

...without the risk of a US airstrike...

Airstrike? I'd be more worried about Rambo or Chuck Norris if I were them.

 

[HAL Pilot]

But I also feel that the terribly tragic and inconclusive fate of former Blue Angel lead Harley Hall (and too many others like him captured, but not returned), be remembered, and their memory honored.

As I have said before on this site, Harley was my second cousin. From the accounts I have heard/read, including that of his RIO, I have no doubt he was captured alive and held after the cease-fire.

 

[VIZKRIEG]

From research on the topic (I wrote a thesis paper about it), I found that the Vietnamese held POWs after the war as leverage, just as they held french POWs after the First Indochina War. They were referred to as "pearls." The Vietnamese would trade these "Pearls" for money, goods, almost anything. It was a way to recoup some of the expenses of fighting a war on their own land.
The problem after the Second Indochina War, was that the US government did not follow through on some of the promises made during the cease fire. I do not recall the specific number, but there was a significant number of millions of dollars that were promised to the Vietnamese government as part of the cease fire. Shortly after the agreement was made by President Nixon, President Ford took office, and refused to give the Vietnamese government anything. Thus, they refused to return the human collateral.

The other issue regarding POWs being kept after the war also involves a failure by the government at the time. The Pathet Lao, who were controlling Laos at the time, openly stated that they had US servicemen, and that they would not release them until the US government made a separate peace treaty with Laos. The US goverment refused, on the basis that there had never officially been a war with, in, around, or anywhere near Laos, and the servicemen in question were never seen or heard from again.


Sorry for the long post, but with my research, I feel I know about as much as one can without any operational knowledge. I will try to find some links, but I wasn't planning on cutting and pasting footnotes from my paper.

 

[Catmando]

As I have said before on this site, Harley was my second cousin. From the accounts I have heard/read, including that of his RIO, I have no doubt he was captured alive and held after the cease-fire.

Nor do I have doubt.

I only knew him by reputation, and not personally. But I still remember that day he was shot down, and remember hearing the SAR efforts on Guard.

It is a memory that I have never forgotten, and still haunts... as does the still unknown and unresolved fate of others I knew....so long ago.

 

[Flash]

From research on the topic (I wrote a thesis paper about it), I found that the Vietnamese held POWs after the war as leverage, just as they held french POWs after the First Indochina War......but with my research, I feel I know about as much as one can without any operational knowledge.

I find it hard to believe that you, researching a college paper, have been able to find anything credible that definitively shows American POW's were kept after the Vietnam War against their will. I would be interested to see what your sources are, and whether they are at all credible.

I think Phrogdriver said it best:

Why would anyone in the region hold Americans covertly? In the years immediately following the war, captives could have been used as leverage against the US, if used openly. Secret hostages are useless.

 

[Steve Davies]

I find it hard to believe that you, researching a college paper, have been able to find anything credible that definitively shows American POW's were kept after the Vietnam War against their will. I would be interested to see what your sources are, and whether they are at all credible.

A valid question.

Another valid question is this: Where is the credible, definitive proof that the 600 American POW/MIAs who did not return from Laos are all dead?

Nearly 600 Americans were lost in Laos during the war in Vietnam. Although the Pathet Lao stated on several occasions that they held "tens of tens" of American prisoners, Laos was not included in the negotiations ending American involvement in the war, and the U.S. has never negotiated for the freedom of these men since that time. Consequently, not one American held in Laos has ever been released.

Source: Homecoming II

The onus is not on college students writing theses to prove that some were left behind, but on the US government, its assorted agencies and their collective might, to prove that this is not the case. To date, they have not done so to the satisfaction of many who still live in hope.

That doesn't prove that there are still Americans held captive, but it does prove that the US government needs to do more. Perhaps the matter is one of communication, or perhaps it is that some sources and information is still too sensitive to release? Whatever the case, until the US government does enough to answer the continuing questions of the public and relatives, there are going to be people out there who will continue to look.

I don't envy those tasked with providing the answers, but nor do I envy the loved ones of those who are still not accounted for.