[Calpernia]

http://www.aiipowmia.com/wh/wh04.html

THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the President
For Immediate Release
July 2, 1993

Statement by the President on U.S. Policy Toward Vietnam

It has always been my firm belief that America’s highest priority in its approach toward Vietnam is to secure a full accounting on our Prisoners of War and Missing in Action.

Today, I am announcing two new steps toward that goal. The first involves access by Vietnam to the International Monetary Fund. The second is my decision to send a new, high-level delegation to Vietnam to press for further progress on unresolved POW/MIA issues. Together, these steps offer the best hope of providing America’s POW/MIA families the answers and peace of mind they deserve.

Over the past several months, I have given intense thought to how best to achieve the fullest possible accounting for our POW/MIAs and how to shape U.S. policy toward Vietnam to achieve that goal. I have met with Veterans, with the families whose loved ones have not returned and with Members of Congress who have a strong interest in this issue, including some who were held as prisoners of war.

Last night, I met with a group of impressive, dedicated representatives of veterans organizations and families who care deeply about our government’s efforts to achieve the fullest possible accounting of our missing. They share my own belief that our policy toward Vietnam must be driven not by commercial interests but by the overriding purpose of achieving further progress toward the fullest possible accounting of our POW/MIAs. Vietnam has long been a divisive issue for America. It remains so today. I know there is strong disagreement among all those with an interest in the POW/MIA issue on how best to further our mutual goal. Where there is no disagreement, however, is on the need to ensure that any decision taken is made in answer to the only relevant question: will it help us discover the truth about our missing?

One of the tragedies of this issue is that our own government has often denied unnecessarily information about this issue to the American public. That is why I have instructed all U.S. Government POW/MIA related documents to be declassified by Veterans Day of this year, except for that tiny fraction that could still affect our national security or invade the privacy of the families. I have also been working to consolidate the POW/MIA agencies and resources to enhance the efficiency of these operations and access by the public. They have a right to know and I intend to ensure they do.

Since taking office, I have reviewed the progress made to date in resolving unanswered questions concerning the fate of American service personnel who did not return from Vietnam. I have insisted on the fullest possible accounting from the Vietnamese government and pressed for further progress. As part of this effort, I dispatched General John Vessey to Vietnam last April as my Special Emissary for POW/MIA Affairs to press for further progress. In addition, Members of Congress and representatives of veterans groups have travelled to Vietnam to press for that goal.

In an effort to encourage further progress, it is appropriate at this time to recognize what the Vietnamese have done in our effort to account for our missing. Attached is a summary outing that progress. Therefore, I have decided to end our opposition to the efforts of other nations to clear Vietnam’s arrears in the IMF. I believe, as do former POWs John McCain and Douglas “Pete” Peterson and others veterans such as John Kerry and others in Congress, that such action will best serve the goal of achieving further progress toward the fullest possible accounting.

Any further steps in US-Vietnamese relations will strictly depend on further progress by the Vietnamese on the POW/MIA issue. We should not be swayed from that course; America owes no less to the brave men and women who fought in Vietnam and to their loved ones. Progress to date is simply not sufficient to warrant any change in our trade embargo or any further steps toward normalization.

In order to press for further progress and send a clear message to the Vietnamese government, I will send to Hanoi a high level delegation. The official delegation will include Deputy Secretary of Veterans Affairs Hershel Gober, Assistant Secretary of State Winston Lord and Lieutenant General Michael E. Ryan.

I also have invited representatives of the three largest veterans group to accompany the delegation. The American Legion, The Veterans of Foreign Wars and the Disabled American Veterans have each agreed to send representatives with the delegation and I am grateful for their willingness to participate in this important mission. In addition, I have invited the National League of Families of American Prisoners and Missing in Southeast Asia to send a representative. I have also asked our current Ambassador in Thailand, David Floyd Lambertson, who has extensive experience in Vietnam, to assist the delegation.

The delegation will make clear to the Vietnamese that any further steps in relations between our two nations depend on tangible progress on the outstanding POW/MIA cases. We insist upon efforts by the Vietnamese in four key areas:

Remains: Concrete results from efforts on their part to recover remains and repatriate American remains.

Discrepancy cases: Continued resolution of 92 discrepancy cases, live sightings and field activities.

Laos: Further assistance in implementing trilateral investigation with the Lao.

Archives: Accelerated efforts to provide all POW/MIA related documents that will help lead to genuine answers.

The individuals on this delegation share my own determination to do all we can to find the truth surrounding those who did not come home. They will press hard for results.

The delegation will also raise with the Vietnamese continuing human rights concerns and press for progress in the areas of basic freedoms, democracy and economic reform.

For many Americans, the Vietnam War left deep wounds that have yet to heal. One of the ways to help the process of healing is to help the friends and families of POWs and MIAs learn the truth. The steps I have outlined today will advance that goal.

[Calpernia]

April 27, 1992

Memorandum for: Vice Chairman, Senate Select Committee on Prisoners of War and Missing in Action

From: John F. McCreary

Subject: Legal Misconduct and Possible Malpractice in the Select Committee

1. As a member of the Virginia State Bar, I am obliged by Disciplinary Rule DR-1-103(a) to report knowledge of misconduct by an attorney "to a tribunal or other authority empowered to investigate or act upon such violations." Under Rule IV, Paragraph 13, of the Rules for the integration of the Virginia State Bar, this obligation follows me as a member of the Bar, regardless of the location of my employment, for as long as I remain a member of the Virginia State Bar. Therefore, I am obliged, as a matter of law and under pain of discipline by the Virginia State Bar, to report to you my knowledge of misconduct and possible prima facie malpractice by attorneys on the Select Committee in ordering the destruction of Staff documents containing Staff intelligence findings on 9 April 1992 and in statements in meetings on 15 and 16 April to justify the destruction.

2. The attached Memoranda For the Record, one by myself and another by Mr. Jon D. Holstine, describe the relevant facts, which I summarize herein:

a. On 9 April 1992, the Chairman of the Senate Select Committee, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, in response to a protest by other members of the Select Committee, told the Select Committee members that "all copies" would be destroyed. This statement was made in the presence of the undersigned and of the Staff Chief Counsel who offered no protest.

b. Later on 9 April 1992, the Staff Director, Frances Zwenig, an attorney, repeated and insured the execution of Senator Kerry's order for the destruction of the Staff intelligence briefing text. I personally delivered to Mr. Barry Valentine, the Security Manager for SRB-78, the original printed version of the intelligence briefing text. I also verified that the original was destroyed by shredding in the Office of Senate Security on 10 April 1992, along with 14 copies.

c. On 15 April 1992, the Staff Chief Counsel, J. William Codinha of Massachusetts, when advised by members if the Staff about their concerns over the possible criminal consequences of destroying documents, minimized the significance of the act of destruction; ridiculed the Staff members for expressing their concerns; and replied, in response to questions about the potential consequences, "Who's the injured party," and "How are they going to find out because its classified." Mr. Codinha repeatedly defended the destruction of the documents and gave no assurances or indications that any copies of the intelligence briefing text existed.

d. On 16 April, the Chairman of the Senate Select Committee, Senator John Kerry, stated that he gave the order to destroy "extraneous copies of the documents" and that no one objected. Moreover, he stated that the issue was "moot" because the original remained in the Office of Senate Security "all along."

e. I subsequently learned that the Staff Director had deposited a copy of the intelligence briefing text in the Office of Senate Security at 1307 on 16 April.

3. The foregoing facts establish potentially a prima facie violation of criminal law and a pattern of violations of legal ethics by attorneys in acts of commission and omission.

a. It is hornbook law that an attorney may not direct the commission of a crime. In this incident two attorneys, one by his own admission, ordered the destruction of documents, which could be violation of criminal law.

b. Neither the Staff Chief Counsel nor any member of the Select Committee made a protest or uttered words of caution against the destruction of documents, by admission of the Chairman, Senator Kerry. The Chief Counsel has an affirmative duty to advise the Staff about the legality of its actions, and, in fact, had earlier issued the general prohibition to the Staff against document destruction.

c. The Chief Counsel's statements during the 15 April meeting to discuss the document destruction showed no regard for the legality of the action and displayed to the Staff only a concern about getting caught. By his words and actions, he presented to the Staff investigators an interpretation of the confidentiality and security rules that the rules of the Select Committee may be used to cover-up potentially unethical or illegal activity.

d. The Staff Director's action in placing an unaccounted for copy of the intelligence briefing text in the Office of Senate Security on 16 April constitutes an act to cover-up the destruction. Throughout the 16 April meeting, all three attorneys persisted in stating that the document had been on file since 9 April. This is simply not true.

4. I believe that the foregoing facts establish a pattern of grave legal misconduct - possibly including orders to commit a crime, followed by acts to justify and then to cover-up that crime. Even absent criminal liability, the behavioral pattern of the attorneys involved plays fast and loose with the Canons of Legal Ethics and establishes that one or more of the attorneys on the Select Committee are unfit to practice law. I am obliged to recommend that this report be filed with the appropriate disciplinary authorities of the State Bars in which these attorneys are members.

John F. McCreary, Esquire

April 27, 1992

Memorandum for: Vice Chairman, Senate Select Committee on Prisoners of War and Missing in Action

From: John F. McCreary

Subject: Legal Misconduct and Possible Malpractice in the Select Committee

1. As a member of the Virginia State Bar, I am obliged by Disciplinary Rule DR-1-103(a) to report knowledge of misconduct by an attorney "to a tribunal or other authority empowered to investigate or act upon such violations." Under Rule IV, Paragraph 13, of the Rules for the integration of the Virginia State Bar, this obligation follows me as a member of the Bar, regardless of the location of my employment, for as long as I remain a member of the Virginia State Bar. Therefore, I am obliged, as a matter of law and under pain of discipline by the Virginia State Bar, to report to you my knowledge of misconduct and possible prima facie malpractice by attorneys on the Select Committee in ordering the destruction of Staff documents containing Staff intelligence findings on 9 April 1992 and in statements in meetings on 15 and 16 April to justify the destruction.

2. The attached Memoranda For the Record, one by myself and another by Mr. Jon D. Holstine, describe the relevant facts, which I summarize herein:

a. On 9 April 1992, the Chairman of the Senate Select Committee, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, in response to a protest by other members of the Select Committee, told the Select Committee members that "all copies" would be destroyed. This statement was made in the presence of the undersigned and of the Staff Chief Counsel who offered no protest.

b. Later on 9 April 1992, the Staff Director, Frances Zwenig, an attorney, repeated and insured the execution of Senator Kerry's order for the destruction of the Staff intelligence briefing text. I personally delivered to Mr. Barry Valentine, the Security Manager for SRB-78, the original printed version of the intelligence briefing text. I also verified that the original was destroyed by shredding in the Office of Senate Security on 10 April 1992, along with 14 copies.

c. On 15 April 1992, the Staff Chief Counsel, J. William Codinha of Massachusetts, when advised by members if the Staff about their concerns over the possible criminal consequences of destroying documents, minimized the significance of the act of destruction; ridiculed the Staff members for expressing their concerns; and replied, in response to questions about the potential consequences, "Who's the injured party," and "How are they going to find out because its classified." Mr. Codinha repeatedly defended the destruction of the documents and gave no assurances or indications that any copies of the intelligence briefing text existed.

d. On 16 April, the Chairman of the Senate Select Committee, Senator John Kerry, stated that he gave the order to destroy "extraneous copies of the documents" and that no one objected. Moreover, he stated that the issue was "moot" because the original remained in the Office of Senate Security "all along."

e. I subsequently learned that the Staff Director had deposited a copy of the intelligence briefing text in the Office of Senate Security at 1307 on 16 April.

3. The foregoing facts establish potentially a prima facie violation of criminal law and a pattern of violations of legal ethics by attorneys in acts of commission and omission.

a. It is hornbook law that an attorney may not direct the commission of a crime. In this incident two attorneys, one by his own admission, ordered the destruction of documents, which could be violation of criminal law.

b. Neither the Staff Chief Counsel nor any member of the Select Committee made a protest or uttered words of caution against the destruction of documents, by admission of the Chairman, Senator Kerry. The Chief Counsel has an affirmative duty to advise the Staff about the legality of its actions, and, in fact, had earlier issued the general prohibition to the Staff against document destruction.

c. The Chief Counsel's statements during the 15 April meeting to discuss the document destruction showed no regard for the legality of the action and displayed to the Staff only a concern about getting caught. By his words and actions, he presented to the Staff investigators an interpretation of the confidentiality and security rules that the rules of the Select Committee may be used to cover-up potentially unethical or illegal activity.

d. The Staff Director's action in placing an unaccounted for copy of the intelligence briefing text in the Office of Senate Security on 16 April constitutes an act to cover-up the destruction. Throughout the 16 April meeting, all three attorneys persisted in stating that the document had been on file since 9 April. This is simply not true.

4. I believe that the foregoing facts establish a pattern of grave legal misconduct - possibly including orders to commit a crime, followed by acts to justify and then to cover-up that crime. Even absent criminal liability, the behavioral pattern of the attorneys involved plays fast and loose with the Canons of Legal Ethics and establishes that one or more of the attorneys on the Select Committee are unfit to practice law. I am obliged to recommend that this report be filed with the appropriate disciplinary authorities of the State Bars in which these attorneys are members.

John F. McCreary, Esquire

April 27, 1992

Memorandum for: Vice Chairman, Senate Select Committee on Prisoners of War and Missing in Action

From: John F. McCreary

Subject: Legal Misconduct and Possible Malpractice in the Select Committee

1. As a member of the Virginia State Bar, I am obliged by Disciplinary Rule DR-1-103(a) to report knowledge of misconduct by an attorney "to a tribunal or other authority empowered to investigate or act upon such violations." Under Rule IV, Paragraph 13, of the Rules for the integration of the Virginia State Bar, this obligation follows me as a member of the Bar, regardless of the location of my employment, for as long as I remain a member of the Virginia State Bar. Therefore, I am obliged, as a matter of law and under pain of discipline by the Virginia State Bar, to report to you my knowledge of misconduct and possible prima facie malpractice by attorneys on the Select Committee in ordering the destruction of Staff documents containing Staff intelligence findings on 9 April 1992 and in statements in meetings on 15 and 16 April to justify the destruction.

2. The attached Memoranda For the Record, one by myself and another by Mr. Jon D. Holstine, describe the relevant facts, which I summarize herein:

a. On 9 April 1992, the Chairman of the Senate Select Committee, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, in response to a protest by other members of the Select Committee, told the Select Committee members that "all copies" would be destroyed. This statement was made in the presence of the undersigned and of the Staff Chief Counsel who offered no protest.

b. Later on 9 April 1992, the Staff Director, Frances Zwenig, an attorney, repeated and insured the execution of Senator Kerry's order for the destruction of the Staff intelligence briefing text. I personally delivered to Mr. Barry Valentine, the Security Manager for SRB-78, the original printed version of the intelligence briefing text. I also verified that the original was destroyed by shredding in the Office of Senate Security on 10 April 1992, along with 14 copies.

c. On 15 April 1992, the Staff Chief Counsel, J. William Codinha of Massachusetts, when advised by members if the Staff about their concerns over the possible criminal consequences of destroying documents, minimized the significance of the act of destruction; ridiculed the Staff members for expressing their concerns; and replied, in response to questions about the potential consequences, "Who's the injured party," and "How are they going to find out because its classified." Mr. Codinha repeatedly defended the destruction of the documents and gave no assurances or indications that any copies of the intelligence briefing text existed.

d. On 16 April, the Chairman of the Senate Select Committee, Senator John Kerry, stated that he gave the order to destroy "extraneous copies of the documents" and that no one objected. Moreover, he stated that the issue was "moot" because the original remained in the Office of Senate Security "all along."

e. I subsequently learned that the Staff Director had deposited a copy of the intelligence briefing text in the Office of Senate Security at 1307 on 16 April.

3. The foregoing facts establish potentially a prima facie violation of criminal law and a pattern of violations of legal ethics by attorneys in acts of commission and omission.

a. It is hornbook law that an attorney may not direct the commission of a crime. In this incident two attorneys, one by his own admission, ordered the destruction of documents, which could be violation of criminal law.

b. Neither the Staff Chief Counsel nor any member of the Select Committee made a protest or uttered words of caution against the destruction of documents, by admission of the Chairman, Senator Kerry. The Chief Counsel has an affirmative duty to advise the Staff about the legality of its actions, and, in fact, had earlier issued the general prohibition to the Staff against document destruction.

c. The Chief Counsel's statements during the 15 April meeting to discuss the document destruction showed no regard for the legality of the action and displayed to the Staff only a concern about getting caught. By his words and actions, he presented to the Staff investigators an interpretation of the confidentiality and security rules that the rules of the Select Committee may be used to cover-up potentially unethical or illegal activity.

d. The Staff Director's action in placing an unaccounted for copy of the intelligence briefing text in the Office of Senate Security on 16 April constitutes an act to cover-up the destruction. Throughout the 16 April meeting, all three attorneys persisted in stating that the document had been on file since 9 April. This is simply not true.

4. I believe that the foregoing facts establish a pattern of grave legal misconduct - possibly including orders to commit a crime, followed by acts to justify and then to cover-up that crime. Even absent criminal liability, the behavioral pattern of the attorneys involved plays fast and loose with the Canons of Legal Ethics and establishes that one or more of the attorneys on the Select Committee are unfit to practice law. I am obliged to recommend that this report be filed with the appropriate disciplinary authorities of the State Bars in which these attorneys are members.

John F. McCreary, Esquire