Accused Phony War Hero in Court Today in Texas

The way he told it, David McClanahan, of Fort Worth, Texas, had been wounded in combat three times in Iraq, awarded three Silver Stars and even nominated for the Congressional Medal of Honor.

Today, McClanahan, a nursing student at West Texas A&M, appeared in federal court in Amarillo, Texas, on charges he made up his hero's tale. McClanahan did not enter a plea and was released on bond after being advised of the charges against him. The arraignment is now scheduled for June 13.

A federal grand jury indicted McClanahan last week under the newly passed Stolen Valor Act, which makes any misrepresentation of military service awards a federal crime, punishable with up to a year in prison.

"This is quite an egregious offense that he held himself out as a war hero," Assistant United States Attorney Christy Drake told the Blotter on ABCNews.com.

The grand jury indictment grew out of the work of amateur Web sleuths Chuck and Mary Schantag, who run the Web site POWNetwork.org.

They were asked by a Texas veterans group to do a service record check on McClanahan before he was named guest speaker at the group's yearly banquet.

According to Jack Barnes, who heads up America Supports You in Amarillo, Texas, McClanahan told him he had been awarded three Silver Stars, three Purple Hearts, the Legion of Merit and a nomination for the Congressional Medal of Honor for combat bravery in Iraq.

But the Web site sleuths, the Schantags, found McClanahan had served two years in the Navy and four years in the Army, from which he was discharged as a private with no medals of valor.

"His claims were too good to be true and turned out to be 100 percent false," said Mary Schantag. "Instead of his record being filled with heroism, there was no record of any of the accomplishments he had claimed."

"We were shocked" by the Schantags' discovery, said Barnes. "We can't believe the young man would present himself as a war hero to our group when our nation is at war and we have men and women making the ultimate sacrifice for our country," Barnes, himself a Navy veteran, told ABCNews.com.

"He's gotten himself in a hell of a mess, and I'm disappointed by it," said Dan Adams, president and CEO of Cal Farley's Boys Ranch of Amarillo, Texas, where McClanahan attended.

Just last year, McClanahan was awarded a college scholarship worth $3,500 a semester by Cal Farley's, which is a home and school for troubled youth.

"He did pad himself as a war hero here and appeared before the scholarship committee in uniform and wearing medals," Adams told ABCNews.com. He added that McClanahan also showed off a letter he claimed was signed by President Bush, nominating McClanahan for the Congressional Medal of Honor.

In its indictment, the federal grand jury charged Richard "David" McClanahan with two misdemeanor counts of knowingly and intentionally falsely representing himself as having been awarded decorations or medals authorized by Congress, including the Congressional Medal of Honor. The grand jury also charged McClanahan with making a false financial statement in connection with the indictment, a felony.

Phony Military Heroes: Medals of Dishonor Michael Weilbacher: Weilbacher pleaded guilty this past February to a federal charge of wearing military medals that were not awarded to him. He was sentenced to two years of probation, 120 hours of community service at a military organization and fined $3,000.00. (HomeOfHeroes.com)

Phony Military Heroes: Medals of Dishonor Michael Bramlett: In December 2006, Bramlett pleaded guilty to a federal charge of wearing a Marine Corps uniform as well as decorations, medals, badges and ribbons without authorization. He was sentenced to six months in federal prison without parole. (P.O.W. Network)

Phony Military Heroes: Medals of Dishonor Theodore Bantis: Bantis pleaded guilty in September 2006 to a federal charge of wearing military awards without authorization. He was sentenced to 30 days in federal prison and fined $5,000. (HomeOfHeroes.com)

Phony Military Heroes: Medals of Dishonor Louis Lowell McGuinn: Arrested in April of this year, McGuinn was federally charged with wearing unauthorized service medals and badges, including those for distinguished service: the Purple Heart and the Silver Star. (HomeOfHeroes.com)

Phony Military Heroes: Medals of Dishonor Raymond John Gauthier: After wearing medals to which he was not entitled, Gauthier pleaded guilty in April 2007. He was sentenced to five years of probation and had to issue a public apology. From now through the year 2011, Gauthier must report to work at a jail on every Memorial Day and Veterans Day. (Florida State Attroney's Office)

Phony Military Heroes: Medals of Dishonor David McClanahan: Wounded in Iraq three times, awarded three Silver Stars and nominated for the Congressional Medal of Honor was the story McClanahan liked to tell of his military service. But in reality, he had served two years in the Navy and four years in the Army, from which he was discharged as a private with no medals of valor. McClanahan was indicted in May on two federal misdemeanor counts of knowingly and intentionally falsely representing himself as having been awarded medals authorized by Congress and on a felony count of making a false financial statement in connection with the misdemeanor charges. (ABC News)

John Corry
Sen. John Kerry: MIA COVER UP REPORT
Thu Jan 22 14:15:52 2004
64.140.158.84

Sen. John Kerry, the committee chairman, told one of the investigators that if the report ever leaked out, “you’ll wish you’d never been born.”
http://www.aiipowmia.com/reports/corry.html

The MIA Cover-Up

THE AMERICAN SPECTATOR “The MIA Cover-Up”
By John Corry

Seeking to normalize relations with Vietnam, President Clinton, along with supine politicians and a feckless press, would like the public to forget the MIA issue. But evidence continues to emerge that far more men were left behind than has been reported—and that some may be alive today. by John Corry

John Corry is The American Spectator’s regular Presswatch columnist and author of the new book, My Times: Adventures in the News Trade (Grosset/G.P. Putnam’s Sons).

As shown by the enclosed Casualty Data Summary, a total of 1,303 American personnel remain officially unaccounted-for after the completion of Operation Homecoming.... Of the 1,303 personnel, the debriefs of the returnees contain information that approximately 100 of them are probably dead. -—Defense Intelligence Agency memorandum to Deputy Secretary of Defense William Clements, May 22, 1973

The intelligence indicates that American prisoners of war have been held continuously after Operation Homecoming and remain[ed] in captivity in Vietnam and Laos as late as 1989. -—unpublished report by Senate investigators, April 9, 1992

HANOI, Vietnam (Reuter)—US. Assistant Secretary of State Winston Lord said Tuesday as conclusively as anyone can, that there are no U.S. prisoners of war (POWs) being held in Vietnam . . . . “There has never been evidence uncovered of someone being held alive,” he told a news conference after talks with Vietnamese officials. —December 14,1993

A terrible truth is now emerging: Recently declassified documents and other sources show that America’s MIA-POW policy has been disfigured by denials, half-truths, and evasions. More important, they also suggest that American prisoners are still crying out in Vietnam. For two decades, a cover-up has been in progress, sustained not so much by conspiracy as by government ineptitude, a bureaucratic unwillingness to draw obvious conclusions from incontrovertible facts, and a failure of national resolve. It is now certain that we left men behind in Southeast Asia-not merely the handful we now unofficially acknowledge in Laos, but in numbers reaching well into the hundreds in Vietnam. It is equally certain that American officials ignored evidence of this at the time.

To understand the moral catastrophe we must go back twenty-one years. Henry Kissinger and Le Duc Tho, a senior member of the Hanoi Politburo, signed the Paris Peace Accords ending the Vietnam war on January 23, 1973. “We have been told that no American prisoners are held in Cambodia,” Kissinger told reporters the next day. “American prisoners held in North Vietnam and Laos will be returned to us in Hanoi.” One week later, however, President Nixon sent a secret letter to Premier Pham Van Dong of North Vietnam, reflecting an unpublicized understanding reached by Kissinger and Le Duc Tho. Nixon told Pham that the United States would “contribute to postwar reconstruction in North Vietnam,” in an amount that would “fall in the range of $3.25 billion of grant aid over five years.” He also said that “other forms of aid ... could fall in the range of I to 1.5 billion dollars.”

Sen. John Kerry, the committee chairman, told one of the investigators that if the report ever leaked out, “you’ll wish you’d never been born.”

None of the aid was ever extended, and even the existence of the letter was not disclosed until years later. If the aid had been extended, however, Vietnam might have returned all its prisoners. The precedent was clear. The Vietminh guerrillas of the 1950s had held back an unknown number of French soldiers after the fall of Dien Bien Phu. France quietly ransomed them back with government aid. Moreover, a 1969 study by the Rand Corporation had said that “a quid pro quo that the DRV [Democratic Republic of Vietnam] is likely to demand-and one that the United States may want to consider accepting-is the payment of reparations to North Vietnam in exchange for US. prisoners.”

The study went on to say that the United States could avoid the appearance of paying reparations if it publicly labeled them “part of the U.S. contribution to a postwar recovery program.” Nixon’s letter, of course, offered just such a contribution. The study concluded as follows:

It would be unduly optimistic to believe that the DRV and the Vietcong will release all US. prisoners immediately after conclusion of an agreement in the expectation that the United States will meet its military, political or monetary commitments. More likely, they will insist on awaiting concrete evidence of US. concessions before releasing the majority of American prisoners.

But the concessions, or aid programs, were not forthcoming. There was no possibility they ever could be. Nixon would soon be undone by Watergate, and Congress wanted no more of the war. In the delirium of the time, some thirty senators had even called for unilateral withdrawal from Southeast Asia, without the imposition of any conditions on North Vietnam. Hanoi would be trusted to return all its prisoners. When it did release 591 POWs, in Operation Homecoming in March 1973, however, it was apparent that something was wrong. Hundreds of hospital beds had been set aside for the returnees; it had been assumed many would need medical attention. The 591 returnees, though, included no amputees or burn cases; there was no one maimed, disfigured, or blind. It is reasonable to believe that the most afflicted POWs either remained in Vietnam, or were murdered.

Nonetheless, no questions were publicly raised about this or, indeed, any other substantive matter, and on March 29 President Nixon addressed the nation on television. “For the first time in twelve years, no American military forces are in Vietnam,” he declared. “All of our American POWs are on their way home.” Few seemed to hear what he said moments later: “There are still some problem areas. The provisions of the agreement all missing in action . . .have not been complied with . . . . We shall insist that North Vietnam comply with the agreement.”

But we did not insist; for one thing, we had no “leverage” to do so. Congress had walked away from the war. In May, the Senate rejected a Republican amendment that would have allowed continued bombing if Nixon certified that North Vietnam was not trying to account for all the missing in action. Certainly, there already was evidence that men had been left behind. The Casualty Data Summary mentioned in the Defense Intelligence Agency memorandum at the top of this story, for example, notes that, besides the 1,200 or so men whose fate was unknown after Operation Homecoming, 65 were still held as prisoners: 29 in North Vietnam, 27 in South Vietnam, five in Cambodia, and four in Laos. Moreover, there was general agreement that the figure for Laos represented only a fraction of the real total. Several declassified documents suggest the number should have been in the hundreds. A March 1973 memo to the Joint Chiefs of Staff says, “There are approximately 350 U.S. military and civilian POW/MlAs in Laos.” An earlier memo to Henry Kissinger says that some 215 of the 350 “were lost under circumstances that the enemy probably has information regarding their fate.” No information was ever forthcoming, however, and only twelve prisoners returned from Laos.

Thus, even from the beginning, the POW issue was shrouded in ambiguity. There are, though, some salient facts. The Defense Intelligence Agency memorandum cited above says 1,303 men were still unaccounted for after Operation Homecoming, and that the debriefings of the returned POWs indicated that approximately 100 of them were probably dead. Therefore, some 1,200 might still have been alive. (A later Pentagon document gives a precise number of 1,278.) The possibility that they were alive, how- ever, was ignored, and even misrepresented. A deposition given in 1992 by Dr. Frank Shields, the former head of the Pentagon’s POW/MIA Task Force, to the Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs is instructive. In the deposition, Shields describes an April 1973 meeting with Deputy Secretary of Defense Clements, who had summoned him to his office to discuss the Pentagon’s public posture on men missing in action:

DR. SHIELDS: He [Clements] indicated to me that he believed that there were no Americans alive in Indochina. And I said: I don’t believe that you could say that ... I told him that he could not say that. And he said: You didn’t hear what I said. And I said: You can’t say that. And I thought he was probably going to fire me ... QUESTION: What did you interpret that to mean, “you didn’t hear me”? DR. SHIELDS: That I was fighting the problem. You remember that there were a lot of people at the time who wanted to declare victory, okay? And I think that maybe at that point in time he believed that we had what we had, and that was all we were going to get, and that there was no one there.

That Colonel Hynds was captured alive seems indisputable; the Pentagon, however, has always listed a Col. Wallace Gurley Hynds as killed in action.

This meant that even though there was no evidence to prove that some 1,200 men-or, to use the exact figure, 1,278 men-were dead, the Pentagon would assume they were. Intentional or not, it was the beginning of the cover-up, and it would have a far-reaching effect. The tacit assumption that the men were dead would harden into official policy. Henceforth, all official figures on POWs and MIAs would be suspect. The grotesque part, though, is that even the figure of 1,200-or 1,278-might have been too low. As an intelligence estimate, it was worthless.

That was because in addition to the 1,278 MIAs about whom the Pentagon had no firm information, an almost equal number of MIAs had been declared dead. Most were classified as KIA/BNR, or killed in action/body not recovered. Over the years, however, a growing body of evidence has cast those early KIA/BNR figures in doubt. More men were left alive than we thought. Ironically, much of the evidence about this is now coming from the Vietnamese. In 1991, American investigators from the Joint Casualty Resolution Commission were allowed to visit a Vietnamese military museum in Vinh City in Nghe Tinh province. In their written report, the investigators say they were shown items from the museum’s collection, and then given a two-page excerpt from the museum’s register. Then they were allowed to examine the register itself. They took notes on information in the register that was “pertinent to significant exhibit items they had been allowed to examine.” Their report continues:

The entire register was then reviewed for entries concerning additional items of interest. During this process, it was noted that a number of items mentioned in the register excerpt did not appear in the register. In addition, there were numerous gaps in the register where items that had been examined by the team were not included. This suggests that the register viewed by the team was not original as claimed by the museum staff, but in fact had been selectively recopied from an original at some time in the past. The team also noted that certain items of high interest that appeared in the register were not available for examination. Museum officials claimed that these items were not available because they had been lost, destroyed or lent to other museums.

Characteristically, the Vietnamese were trying to hide something. The investigators were shown pre-selected items. Then they were shown not the register that listed all the items, but instead an excerpt from the register. Apparently, they insisted then on examining the entire register, and when they did, they discovered it was a fake. Moreover, “certain items of high interest” that were supposed to be in the museum were missing.

The investigators, however, listed in their report the items they were able to see, literally translating the museum’s own descriptions. They found, for example, “a flag used to request food used by the American colonel pilot Hynds, Wallace G., and was captured at Ha Tinh,” and “bandit pilot identification card number FR 15792 of Hynds, Wallace Gouley and was captured alive in Ha Tinh on 28-5-1965.”

That Colonel Hynds was captured alive seems indisputable; the Pentagon, however, has always listed a Col. Wallace Gurley Hynds as killed in action. There are six other men whose names were found in that one provincial museum who were all listed as being captured alive, although the Pentagon had declared them all dead.

The inescapable conclusion is that MIA lists were flawed from the outset. More men were captured alive than anyone thought. Recently declassified transcripts of the conversations of Vietnamese anti-aircraft gunners, monitored by the National Security Agency, reinforce the conclusion. The gunners talk of American planes being brought down, and of their pilots being captured by soldiers or villagers. The National Security Agency has correlated the transcripts with the names of the pilots. Although the Vietnamese themselves talk about the pilots being captured alive, at least some of them were classified by the Pentagon as “presumptive finding of death,” or “killed in action/body not recovered.”

The indications that a large number of men were left behind after 1973 have become compelling. A North Vietnamese military doctor, who defected to the South in 1971, told American officials that Hanoi was holding hundreds more prisoners than it had acknowledged. In 1979, another Vietnamese Communist defector told the Defense Intelligence Agency that in the mid-1970s Vietnamese officials had talked about holding 700 American prisoners as “bargaining assets.”

The 700 figure cannot be dismissed; neither can the idea of bargaining assets. Last April, Stephen J. Morris , a Harvard scholar, disclosed that he had found the Russian translation of a 1972 report by Lieut. Gen. Tran Van Quang in Communist Party archives in Moscow. Quang said that North Vietnam was holding 1,205 American prisoners- 614 more than it released the next year. Last September, the Pentagon itself released the translation of an account of a Vietnamese Communist Party meeting held in late 1970 or early 1971. It quoted a Vietnamese official as saying that Vietnam held 735 “American aviator POWs,” although it had acknowledged holding only 368.

“The total number of American aviators in the SRV [Vietnam] is 735,” the official declared. “As I have already said, we have published the names of 368 aviators. This is our diplomatic step. If the Americans agree to the withdrawal of all their troops from South Vietnam, we will, as a start, return these 368 people.”

The Defense Department did not try to discredit the Vietnamese document, perhaps because it attracted so little attention in the press. It said only that it could not vouch for the document’s authenticity or accuracy, and that it had come “from the files of the GRU-Soviet military intelligence.” On the other hand, the Quang report that Morris had found in Moscow attracted a good deal of attention, and the Defense Department reacted accordingly. When extracts from the document were published in the press, the Pentagon attempted to have the full document classified. Eventually it said that “while portions of the document are plausible, evidence in support of its claims to be an accurate summary of the POW situation in 1972 are far outweighed by errors, omissions and propaganda that detract from its credibility.”

In fact, the errors were not errors; they were really the weakest of quibbles-that the 1,205 prisoners, for example, included both American POWs and South Vietnamese commandos. (Morris replied that Vietnamese Communist documents always drew a distinction between American and South Vietnamese troops.)

In Hanoi, meanwhile, Gen. John Vessey, the presidential emissary to Vietnam on POW-MIA affairs, said he had spoken to General Quang and that Quang denied he had made the report.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1209454/posts?page=187#187

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

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.