Highest National Priority
The Search for Speicher NEVER rated a solely dedicated team. Instead the Speicher investigation came behind the search for WMD's and Saddam, and oh by the way, if you find anything on Speicher..... So, not for the first time or the second but for the third time..... Speicher is about to be declared dead......

While government sources are quick to point out that information provided by Source 2314 could not be confirmed, no one is talking about the other sources NOT discredited. In the August 16th 2003 edition of Bits, we detailed comments from a well placed source within the U.S. Government on the Speicher investigation. We called him "Buddy." Buddy was not happy with the government?s handling of the Speicher investigation and provided an interesting insight.. We urge you all to re-read those comments at http://www.nationalalliance.org/bits/naf2003/030816.htm

Among the most telling of Buddy's comments is:"the source in question claimed a long time ago that he had seen Speicher in the early 1990's and may have been the one that passed two polygraphs; however, some folks claim he was not telling the truth. In the meantime, there have been a number of different sources who claimed that Speicher was alive and being moved between facilities, which they identified. Some of those sources were deemed to be entirely credible, while others had no reason or motivation to lie."

"I am afraid that questions within the Government about the credibility of one source have tainted reporting by others."

According to Buddy: "For them to intimate that there has been only one source is totally wrong - there have been many, and the one they are claiming was less than credible passed the polygraph. Each of the sources that reported on Speicher put him in a different location or indicated that he was moving between locations. The more credible of those sources [four (4) words that might give an indication as to Buddy's identity] indicated that Speicher was held three floors below ground and in that facility for years; the prison belonged to the Iraqi Intelligence Service (SIS); there was also Special Security Organization (SSO) involvement in control of the prisons."

"The one source that claimed to have been held with Speicher and fed him on a daily basis stated they had been held for 10 years in the underground prison; that individual was released and left Iraq."

Buddy also told us: "The individual that reported feeding the pilot was talking to an individual outside Iraq when he made the claim, and the U.S. side never interviewed him." [As of August 2003, we do not know if an interview was conducted since then.]

"Another source put him in another prison facility in downtown Baghdad, and underground, to which access was limited to a small number of people. These many, many source reports did not come from a single source, and there is no way they can claim the information is bogus."

"But Speicher was not a priority; too many people believed he died in 1991. After the invasion, CENTCOM said to the invaders, "Oh by the way, when you enter the prisons, look for Speicher."

"I could go on and on Lynn, but you can see through the smoke and mirrors and the spin - those in Government who should have led the charge all along to account for Speicher have been swayed by the naysayers or on their own have come to believe that he died long ago."

"Don't be misled by those who would pooh pooh the Speicher reporting."

Buddy ended his comments saying: "I am not impressed that journalists, members of the DIA team and others reported to be looking for Speicher are busting their buns to do so."

When Speicher Gets Left Behind.... Again
We won't be leaving a POW behind because the POW designation/status no longer exists.

If it does, we challenge the Department of Defense, and the agencies within, such as DPMO, DIA or any of the Service Branches to prove the designation/status exists. It's time to Put Up and Shut Us Up!

That's the challenge we are issuing to DOD, DPMO, DIA, and the Service Branches responsible for captured and missing service personnel.

Is there or is there not a Prisoner of War (POW) designation/status in a controlling directive and under what circumstances would a member of the Armed Forces be declared POW.

Controlling DOD Directive 1300.18, which details various Missing status' under Section E2.1.1.24 such Missing/Beleaguered, Missing/Besieged, Missing/Detained, Missing/Interned and Missing/Captured (MIA-C), makes no mention of a POW designation/status. If the designation/status is still in use, there must be another directive outlining the circumstances under which Service personnel would be assigned or listed in a POW status.

We challenge the Department of Defense to produce this directive and settle this matter once and for all.

Not acceptable as proof of a POW designation/status are the following:
Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms 12 April 2001 amended 9 January 2003.

DOD Instruction 2310.4 "Repatriation of Prisoners of War (POW), Hostages, Peacetime Government Detainees and Other Missing or Isolated Personnel". Oddly, DOD Instruction 2310.4 used the term POW in describing the process of handling the return of captured men. The Instruction DOES NOT detail the circumstances under which a service member would be designated POW.

Acceptable proof is the DOD Instruction or Controlling Directive detailing the circumstances under which a member of the Armed Forces would be assigned the designation/status POW.

The Press Gets Involved and Gets the Run-a-Round
On July 2nd and 3rd both Charles Hurt of the Washington Times and Ron Martz of the Atlanta Journal Constitution wrote articles on the lack of a POW designation/status for captured service members. Lynn O'Shea, of the National Alliance of Families, and government officials, past and present, commented for both the Washington Times and Atlanta Journal Constitution.

From the Washington Times - "Shari Lawrence, deputy public affairs officer of the Army Human Rights Command, said it was a simple matter of following the established guidelines for classifying captured service members. "To be a prisoner of war, you have to be held by a recognized government."

From the Atlanta Journal Constitution - "To be a POW you have to be in the hands of a recognized military of a recognized government, and Matt (referring to PFC Matt Maupin) is not," said Shari Lawrence, spokeswoman for the Army's Human Resources Command.

From The Atlanta Journal-Constitution - "It doesn't do away with POW. It's just a clarification of what categories people could be placed in at any particular time" said Bob Jones, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for POW-MIA affairs under Clinton.

Our Comments: According to Ms. Lawrence, a service member must be "held by a recognized government" or "be in the hands of a recognized military of a recognized government." If that is true, Scott Speicher should be classified POW. The Speicher status change was based on the belief that Speicher was captured by Iraqi forces, and held as a Prisoner by the recognized government of Iraq. Certainly, under Ms. Lawrence's definition Speicher would be carried under the POW designation/status. Instead, Speicher was placed in the Missing/Captured or MIA-C status.

In signing the memo on the Speicher status change, Secretary of the Navy, George England, wrote, [Since] "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."

Speicher could not be classified POW, because the designation/status no longer exists.

As for the comment of Bob Jones, former head of DPMO, "It doesn't do away with POW. It's just a clarification..." We say prove it!

Will the alphabet soup gang meet the challenge? Can they produce a controlling directive outlining the circumstances under which a service member would be designated POW and the designation/status POW used? Why didn't they produce the directive when questioned by the media? Will they answer us?

We'll let you know.... and if they don't answer us, we'll find someone they will answer!