THE ENTIRE PACIFIC REGION. THERE WAS A RELAXED STATE OF ALERT
           ON THE PART OF NAVAL AUTHORITIES IN THE MARIANAS AND IT IS ALSO
           FAISH TO CONCLUDE AS A RESULT THAT CAPTAIN MCVAY AND THE MEN OF
           THE I UNDERSTAND -- OF THE "INDIANAPOLIS" WERE SENT IN HARM'S
           WAY WITHOUT A PROPER ESCORT OR THE INTELLIGENCE THAT COULD HAVE
           SAVED THE SHIP AND THE LIVES OF THE 880 MEMBERS OF ITS CREW. SO
           THEY WERE IN A RELAXED STATE. CAPTAIN MCVAY WAS BASICALLY GIVEN
           NO REASON TO BE ALARMED ABOUT ANYTHING. FOLLOWING THE SINKING,

           THE NAVY MAINTAINED THAT THE SHIP HAD SUNK SO FAST THAT IT HAD
           NOT TIME TO SEND SOUGHT AN S.O.S. FOR MANY YEARS, THIS WAS
           NEVER CONTESTED. BUT FOLLOWING APPEARANCES ON SEVERAL NATIONAL
           TV PROGRAMS, HUNTER SCOTT, THIS 13-YEAR-OLD BOY, HAD RECEIVED
           WORD FROM THREE SEPARATE SOURCES, EACH PROVIDING DETAILS OF A
           DISTRESS SIGNAL OF WHICH THEY WERE AWARE WAS RECEIVED FROM THE
           SHIP AND IN EACH CASE HAD BEEN IGNORED. SO THE S.O.S. DID GO

           OUT. BUT IT WAS IGNORED. AT THE SEPTEMBER HEARING, ONE OF THE
           SURVIVORS WHO HAD SERVED AS A RADIO MAN ABOARD THE SHIP,
           TESTIFIED THAT A DISTRESS SIGNAL DID, IN FACT, GO OUT. HE SAID
           HE'D WATCHED THE NEEDLE JUMP, QUOTE, UNQUOTE, ON ONE OF THE
           SHIP'S TRANSMITTERS SIGNIFYING A SUCCESSFUL TRANSMISSION.
           TODAY, HOWEVER, THE NAVY STILL HOLDS TO ITS POSITION THAT A
           DISTRESS SIGNAL WAS NEVER RECEIVED AND THE TRUTH WILL LIKELY

           REMAIN A MYSTERY IN THIS INCREDIBLE STORY NEVER TO BE RESOLVED.
           NOW, FOLLOWING HIS RESCUE FROM THE SEA, CAPTAIN MCVEIGH WAS
           FACED WITH A COURT-MARTIAL -- A COURT OF INQUIRY IN GUAM WAS
           ULTIMATELY RECOMMENDED A COURT-MARTIAL. FLEED ADMIRAL CHESTER
           NIMITZ AND VICE ADDS MILLER RAYMOND SPRUANTZ, WHO WAS MCVEIGH A
           IMMEDIATE SUPERIOR AND FOR WHOM THE INDIANAPOLIS SERVED AS FLAG
           SHIPS. BOTH OF THESE LEGENDARY NAVAL HEROES OF WAR WENT ON
           RECORD AS OPPOSED TO A COURT-MARTIAL FOR MCVEIGH. OPPOSED.

           ADMIRAL EARNEST KING, THEN CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS, OVERRULED
           BOTH SPRUANTZ AND NIMITZ AND ORDERED THE COURT-MARTIAL. TO THE
           BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, IN THE THE FIRST TIME IN THE NAVY'S
           HISTORY THAT A POSITION TAKING BY SUCH HIGH-RANKING OFFICERS
           HAS BEEN COUNTER COUNTERMANDED IN A COURT-MARTIAL CASE.
           
           AND THE QUESTION HAS TO BE: WHY DOES THE CHIEF OF NAVAL
           OPERATIONS OVERRULE THE TWO OFFICERS IN COMMAND, ADMIRAL
           NIMITZ, ONE OF THE MOST HIGHLY RESPECTED OFFICERS IN THE ENTIRE

           WAR IN THE NAVY, RECOMMENDED NO ON THE COURT-MARTIAL. HE WAS
           OVERRULED BY THE CHIEF C.N.O., WHO WAS NOT EVEN THERE. WHY?
           WHY?
           WELL, I BELIEVE THAT ONE OF OUR WITNESSES AT THE SEPTEMBER
           HEARING, DR. WILLIAM DUDLEY, CHIEF NAVAL HISTORIAN, MAY HAVE
           GIVEN US THE ANSWER. HE TESTIFIED THAT ADMIRAL KING WAS A
           STRICT DISCIPLINARIAN WHO -- QUOTE -- "WHEN MISTAKES WERE MADE,
           WAS INCLINED TO SINGLE OUT SOMEBODY TO BLAME." AND I'M FORCED

           IN THIS INSTANCE TO USE THE WORD "SCAPEGOAT" BECAUSE I BELIEVE
           THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT CAPTAIN MCVEIGH BECAME. BROUGHT HERE TO THE
           WASHINGTON NAVY YARD TO FACE HIS COURT-MARTIAL, CAPTAIN MCVEIGH
           WAS DENIED HIS CHOICE OF A DEFENSE COUNSEL AND ASSIGNED A NAVAL
           OFFICER WHO, ALTHOUGH HE HAD A LAW DEGREE, HAD NEVER TRIED A
           CASE BEFORE. NEITHER CAPTAIN MCVEIGH NOR HIS COUNSEL WERE
           NOTIFIED OF THE SPECIFIC CHARGES AGAINST HIM UNTIL FOUR DAYS
           BEFORE THE COURT-MARTIAL CONVENED AND THE CHARGES AGAINST HIM

           WERE SPECIOUS, AT BEST. THE NAVY SETTLED ON TWO CHARGES AGAINST
           CAPTAIN MCVEIGH. ONE -- FAILING PROMPTLY TO GIVE THE ORDER TO
           ABANDON SHIP SHIP. AND TWO -- HAZARDING HIS SHIP BY FAILING TO
           ZIGZAG. IN OTHER WORDS, IF YOU KNOW THERE ARE ENEMY SHIPS IN
           THE AREA, IF YOU ZIGZAG, IT'S HARDER FOR THE SHIP -- THE ENEMY
           SHIP TO GET A READING ON YOU AND SINK YOU. HE WAS ULTIMATELY
           FOUND INNOCENT ON THE FIRST CHARGE -- FAILING TO PROMPTLY
           ABANDON SHIP -- WHEN IT BECAME APPARENT, AS IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN

           LONG BEFORE THE CHARGES BROUGHT, THAT THERE WAS NO FOUNDATION
           FOR SUCH CHARGE BECAUSE HE DID GIVE THE ORDER. THE TORPEDO
           ATTACK HAD IMMEDIATELY KNOCKED OUT THE SHIP'S INTERCOM AND
           OFFICERS ABOARD THE SHIP WERE FORCED TO GIVE THE "ABANDON SHIP"
           ORDER BY WORD OF MOUTH TO THOSE AROUND THEM. THE SHIP WAS HIT
           AND IT SUNK IN A MATTER OF MINUTES. THE ENTIRE INTERCOM SYSTEM
           WAS KNOCKED OUT. HAD YOU TO GIVE THE ORDER TO ABANDON SHIP ONE
           AT A TIME. THIS CHARGE, THE SECOND CHARGE CHARGE, WHICH IS

           FAILED -- FAILURE TO ZIGZAG WHICH SIGNIFICANTLY, INCLUDING THE
           PHRASE "IN GOOD VISIBILITY" BECAME THE BASIS FOR HIS
           CONVICTION. IN OTHER WORDS, FAILURE TO ZIGZAG IN GOOD
           VISIBILITY BECAME THE BASIS FOR HIS CONVICTION, ONE WHICH
           EFFECTIVELY DESTROYED HIS CAREER AS A NAVAL OFFICER. NOW, LET'S
           LOOK AT THE VALIDITY OF THAT CHARGE. CAPTAIN MCVEIGH SAILED
           FROM GUAM WITH ORDERS TO ZIGZAG AT HIS DISCRETION. SHORTLY
           BEFORE MIDNIGHT ON JULY 29, THE DAY BEFORE, 1945, WITH

           VISIBILITY SEVERELY LIMITED -- YOU ZIGZAG IN CLEAR WEATHER --
           VISIBILITY LIMITED, SEVERELY LIMITED, AND WITH EVERY REASON TO
           BELIEVE THAT THE WATERS THROUGH WHICH HE'S SAILING WERE SAFE,
           MCVEIGH EXERCISED DISCRETION WITH AN ORDER TO CEASE ZIGZAGGING
           AND RETIRED TO HIS CABIN, LEAVING ORDERS TO THE OFFICER ON THE
           DECK TO WAKE HIM IF THE WEATHER CONDITIONS CHANGED. WEATHER
           CONDITIONS -- WHETHER WEATHER CONDITIONS CHANGED IS DEBATABLE.

           SOME SURVIVORS SAY THEY DID. SOME WEREN'T SURE. BUT SURVIVORS
           WERE UNANIMOUS IN DEPOSITIONS TAKEN SHORTLY AFTER THEIR RESCUE
           THAT IT WAS VERY DARK PRIOR TO AND AT THE TIME OF THE ATTACK,
           THAT THE VISIBILITY WAS POOR. CHIEF WARRANT OFFICER HEINZ,
           FRAFERMENT, STATED THAT HE COULD HARDLY SEE THE OUTLINES OF THE
           TURRETS ON THE SHIP. HIS AND OTHER SIMILAR DEPOSITIONS WERE NOT
           MADE AVAILABLE TO CAPTAIN MCVEIGH'S DEFENSE COUNSEL. AGAIN, WHY NOT?
           THE NAVY MAINTAINED AND STILL DOES TODAY THAT THE VISIBILITY

           WAS GOOD WHEN THE INDIANAPOLIS WAS SPOTTED AND SUBSEQUENTLY
           TORPEDOED AND SUNK THAT NIGHT, IGNORING THE SWORN STATEMENTS OF
           THOSE WHO WERE THERE WHEN IT HAPPENED. IGNORING THEM. WHY IS
           THIS IMPORTANT?
           WELL, IT'S IMPORTANT BECAUSE THERE WERE NO NAVY DIRECTIVES IN
           PLACE THEN OR TODAY WHICH EITHER ORDERED OR EVEN RECOMMENDED
           ZIGZAGGING AT NIGHT IN POOR VISIBILITY. THE ORDER TO ZIGZAG WAS

           DISCRETIONARY IF THE WEATHER WAS GOOD. MOREOVER, IN VOICING HIS
           OPPOSITION TO CAPTAIN MCVEIGH'S COURT-MARTIAL, ADMIRAL NIMITZ,
           IN CHARGE OF THE PACIFIC FLEET, POINTED OUT -- QUOTE -- "THE
           RULE REQUIRING ZIGZAGGING WOULD NOT HAVE APPLIED IN ANY EVENT
           SINCE CAPTAIN MCVEIGH'S ORDERS GAVE HIM DISCRETION ON THAT
           MATTER AND THUS TOOK PRECEDENCE ALL -- OVER ALL OTHER ORDERS."
           A POINT, I MIGHT ADD, WHICH CAPTAIN MCVEIGH'S INEXPERIENCED
           DEFENSE COUNSEL NEVER EVEN ADDRESSED AT THE COURT-MARTIAL TO.

           BOLSTER ITS CASE AGAINST MCVEIGH, THE NAVY BROUGHT TWO
           WITNESSES TO THE COURT-MARTIAL COURT-MARTIAL, AND I HAVE TO
           SAY, THIS HAS TO BE IN A CATEGORY OF THE UNBELIEVABLE. ONE OF
           THE WITNESSES AT CAPTAIN MCVEIGH'S NAVAL COURT-MARTIAL BY THE
           UNITED STATES NAVY BROUGHT IN WAS A MAN BY THE NAME OF
           HASHIMOTO, WHO WAS THE CAPTAIN OF THE SUBMARINE WHICH SANK THE
           USS INDIANAPOLIS. SO THE CAPTAIN OF THE SUBMARINE WHO SANK THE

           USS INDIANAPOLIS, THE ENEMY SUB, THE ENEMY CAPTAIN WAS BROUGHT
           IN TO TESTIFY AGAINST A NAVAL CAPTAIN. THAT, MY COLLEAGUES, WAS
           UNCALLED FOR. IT WAS THE HEIGHT OF INSULT. IMAGINE THIS
           CAPTAIN, AFTER LOSING HIS CREW TO AN ENEMY TORPEDO, NOT EVEN
           BEING TOLD BY HIS SUPERIORS THAT THERE WERE ENEMY SHIPS IN THE
           AREA AND THEN TO HAVE THAT CAPTAIN OF THAT SHIP TESTIFY AGAINST

           HIM, IT'S AN OUTRAGE. THE OTHER WITNESS WAS GLENN R. DONOHOE,
           WINNER OF FOUR NAVY CROSSES AS AN AMERICAN SUBMARINE CAPTAIN
           DURING WORLD WAR II. NEITHER HELPED THE NAVY'S CASE. BOTH
           HASHIMOTO AND DONOHOE TESTIFIED THAT GIVEN THE CONDITIONS THAT
           NIGHT, EITHER ONE OF THEM COULD HAVE SUNK THE INDIANAPOLIS,
           WHETHER IT HAD BEEN ZIGZAG OR NOT. SO THEY THOUGHT HASHIMOTO
           WAS GOING TO HELP THEM. HE SAID I COULD HAVE SUNK THE SHIP, IT
           DIDN'T MATTER WHETHER HE WAS ZIGZAGGING OR. AGAIN,
           UNBELIEVABLY, THIS TESTIMONY WAS BRUSHED AAID IS BY THE

           COURT-MARTIAL BOARD. AT OUR HEARGSZ IN THE SENATE ON THIS
           MATTER LAST -- HEARINGS IN THE SENATE ON THIS MATTER LAST YEAR,
           MR. PRESIDENT, HIGH-RANKING WITNESSES INSISTED THAT CONTAMINE
           TAKEN MCVEIGH WAS NOT CHARGED WITH THE LOSS OF THE SHIP, THAT
           HE WAS NOT EVEN CONSIDERED RESPONSIBLE OF THE LOSS OF THE LIFE
           -- THE LOSS OF THE SHIP OR LOSS OF LIFE. THEY INSISTED THAT HE
           WAS GUILTY ONLY OF HAZARDING A SHIP BY FAILING TO ZIG STKPWHROG
           GLASH ZIGZAG. ONE QUESTION THEY DECLINED TO
           
           ANSWER: WOULD HE HAVE BEEN COURT-MARTIALED IF HE HAD ARRIVED
           SAFELY IN THE PHILIPPINES BUT HAD FAILED TO ZIGZAG THAT NIGHT?

           THE ANSWER QUITE OBVIOUSLY IS NO. AND THE NAVY'S ARGUMENT
           SIMPLY DEFIES LOGIC. IN OTHER WORDS, IF FAILURE TO ZIGZAG IS
           THE PROBLEM, THEN YOU OUGHT TO NAIL AN OFFICER WHO DOESN'T DO
           IT BEFORE A TRAGEDY. NOT AFTER. IF HE HAD ARRIVED IN PORT
           SAFELY, WOULD HE HAVE BEEN CHARGED?
           THE ANSWER'S NO, OF COURSE HE WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN CHARGED. HE
           HAD AN UNBLEMISHED RECORD AS A NAVAL OFFICER. IT DEFIES LOGIC,

           BUT IT HAPPENEDMENT IN TRUTH, MCVEIGH'S ORDERS GAVE HIM
           DISCRETION TO MAKE A JUDGMENT BUT WHEN HE RELIED ON THE BEST
           INFORMATION THAT HE HAD, WHICH INDICATED, A, HIS PATH WAS SAFE
           SAFE, AND EXERCISED AT THANK YOU DISCRETION ON A DARK NIGHT, HE
           ENDED UP WITH A COURTED MARTIAL AND HUMILIATION. NO
           INTELLIGENCE WAS GIVEN TO HIM. NOBODY TOLD HIM THERE WERE ENEMY
           SUBMARINES THERE, NOBODY TOLD HIM THAT THE UNDERHILL WAS SUNK
           DAYS BEFORE, NOBODY TOLD HIM ANY OF THAT. THEY ALSO TOLD HIM HE
           HAD DISCRETION TO ZIGZAG. SO IN SPITE OF ALL THAT, THEY

           COURT-MARTIALED HIM. THEY HUMILIATED HIM. FOR MAKING A JUDGMENT
           CALL UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES THAT ANY ONE OF US WOULD HAVE DONE THE
           VERY SAME THING. INCLUDING THOSE WHO COURT-MARTIALED HIM.
           CAPTAIN MCVEIGH'S JUDGMENT CALL TO CEASE ZIGZAGGING WAS NOT
           RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS DISASTER PERIOD. OTHER JUDGMENT CALLS MAY
           HAVE BEEN. LET'S REVIEW SOME OF THEM. THERE WAS A JUDGMENT THAT
           HIS PASSAGE WAS SAFE, TO DENY HIM A DESTROYER ESCORT, TO DENY

           HIM THE INTELLIGENCE ON THE UNDERHILL, TO IGNORE THE JAPANESE
           SUBMARINE'S REPORT THAT IT HAD SUNK AN AMERICAN BATTLESHIP, TO
           IGNORE THE FAILURE OF THE INDIANAPOLIS TO ARRIVE ON SCHEDULE.
           IF THEY WERE, INDEED, RECEIVED, TO IGNORE THE DISTRESS SIGNALS
           WHICH WERE REPORTED TO BE SENT OUT RXFT TO DENY MCVEIGH THE
           VITAL INTELLIGENCE THAT THE JAPANESE SUBMARINE WHICH SANK A
           SHIP WAS OPERATING IN ITS PATH. THOSE RESPONSIBLE FOR THESE
           JUDGMENT CALLS WERE FAR MORE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE INDIANAPOLIS
           AND THE CREW THAN ITS CAPTAIN. GUESS WHAT HAPPENED TO THEM?

           NADA. NO COURT-MARTIALS. NOTHING. NOTHING. NOTHING HAPPENED TO
           THOSE WHO FAILED -- WHO IGNORED THE INTELLIGENCE. NOTHING
           HAPPENED TO THOSE WHO DIDN'T TELL HIM ABOUT THE UNDER
           UNDERHILL. NOTHING HAPPENED TO THOSE WHO DIDN'T EVEN REPORT THE
           LOSS OF THE SHIP. NOTHING. RECENTLY, MR. PRESIDENT, MY
           DISTINGUISHED COLLEAGUE AND CHAIRMAN, SENATOR WARNER, RECEIVED
           A LETTER, A PERSONAL LETTER, FROM HASHIMOTO, THE CAPTAIN OF THE
           JAPANESE SUB, WHICH --
           

           THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE SENATOR'S 30 MINUTES HAVE EXPIRED.
           

           MR. SMITH: MR. PRESIDENT, I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT FOR FIVE
           ADDITIONAL MINUTES.
           

           THE PRESIDING OFFICER: IS THERE OBJECTION?
           
           

           MR. WELLSTONE: JUST THAT EU8D ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT I
           FOLLOW THE SENATOR FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE.
           

           THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT OBJECTION.
           

           MR. SMITH: AND IN THAT LETTER, HASHIMOTO CONFIRMED HIS
           COURT-MARTIAL TESTIMONY BY STATING THAT "I COULD HAVE SUNK THE
           INDIANAPOLIS WHETHER IT WOULD HAVE ANYTHING?
           ZAGGED OR NOT. THEN HE WENT ON TO SAY -- QUOTE -- "OUR PEOPLE
           HAVES FORGIVEN EACH OTHER FOR THAT TERRIBLE WAR AND ITS
           CONSEQUENCES, AND PERHAPS IT'S TIME THAT YOUR PEOPLE FORGIVE
           CAPTAIN MCVEIGH FOR THE HUMILIATION OF AN UNJUST CONVICTION."
           THAT CAME FROM THE MAN WHO SANK MCVEIGH'S -- SUNK MCVEIGH'S
           SHIP, AND HE WAS A DEDICATED, COMMITTED JAPANESE OFFICER WHO,

           IF YOU READ KIRSH KIRSHMAN'S BOOK, WHO WAS GLAD AT THE TIME HE
           SUNK THE SHIP AND WAS, IN FACT, LOOKING FOR A SHIP TO SINK. SO,
           MR. PRESIDENT, HASHIMOTO ATTENDED THAT COURT-MARTIAL. AND IN
           THE ENG GLIRK TRANSLATION OF A RECENT INTERVIEW WHICH HE GAVE
           TO A JAPANESE JOURNALIST, HERE ARE SOME EXCERPTS. ABOUT THE
           COURT-MARTIAL OF MCVEIGH. "I WONDER IF THE OUTCOME OF THAT
           COURT-MARTIAL WAS SET FROM THE BEGINNING BECAUSE AT THE TIME OF
           THE COURT-MARTIAL, HI A FEELING THAT IT WAS CONTRIVED." THAT
           CAME FROM HASHIMOTO. THERE ARE OTHER COMMENTS THAT HASHIMOTO

           MAKES, MR. PRESIDENT. I'LL JUST HAVE THOSE AS PART OF THE
           WRITTEN RECORD. BUT ONE DIRECT QUOTE I WANT TO GIVE FROM HIS
           INTERVIEW. QUOTE FROM HASHIMOTO -- "I UNDERSTAND ENGLISH A
           LITTLE BIT EVEN THEN, SO I COULD SEE AT THE TIME I TESTIFIED
           THAT THE TRANSLATOR DID NOT TELL FULLY WHAT I SAID. I MEAN, IT
           WAS NOT BECAUSE OF THE CAPACITY OF THE TRANSLATOR TRANSLATOR. I
           WOULD SAY THE NAVY SIDE DID NOT ACCEPT SOME TESTIMONY THAT WERE
           INCONVENIENT TO THEM." MR. PRESIDENT, AS I CONCLUDE HERE, I

           WANT TO REPEAT AGAIN. I LOVE THE NAVY. I SERVED THE NAVY IN
           VIETNAM, AND I'D DO IT AGAIN. AND MY FATHER WAS A NAVAL AVIATOR
           AND A GRADUATE FROM THE NAVAL ACADEMY. AND HE WAS KILLED AT THE
           END OF THE SECOND WORLD WAR AFTER SERVING IN THE PACIFIC AND IN
           THE NORTH ATLANTIC. I HAVE NO INTENTION OF EMBARRASSING THE
           NAVY. THAT'S NOT MY PURPOSE IN SPONSORING THIS LEGISLATION.
           IT'S APPARENT THAT THE OLD NAVY MADE A MISTAKE WHEN THEY
           COURT-MARTIALED CAPTAIN MCVEIGH
{END: 2000/06/08 TIME: 12-15 , Thu.  106TH SENATE, SECOND SESSION}