and why so many of us are there. We are working hard, standing side by side the Nicaraguan people le trying to help them build something new and good. The people are always saying to us that WE are the real America and that they love Americans. There is a tremendous base for friendship with Nicaragua. And that is what those of us living and working there are building on and promoting.

Now I would like to address some questions about Benjamin Linder's death. There have been several confusing reports about Ben's death so I offer this simple chronology as I lived it, in the hopes of promoting clarity.

The evening of April 28, 1987, after hearing that Benjamin Linder had been killed by the contra, the North Americans living and working in the Matagalpa-Jinotega Region, gathered together to await the arrival of Ben's body and to compose a statement concerning his murder and our own response to it.

meal.

Information about the exact details of Ben's death was piece

A representative of the Delegate of the Presidency in Matagalpa told us that Ben had been singled out and shot by the contra. The thought that that might be true was so horrendous to us that we wanted to be absolutely certain before making such an accusation. Later in the evening, Laurie McQuaig of Witness For Peace arrived. She had been on the scene of Ben's death within hour of the events and had spoken with one of the survivors at 3130 p.m., who said that he saw Ben fall with the explosion of the first grenade. That was a very different story, and because it came from the most reliable source available to us, we based our statement upon it. To say that Ben fell with the impact of the first grenade is not

contradictory to the facts as they later emerged.

When Ben's body came later that night, I helped to dress him, along with Susan Takaro Cookson, M.D., Timothy Takaro, M.D. and Anita Souter, R.N., all North Americans. Ben had certainly not been

hit by a grenade because his body was all in one piece. I thought maybe that the marks we saw on his arms and face had been caused by shrapnel. The thing that stood out most to me was the powder burn on his right temple. But I was not thinking of investigating the cause of death at that point; I simply accepted somehow that he was killed by the grenade. Later when I heard the results of the autopsy report and I again examined the body on Thursday morning, April 30th, I found the autopsy was consistent with the wounds I saw on Ben's body.

On Wednesday, April 29th, the local newspapers carried a letter of protest from Miguel DeEscoto in which he said Ben had been kidnapped and then executed by the contra. Again, this interpretation of events is not inconsistent with the findings of the autopsy. It is at least clear that Benjamin was taken alive and then shot in the head.

The confusion of stories is created, I believe, because the Autopsy was not made public until after the family had had the opportunity to discuss it with the attending physician and to decide for themselves whether or not it would be made public.

At this point I would respectfully request to enter into the record a copy of the Medical Affidavit of Susan Takaro Cookson, H.D. Consistent with the findings in these reports and with the testimony of the eyewitness, I think it is plausible to assume the following eventsi Ben was probably knocked over by the concussion of

the explosion of the first grenade, which is what the eye witness saw, then the witness ran for cover himself and saw no more.

Ben then probably tried to run to get away, at which point he was shot in the back of the legs with something like buckshot. Then,

or at some point, he was stabbed at in the face there were no metal bits found in the puncture wounds, as shrapnel would leave, and then he was shot in the head at very close range.

The F.D.N. put out the story that Ben was killed in

crossfire. I have no knowledge of whether there was any answer to the attack, but there is no question that Ben had no other significant wounds on his body that would cause death. only the bullet fired at very close range in his right temple.

I would also like to note here that to my knowledge no official of the United States Embassy in Nicaragua came to view the body of Ben Linder from the time it arrived in Matagalpa

at 1:30 a.m. the morning of April 29th, 1987 until the afternoon of April 30th when the funeral was to take place. At that time 2 men did present themselves as working at the Embassy and expressed

a desire to see the body, but the room had already been cleared in order to give the family the opportunity to have a few moments alone with Ben. To my knowledge they never saw the body.

Finally I would like to talk about a question that is always brought up, and that is arms; Was Ben armed? Do I carry a gun? This is a very important question to consider. It is one that everyone who lives in Nicaragua has given a great deal of thought to. First of all it is important to clarify that we are speaking here of civilians. None of the North Americans living in Nicaragua

are in the Army or any other branch of the military.

Normally we

and

think of civilians as unarmed. In Nicaragua, many civilians have been given arms by the government for their own self defense and for the defense of their homes, cooperatives, workplaces, etc. If there were any assurance that the contra would not attack unarmed civilians then there would be a great protection in being unarmed, no one would carry a weapon. However, the contra have a pattern of attacking civilians in their homes, at their workplaces, on the road in public transportation, when no one is armed and when no one is wearing a military uniform. With a record like that, many Nicaraguans and a few foreigners have opted to carry a weapon to defend themselves.

To my knowledge, Ben Linder sometimes carried a gun when he travelled in dangerous situations. According to an eyewitness, the moment of the attack, Ben was sitting down, writing calculations in his notebook related to the work they were doing.

Ultimately the decision of how you are going to defend yourself has to be made by every individual. There are many considerations to be taken into account, both philosophical and technical, and it is not an easy decision to make.

I personally, do not carry a weapon.

I would like to thank the committee again for this opportunity to speak with you, to express my grave concerns over what I consider to be a seriously mis-guided policy in Central America and to

urge a full investigation into the murder of Ben Linder.

Mr. CROCKETT. Thank you very much. Ms. Risacher.

I think this is a good time to recess to go and vote, then come back. And then we will have questions for this panel of witnesses. [Recess.]

Mr. CROCKETT. I think we can resume. As we indicated at the beginning, we will be operating under the five minute rule which means, of course, each member will take five minutes. I think the Chair will forego his five minutes in order that we will have time for the others.

Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, I do not have any questions of the members of the family or Ms. Risacher. And I will forego the temptation—it is not even the temptation-I will forego the opportunity to make a lengthy statement.

I regret, as everyone else does, what has brought you to your current status of mourning and to where you are now. I must say that I think the job of mourning a member of a family is more than a sufficient task. You ought not have this superimposed upon you in addition and I regret that you do.

I was reflecting as I listened to you that you may still be subjected-I speak now to Dr. and Mrs. Linder-as I am sure you know and have been warned, to speculation, both personal and political, which you ought not to have to deal with at this point. And I regret that. There is nothing either you or I can do about it now that you are in the situation you are in.

I was thinking as I listened to you that notwithstanding the individual tragedy of your own family, this room, which is not big enough for this situation, certainly, this building would not be big enough to accommodate other grieving parents-mostly, obviously, Nicaraguan, but also others who grieve because of the policy which has at least indirectly led to the death of your son.

The temptation, regardless of one's position in the Congress, is to engage in rhetorical flourishes, but in this case, the fact quite clearly is that your son died as a result directly or indirectly of United States foreign policy.

BLAMING THE NICARAGUAN GOVERNMENT

It is more than a bit bizarre, and I apologize to you for referring to the statement of Secretary Abrams, who will follow you, but my own schedule may prevent my being here by the time he arrives. It is more than a little ironic-and that is not a strong enough adjective-that in his testimony, and I do not know if you have had a chance to see it or not, he manages to essentially blame the Government of Nicaragua for the death of your son. He says the host country is responsible for maintenance of law and order and for the safety of persons within its territory. "And we believe," this is his statement, "that the Government of Nicaragua fails to fulfill its responsibility when it permits Americans to travel in combat zones."

He then goes one step further than that. It is not enough to blame the Government of Nicaragua for the death, but he essentially-well, I will let the sentence speak for itself.