Quote:
|
Originally Posted by daswig
Once again, host, you've failed to cite a single example where GIs cut of heads or limbs.
|
Once again, no one here said they did.
Quote:
Remember this picture? <img src="http://www.msu.edu/~daggy/cop/images/00000008.gif" img>
Did you know that what happened in that picture was NOT a war crime?
|
WRONG. Executing
prisoners, and that is what he was, IS most definitely, categorically, abosolutely a war crime. Feel free to check the Geneva Conventions, especially the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War.
[Adopted on 12 August 1949 by the Diplomatic Conference for the Establishment of
International Conventions for the Protection of Victims of War, held in Geneva from 21 April to 12 August, 1949. Entry into force 21 October 1950]
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm
Let me
also quote from the US Military book
Law at War - Vietnam 1964 to 1973
"As indigenous offenders, the Viet Cong did not technically merit prisoner of war status, although they were entitled to humane treatment under Article 3, Geneva Prisoner of War Conventions. Under Article 12, the United States retained responsibility for treatment of its captives in accordance with the Geneva Conventions even after transfer of the captives to the South Vietnamese. At the same time, the United States was concerned that Americans held captive in North and South Vietnam receive humane treatment and be accorded the full benefits and protection of prisoners of war.
Quote:
|
That the individual executed was actually an enemy officer caught in civilian clothes after murdering the family of the shooter's subordinate, and that his summary execution was in fact LEGAL under the international protocols?
|
Again
WRONG.
He was purportedly a Viet Cong officer. They didn't wear uniforms.
The picture was actually taken on the morning of January 31, the first full day of the Tet attack. Associated Press photographer Eddie Adams and a Vietnamese TV cameraman employed by NBC were wandering around Saigon getting photos and footage of the battle damage when they noticed a small contingent of South Vietnamese troops with a captive dressed in a checked shirt. From the other direction came Gen. Nguyen Ngoc Loan, chief of South Vietnam’s national police. As Adams and the NBC cameraman aimed their cameras, Loan calmly raised his sidearm and shot the prisoner—a Viet Cong officer—in the head. Loan walked over to Adams and said in English: "They killed many Americans and many of my men." [REF:
http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/dia...ward-tet.html]. It is reported that he did claim POW status before he was shot.
Either way, the fact that he was a PRISONER means it
was a crime.
Quote:
|
Yeah, it sucked to be him, but then again, maybe, JUST maybe, he shouldn't have been doing what he was doing that led to his execution.
|
That's like saying "maybe, just maybe, those poor GI's who are being blown to pieces by suicide bombers in Iraq shouldn't be doing what they're doing". In otherwords, it's meaningless.
And finally, on pages 76, 77 and 77 of the same book (did I mention it was published by the US Military and is on their web page), there is the following section.
Quote:
For the most part, war crimes committed by U.S. forces in Vietnam fell into two principal categories: willful murder or assault of noncombatants; and mutilation and maltreatment of dead bodies. Serious incidents involving assault, rape, and murder that were not directly connected with military operations in the field were not characterized as war crimes but were reported through military police channels as violations of the Uniform Code of Military justice.
Acts constituting war crimes were also offenses against the Uniform Code of Military justice, and as such were investigated by agents of the Criminal Investigation Division. Pertinent MACV directives required a concurrent investigation of war crimes by an investigating officer who was concerned not only with the details of the crime, such as the persons involved and where, when, and what occurred, but also with the broader question of how and why the incident took place. The scope of this investigation included an examination of the established rules of engagement and command and control procedures that were in effect at the time, and how these procedures were implemented. The question to be determined was whether there was any failure of command responsibility.
When an investigation was completed, the report was delivered to the general court-martial convening authority, who had appointed the investigating officer. The appointing authority reviewed the report and approved or disapproved it. If approved, the report of the investigation with the appointing authority's indorsement was forwarded through channels to the Commander, U.S. Military Assistance Command, Vietnam. At MACV headquarters it was circulated to appropriate staff offices, including the Staff judge Advocate, for review. The report could be returned for further action or approved by the MACV commander or chief of staff. After final review, a war crimes investigation report concerning any person was forwarded to The judge Advocate General, Department of the Army.
The Commander, U.S. Military Assistance Command, Vietnam, had considered establishing special war crimes teams and having the Army maintain centralized files on war crimes for all services, but this was not done because the laws prohibiting war crimes and the administrative and judicial machinery for investigating and punishing such offenses were judged adequate. Murder, rape, assault, arson, pillage, and larceny were all punishable as offenses against various sections of the Uniform Code of Military justice, and there were many directives from Military Assistance Command, U.S. Army, Vietnam, and units specifying and prohibiting various acts in the war crimes category. Representatives of the military police, Criminal Investigation Division, Inspector General, and judge Advocate had experience in conducting investigations; they, as well as the commanders, and, indeed, all military personnel, had the responsibility for reporting possible violations of the laws of war so that an appropriate investigation could be conducted as specified by regulation.
Despite laws and preventive education, war crimes were committed. Most were isolated incidents, offenses committed by individual U.S. soldiers or small groups. Investigations were conducted, and the records of courts-martial proceedings contain the cases of individuals who were tried and punished. My Lai, the most notorious offense committed by U.S. troops in combat in Vietnam, was not the result of inadequate laws or lack of command emphasis on those laws; it was the failure of unit leaders to enforce the clear
|
http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/Vie...War/law-01.htm
Emphasis added.
So, what's my point? Only that you are, once again, making statements that are patently and verifiably false to bolster your argument.
You have a valid point of view (that you think Bush would make a better President than Kerry), but making sweeping generalizations, false statements, obfuscating the facts, abandoning arguments shown to be wrong and generally avoiding the issues at hand do not make you right. Indeed, they show a knee-jerk reactionism that is only devaluing your position.
Mr Mephisto