Did Kerry commit Treason?

[BrainGlutton]

@Sam Stone

My question is, if Kerry negotiated with the North Vietnamese while still an officer of the U.S. military, did he violate the UCMJ? The article thinks it is possible that Kerry got a bad conduct discharge in 1972 due to his anti-war activities, and then in 1978 when a friendly President was in the White House and Vietnam was over, he managed to get his BCD reviewed and converted into an honorable discharge.

If so, Carter merely corrected a flagrant injustice. Kerry’s actions in 1971 were far more honorable than those of the generals and admirals (and Commander-in-Chief) he was serving under. Even if his activities did violate the UCMJ, he did not deserve a bad conduct discharge.

In any case, the article merely speculates that’s what might have happened. Where’s the proof?

[rjung]

@BrainGlutton

In any case, the article merely speculates that’s what might have happened. Where’s the proof?

You’ll find out in the second week of November…

[John_Mace]

The treason charge seems pretty far fetched. If there was substance to it, I can’t imagine the Republican campaign machine letting it lie dormant. Let’s see someone level a charge and make it stick. Otherwise, it’s just meaningless blather.

[Shayna]

@Scylla

However, one may not conduct fraudulent investigations, and make a sworn testimony based on lies to indict your comrades…

@John Kerry

I would simply like to speak in very general terms. I apologize if my statement is general because I received notification yesterday you would hear me and I am afraid because of the injunction I was up most of the night and haven’t had a great deal of chance to prepare.

I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command.

It is impossible to describe to you exactly what did happen in Detroit, the emotions in the room, the feelings of the men who were reliving their experiences in Vietnam, but they did. They relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do.

They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, tape wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the country side of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.

THE SERIES: Elite unit savaged civilians in Vietnam

Promising victory to an anxious American public, military leaders in 1967 sent a task force - including Tiger Force - to fight the enemy in one of the most highly contested areas of South Vietnam: the Central Highlands.

But the platoon’s mission did not go as planned, with some soldiers breaking the rules of war.

Women and children were intentionally blown up in underground bunkers. Elderly farmers were shot as they toiled in the fields. Prisoners were tortured and executed - their ears and scalps severed for souvenirs. One soldier kicked out the teeth of executed civilians for their gold fillings.

…

For decades, the case has remained buried in the archives of the government - not even known to America’s most recognized historians of the war.

DAY 1: Rogue GIs unleashed wave of terror in Central Highlands

For seven months, Tiger Force soldiers moved across the Central Highlands, killing scores of unarmed civilians - in some cases torturing and mutilating them - in a spate of violence never revealed to the American public.

They dropped grenades into underground bunkers where women and children were hiding - creating mass graves - and shot unarmed civilians, in some cases as they begged for their lives.

They frequently tortured and shot prisoners, severing ears and scalps for souvenirs.

A review of thousands of classified Army documents, National Archives records, and radio logs reveals a fighting unit that carried out the longest series of atrocities in the Vietnam War - and commanders who looked the other way.

…

During the Army’s investigation of Tiger Force, 27 soldiers said the severing of ears from dead Vietnamese became an accepted practice. One reason: to scare the Vietnamese.

Platoon members strung the ears on shoe laces to wear around their necks, reports state.

Former platoon medic Larry Cottingham told investigators: “There was a period when just about everyone had a necklace of ears.”

…

During the rampage, the soldiers committed some of their most brutal atrocities, Army records show.

A 13-year-old girl’s throat was slashed after she was sexually assaulted, and a young mother was shot to death after soldiers torched her hut.

An unarmed teenager was shot in the back after a platoon sergeant ordered the youth to leave a village, and a baby was decapitated so that a soldier could remove a necklace.

…

Two elderly men killed during an unprovoked attack on a hamlet near Tam Ky. **One was beheaded ** and the other, who was wounded, was shot by medic Barry Bowman in a “mercy killing,” he said.

DAY 2: Inquiry ended without justice

Time and again, battalion leaders knew of the atrocities but failed to end them.
For example:[ul][li]Harold Austin, the former **battalion commander ** who oversaw Tiger Force, said in a recent interview his headquarters received reports that soldiers were mutilating the bodies of dead Vietnamese in early 1967, but no investigation was conducted.[/li]
[li]**Lt. Donald Wood and Sgt. Gerald Bruner repeatedly complained to superiors ** in August, 1967 about Tiger Force soldiers killing civilians, according to witness statements. But there were no investigations.[/li]
[li]Capt. Robert Morin told Army officials he attended an officers’ party in 1967 where several officers joked about Tiger Force soldiers drowning a farmer in the Song Ve River. But again, no investigation.[/ul] Mr. Hawkins said in a recent interview he doesn’t recall being reprimanded in the Song Ve Valley for killing an elderly farmer but admitted to shooting civilians who refused to move to relocation camps.[/li]
Most commanders didn’t want to pursue an investigation of Tiger Force because they feared turning up war crimes, former battalion surgeon Bradford Mutchler told investigators in 1975.

“It was something that you just kept trying to sweep under the rug and forget because you really didn’t want to know if it was true or not.”

…

In a recent interview with The Blade, he said a Tiger Force sergeant raped a villager, and soldiers shot civilians and prisoners who posed no threat. “The killings were unrestrained,” he said.

DAY 3: Pain lingers 36 years after deadly rampage

The fog covering the Song Ve Valley had burned away, revealing a swath of rice paddies.

Vo Tai Can, 12, and his two friends were no longer safe.

The three had been trying to hide from the soldiers to avoid being sent to a relocation camp.

Now they were in sight of Tiger Force.

Within minutes, they were captured, the boy taken away by helicopter, his companions - partially blind men in their 20s - led to a rice paddy.

Without warning, the men were executed, Army records state, their bodies tossed into open graves.

The two civilians were among the many people killed in the valley for failing to abide by the Army’s relocation order.

**Thirty-six years later, no one knows how many were executed by platoon members for not leaving. Of the estimated 5,000 people who lived in the valley in 1967, some fled to the mountains, while others were forced to live in the camps.

Hundreds remain unaccounted for today.**

Villagers still talk about the “missing people” - their names and where they lived, but their whereabouts are still a mystery.

It wasn’t until the war ended that villagers began to realize that many would never return.

…

No records were kept on the number of people killed by Tiger Force in the Song Ve Valley, said several former platoon members.

"We killed anything that walked," recalled former Sgt. William Doyle, a platoon team leader. "It didn’t matter if they were civilians. They shouldn’t have been there."

DAY 4: Demons of past stalk Tiger Force veterans

To this day, they wrestle with memories of Tiger Force’s **rampage through more than 40 hamlets ** in the Central Highlands of South Vietnam in 1967.

Mr. Bowman, who was standing next to Mr. Dao when he was shot to death by a platoon leader, said he remains shaken by the unprovoked attack on the 68-year-old man as he prayed for mercy.

“It was devastating,” he said.

For many, the images never fade.

When Douglas Teeters closes his eyes, he sees villagers being shot as they wave leaflets that guaranteed their safety.

Ex-officer may face justice for atrocities

In what would be an unprecedented event, retired Maj. James Hawkins could face a military court-martial regarding his actions commanding a platoon known as Tiger Force that killed hundreds of unarmed men, women, and children 37 years ago, The Blade has learned.

As the scope of war crimes in Vietnam becomes a key question in the presidential election, the military lawyer recommended this spring that Army officials charge Mr. Hawkins, who led Tiger Force between July and November, 1967.

The recommendation came during a broader Army review of Tiger Force prompted by a four-part series in The Blade in October. The series revealed the platoon’s seven-month rampage through Vietnam’s Central Highlands in 1967.

…

Mr. Hawkins was among 18 former Tiger Force soldiers accused by Army investigators of crimes ranging from murder and assault to dereliction of duty during a 4 1/2-year Army investigation between 1971 and 1975. But the case was dropped by the Pentagon and concealed from the public until revealed in The Blade series, which was awarded the Pulitzer Prize.

…

Soldiers hurled grenades into underground bunkers full of women and children. They shot elderly farmers toiling in their fields. They severed the ears of the dead to fashion into necklaces. One former unit medic told The Blade that soldiers “would go into villages and just shoot everybody. We didn’t need an excuse. If they were there, they were dead.”

It would be impossible for the men who called themselves “Winter Soldiers” to have shared stories with John Kerry that exactly match atrocities uncovered and documented in the above-quoted investigation, if the “Winter Soldier” testimony were nothing more than made up “lies.”

“Tiger Force” was only one unit, you say? So what. They committed the very crimes John Kerry said the “Winter Soldiers” testified to. The “Tiger Force” violence was not an isolated incident, like My Lai, but went on daily, for seven months, with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command.

Exactly what John Kerry said happened, did happen, as the exposure of this massive military and government coverup shows.

John Kerry did not lie in his testimony.

[Mockingbird]

@Scylla

No. It is aid. Having an advocate fight your propaganda war for you is aid.

Then I want Fox News, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, and their ilk brought up on charges.

Honestly… you Republican shills for the worst in your party would be funny if it wasn’t so horrifying.

[Uncommon_Sense]

@rfgdxm

Going back to the original question, I presume there is a statute of limitations on a treason charge? If so, Kerry is in the clear.

Then let’s not discuss anything about anyone that happened long of seven years ago then?

[John_Mace]

@Uncommon Sense

Then let’s not discuss anything about anyone that happened long of seven years ago then?

I don’t believe there is a statute of limitations on treason (or murder).

[rfgdxm]

@John Mace

I don’t believe there is a statute of limitations on treason (or murder).

http://patriotpetitions.us/

You may be right. However at this late date, barring some dramatic new evidence, prosecuting Kerry would be politically impossible.

[Jinx]

a) Uh, how do you spell prop-duh-ganda?

b) C’mon. Stick to the facts of this election. Or, in Republican terms, the present time on present issues? In legal terms - on the merits!

c) Why don’t you stop grasping for straws? If you’re gonna try anyone for treason, it would be Jane Fonda, but your buddy Ronald Reagan pardoned her at the end of his 2nd term. Also, a JAG prosecuting attorney explained to me that showing sympathy towards the enemy is not enough hard evidence of conspiring with the enemy. Hence, she was not tried.

• Jinx

[BrainGlutton]

@Mockingbird

Then I want Fox News, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, and their ilk brought up on charges.

Honestly… you Republican shills for the worst in your party would be funny if it wasn’t so horrifying.

Wait, be fair. By constitutional definition it’s only treason if you’re giving aid and comfort to the enemy. The only enemy of America that Fox, Coulter, et al. have been aiding is George Bush, and somehow I don’t think that would count. (Should, though.)

[rjung]

I think that to Fox, Coulter, et al, the real enemy is the United States of America. They’re waging a war of conquest on the rest of us…

[BrainGlutton]

@rfgdxm

http://patriotpetitions.us/

You may be right. However at this late date, barring some dramatic new evidence, prosecuting Kerry would be politically impossible.

And legally preposterous. No indictment would survive Kerry’s lawyer’s first motion to dismiss.

[Scylla]

@BrainGlutton

That cite says nothing that goes to my main point, which is that the Cold War, on America’s part, was not justified.

That’s not your point, that’s your assertion. An assertion without backing is like an arrowhead without the arrow, useless.

I found the table but it’s hard to read. There’s three “estimated dead” columns labeled “Low,” “Mid” and “High” – not clear what that means. Also says “000” implying, but not very clearly, that all figures in the column must be multiplied by 1,000. At any rate, if I’m reading this right, the figures for “Democide by Vietnam 1975-87” seem trivial compared to the figures for democide by the South Vietnamese government, Diem and post-Diem. The figures labeled “U.S. War Crimes” are also pretty disturbing. And there’s also figures for democide by Koreans, which makes no sense at all. Where did this table come from, anyway?

You asked for a cite for my use of “millions” killed in the post Vietnam era. That cite puts the number at 2.5 million. I would hardly call that trivial.

It comes from table 6b (IIRC) of this book which is available online, specifically chapter 6:

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP6.HTM

From the Wikipedia (generally a pretty thorough and impartial source) – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Vietnam:

Nothing about genocide or anything close.

Do you suggest that means it didn’t happen?

Note, the number of dead is mentioned, as precisely as it is possible to say. Now, if anything close to that scale had happened in postwar Vietnam, I think the Wikipedia would have mentioned it.

Wikipedia is nice. It is not exactly the Encyclopedia Britannica, you know, Nor even the World book, nor to be frank, the Charlie Brown encyclopedia. If you are going to go through life depending on the Wikipedia as the font of all knowledge and the ultimate in sholarly discourse, I predict you will have problems.

[Zoe]

The BBC link I left for you, Scylla, was specific.

South Vietnam surrendered much more quickly that was anticipated when we left. If purges had left millions dead, there would have been more about it than a difficult to read table on one internet site.

[Scylla]

@Shayna

It would be impossible for the men who called themselves “Winter Soldiers” to have shared stories with John Kerry that exactly match atrocities uncovered and documented in the above-quoted investigation, if the “Winter Soldier” testimony were nothing more than made up “lies.”

Impossible? I don’t think that word means what you think it means. Not only is it possible, it is extemely likely.

Atrocities have occured in every single war. It is unfortunate, but it is also true. People have been raping since before there were people. People have been cutting off ears since there were ears and knives to cut them off with. People have been torturing other people since the dawn of time.

What Kerry did was simply take generic war crimes and make general accusations, and pretended that they were commonplace and endorsed rather than uncommon and punished.

“Tiger Force” was only one unit, you say? So what. They committed the very crimes John Kerry said the “Winter Soldiers” testified to. The “Tiger Force” violence was not an isolated incident, like My Lai, but went on daily, for seven months, with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command.

So, who in Tiger Force testified at Wintersoldier? You must have a name, right? Otherwise it would be “Impossible” according to you for Kerry to make these accusations.

So who testified?
The reality is is that your argument is specious reasoning. I say that in California today drivers engaged in hit and run accidents against other vehicles and pedestrians. They did this with the full knowledge of California police and officials at all levels of command. They bumped fenders, injured drivers and pedestrians and drove like madmen. I was a party to it, and saw and witnessed such crimes and events. The state of California is culpable. They encourage such actions from drivers. Based on this investigation of mine we should stop driving cars in California, as it’s corrupt and evil. Car drivers are murderers.

According to your logic it would be “impossible” for me to be lying if you could find an example or two that matched the above events.

Gimme a break. We both know it’s a lying sack of shit, and no apologistic after the fact equivocation will ameliorate the fact.

John Kerry did not lie in his testimony.

Yes. Yes he did. He characterized our forces as committing genocide.

[Scylla]

@Zoe

The BBC link I left for you, Scylla, was specific.

Thank you. I’m sure I’ll get to it, as I’m trying to take these posts as they leap to eye.

South Vietnam surrendered much more quickly that was anticipated when we left. If purges had left millions dead, there would have been more about it than a difficult to read table on one internet site.

This is poor logic Zoe. It is in fact, a classical logical fallacy, the argument from ignorance “If such a thing had happened, I would have heard about it. Since I haven’t heard about it, it didn’t happen.” The table and cite it comes from appear well-documented to my eye.

[Scylla]

@Zoe

When people speak of “the killing fields,” they are referring to Cambodia.

Yes. I know. My cite and discussion with Brainglutton are referring to the post Vietnam war era, specifically 1975-198(7) I think.

[BrainGlutton]

[QUOTE=Scylla]
It comes from table 6b (IIRC) of this book which is available online, specifically chapter 6:

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP6.HTM

Unforturnately, Mr. Rummel’s prose is not much clearer than his tables. He does give an estimate of 3,800,000 Vietnamese killed by military action and political violence – but that total is for a period of 43 years, ecompassing six wars, and both North and South and post-unification Vietnam.

Regarding post unification democide, he says:

Considerable democide followed Hanoi’s victory over South Vietnam in 1975. I show estimates of this or related information (lines 637 to 759), the first of which refer to re-education camps. To determine some range of deaths in these camps, I had to first establish their population. Estimates of this for various periods are shown in the table (line 638 to 668), and consolidated for 1975 to 1980, and 1981 to 1987 (lines 669 and 670). The reason for this periodization is that there were many more inmates during the earlier period and most important, this period was more deadly. Only one estimate of the number of deaths in the camps is available (line 672). Rather than accept this, however, I calculated the toll (line 673) based on an assumed death rate that for the early period was in deadliness closer to the Communist Chinese camps than the more lethal Soviet gulag.15 In the later period the annual toll is assumed about the same as for the later Chinese labor camps. The resulting range includes the one estimate (line 675) and I therefore accept it as final.

Next there are estimates (lines 679 to 683) of the number of forced laborers, including those forcibly deported to “new economic zones,” from which consolidation (line 684) we can try to calculate the associated unnatural deaths. This I do (line 687), assuming a very low annual rate of .75 to 2 percent for the first six years and .5 percent thereafter. This also assumes that the zones were about a quarter to a third less deadly then the camps in the early period and half as deadly later.

Not all democide figures are indirect. Estimates are available on executions (lines 690 to 697), which I consolidate (line 698).

Then there are the boat people for whose deaths at sea Hanoi is responsible. Some of these Vietnamese were forced to flee, some fled out of terror and fear for their lives, some fled by virtue of unlivable conditions that the communists had created for them. To understand the drive to flee on the dangerous open ocean often in unseaworthy boats is to realize the deadly hazards they faced from the regime, as discussed in Death By Government. The table lists estimates of the number of Vietnamese boat people that fled or tried to flee (lines 702 to 711) and their consolidation (line 713). Estimates of the percent of these then dying at sea are also given and consolidated (lines 716 to 730), followed by death estimates (lines 733 to 748). The consolidation of these (749) gives us one overall range of deaths. I calculate another by applying the consolidated percentage mortality to the consolidated number fleeing (line 750). Neither of these totals especially commends itself. In the usual fashion, I therefore took the lowest low and highest high and averaged the two mid-values to get the final range (line 751).

How many of these deaths is the responsibility of the communist Vietnamese, that is, democide? Neither the extremes of “none” or “all” is reasonable. Surely those who were forced to face death at sea, or risked it out of mortal fear of the regime or because their lives and families had been irretrievably ruined by it, should be counted as democide (by analogy consider that if children fled their family in winter because they fear being killed or are brutally abused, and then die of exposure in the snow, the parents could be tried for murder). However, those boat people who left for non-vital reasons, such as for economic reasons, and died at sea should hardly be counted as democide. What the proportion is between the two types of refugees is unknown. I assume that those for which the regime must be held responsible could vary from one-third to two-thirds, most reasonably a half of them. Applying this to the number who fled yields a likely Vietnam democide of 250,000 boat people (line 753).

Which is pretty horrible, but nothing close to the scale of Cambodia’s killing fields.

All in all, there would have been far less loss of life in Vietnam if the U.S. had just pulled out in 1968; still less if we had never gotten involved in the first place.

The Encarta, BTW, says the following:

In 1976 the South was officially reunited with the North in a new Socialist Republic of Vietnam. Under the leadership of Le Duan, party chief since the death of Ho Chi Minh in 1969, Communist leaders in Hanoi adopted an ambitious plan to bring about the creation of an advanced Communist society. However, extensive war damage, lack of foreign investment, managerial inexperience, and the passive resistance of millions of people in the southern provinces all combined to defeat the program. By the end of the decade, the economy was in shambles, and popular hostility to the leadership had reached alarming heights. Thousands of people, many of them ethnic Chinese merchants and their families, fled the country in flimsy boats or across the border into China.

Less a case of actual “democide” than the unintended consequences of social and economic disruption resulting from the Communists’ ill-advised attempt to restructure Vietnamese society according to their ideological plan. Eventually, they realized it wasn’t working and abandoned it.

By 1986, the year of Le Duan’s death, Vietnamese leaders had begun to recognize that major changes were needed. At a national congress held in December, new party leaders launched the doi moi (economic renovation) program to reform Vietnamese society and stimulate economic growth. They abandoned efforts to build a fully Communist society by the end of the decade and dismantled collective farms. Party leaders declared their intention to bring about a mixed economy, involving a combination of state, collective, and private ownership. Foreign investment was encouraged, and a more tolerant attitude was adopted toward the free expression of opinion in the country.

In short, as well as things could have worked themselves out under the circumstances.

Can you direct me to any non-partisan online reference resources that makes a stronger case than the above sources do for a massive, intentional, state-run democide in postwar Vietnam? Otherwise, I remain unconvinced our keeping troops there longer would have saved any lives in the long run. Quite the contrary.

[Scylla]

@BrainGlutton

Can you direct me to any non-partisan online reference resources that makes a stronger case than the above sources do for a massive, intentional, state-run democide in postwar Vietnam? Otherwise, I remain unconvinced our keeping troops there longer would have saved any lives in the long run. Quite the contrary.

The cite I produced is partisan? In what fashion is it partisan, left, right? I could not determine it. It seems to me that the cite I produce is at pains to source it’s numbers and reasoning which seems to me makes it pretty damn good.

My job here is not to convince you, but merely to demonstrate a fact to a degree that a reasonable person will accept it. I feel I have done so, your reasonability or lack thereof is immaterial and I hardly feel compelled to produce another cite when you dismiss the one I produce on such specious grounds as it being difficult to understand to you, and your having pronounced it partisan on grounds that I cannot determine.

[Mockingbird]

@rjung

I think that to Fox, Coulter, et al, the real enemy is the United States of America. They’re waging a war of conquest on the rest of us…

Well said.