Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Winter Soldier Sworn Testimony
14 views
Skip to first unread message
DGVREIMAN
Jan 18, 2012, 6:11:39 PM1/18/12
to
I have amassed quite a bit of information on the Winter Soldier
testimony which was sworn by Viet Nam vets in front of Congress. I
will publish some of it later.
I was especially interested in the fact ALL of the "information
officers" (commissioned and NCO's) universally testified they were
"ordered to lie in their after action reports and news accounts of
encounters with the enemy by MACV."
They also mentioned that perhaps tens of thousands of "officers"
received medals as a result of those lies.
I know we all remember that John Kerry was allowed to write up his own
after action reports - which of course is something that I hope has
been stopped in our more modern all volunteer Army - for obvious
reasons.
I also know I personally knew of commissioned officers receiving the
"Silver Star" for outright fraud stated in after action reports. . . I
don't know how many were involved overall in this type of fraud, but
all those "medals" delivered to almost every commissioned officer that
served in Viet Nam makes one wonder whether all of these men really
deserved them?
I personally found it hard to find a competent shave tail, not to
mention a brave one. But ALL of the Lt's I knew received the "Silver
Star." Makes you wonder.
The above mentioned fraud was a terrible black mark on the US Military
in Viet Nam. Politically correct wars, and "shave tails" bucking for
medals to enhance their careers is not a good combination for the men
that really end up doing most of the fighting - the enlisted men.
If you run into an "officer" with a bunch of Viet Nam era medals, ask
him who wrote up his after action reports, and there is a good chance
he was involved in the write ups, either through S-3 or in some other
capacity such as being chums with the authors.
I am not saying *every* officer that served in Viet Nam obtained some
undeserved "medals" due to false after action reports. Yet since
those that actually wrote the reports testified under oath in front of
Congress that they were ordered to lie in *every* report, one must
wonder just how wide spread bogus medals to officers based upon those
lies really were? If all the reports were lies, then all the medals
based upon those reports must also be lies. . . stands to reason.
Regardless, here is something we all should be interested in:
http://www.youtube.com/embed/nGeXdv-uPaw
Doug Grant (Tm)
testimony which was sworn by Viet Nam vets in front of Congress. I
will publish some of it later.
I was especially interested in the fact ALL of the "information
officers" (commissioned and NCO's) universally testified they were
"ordered to lie in their after action reports and news accounts of
encounters with the enemy by MACV."
They also mentioned that perhaps tens of thousands of "officers"
received medals as a result of those lies.
I know we all remember that John Kerry was allowed to write up his own
after action reports - which of course is something that I hope has
been stopped in our more modern all volunteer Army - for obvious
reasons.
I also know I personally knew of commissioned officers receiving the
"Silver Star" for outright fraud stated in after action reports. . . I
don't know how many were involved overall in this type of fraud, but
all those "medals" delivered to almost every commissioned officer that
served in Viet Nam makes one wonder whether all of these men really
deserved them?
I personally found it hard to find a competent shave tail, not to
mention a brave one. But ALL of the Lt's I knew received the "Silver
Star." Makes you wonder.
The above mentioned fraud was a terrible black mark on the US Military
in Viet Nam. Politically correct wars, and "shave tails" bucking for
medals to enhance their careers is not a good combination for the men
that really end up doing most of the fighting - the enlisted men.
If you run into an "officer" with a bunch of Viet Nam era medals, ask
him who wrote up his after action reports, and there is a good chance
he was involved in the write ups, either through S-3 or in some other
capacity such as being chums with the authors.
I am not saying *every* officer that served in Viet Nam obtained some
undeserved "medals" due to false after action reports. Yet since
those that actually wrote the reports testified under oath in front of
Congress that they were ordered to lie in *every* report, one must
wonder just how wide spread bogus medals to officers based upon those
lies really were? If all the reports were lies, then all the medals
based upon those reports must also be lies. . . stands to reason.
Regardless, here is something we all should be interested in:
http://www.youtube.com/embed/nGeXdv-uPaw
Doug Grant (Tm)
Bill Clarke
Jan 19, 2012, 12:20:58 AM1/19/12
to
In article <_MadnbgW4JkwzIrS...@giganews.com>, DGVREIMAN says...
I don’t remember seeing any “shaved tails” (2nd Lieutenants) in Vietnam. There
might have and probably were some in Chu Lai in finance and supply but I don’t
remember any on Hawk Hill. Just what were these shaved tails that you saw doing
in Vietnam? Did they have a combat MOS?
The year I was a member of F Troop we went through 3 Captains and 8 First
Lieutenants. The only Silver Star awarded was to the last Captain. The CO of
the 196th LIB told me if I wrote it up he would sign it. I did and he did. The
Captain couldn’t write it because he was in the hospital in Chu Lai with his leg
blown off.
And I have to ask; just how many Lts did you know that received the Silver Star?
I think you are full of shit. I worked for and knew very well the S-3 of the
1/1 Cav and the S-3 of the 196th LIB. To think either man would allow some 1Lt
to write his after action report is laughable.
Bill Clarke, who didn’t write his own Purple Heart either.
might have and probably were some in Chu Lai in finance and supply but I don’t
remember any on Hawk Hill. Just what were these shaved tails that you saw doing
in Vietnam? Did they have a combat MOS?
The year I was a member of F Troop we went through 3 Captains and 8 First
Lieutenants. The only Silver Star awarded was to the last Captain. The CO of
the 196th LIB told me if I wrote it up he would sign it. I did and he did. The
Captain couldn’t write it because he was in the hospital in Chu Lai with his leg
blown off.
And I have to ask; just how many Lts did you know that received the Silver Star?
I think you are full of shit. I worked for and knew very well the S-3 of the
1/1 Cav and the S-3 of the 196th LIB. To think either man would allow some 1Lt
to write his after action report is laughable.
Bill Clarke, who didn’t write his own Purple Heart either.
Nigel Brooks
Jan 19, 2012, 1:21:59 AM1/19/12
to
"Bill Clarke" <Bill_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:jf897...@drn.newsguy.com...
claims regarding reporting and awards for Commissioned Officers, I wonder if
he also agrees with the main thrust of Winter Soldier that the US Armed
Forces routinely engaged in atrocities and war crimes.
I thinks he's wrong about that "sworn by Vietnam Vets in front of Congress"
bit too. To the best of my recollection - Winter Soldier was put on by the
Vietnam Veterans Against The War. None of the "testimony" was sworn to.
Subsequently, Senator Hatfield entered the transcripts of the event in the
Congressional Record - again, that is not "Sworn by Vietnam Vets in front of
Congress" but merely introducing a transcript in much the same way that
Congressfolks enter newspaper articles and the like.
Again - If memory serves correctly, the only testimony before the Congress
having anything to do with Winter Soldier was by John Kerry at the Fulbright
Hearings, there is nothing in the transcript of that testimony which
indicates that Kerry was under oath.
I agree with you about him being full of shit.
Marcus Aurelius
Jan 19, 2012, 12:43:54 PM1/19/12
to
I saw several U.S. Army officers killed or wounded in Vietnam. Why
don't I know if they were killed or wounded? They were covered with
blood and unconscious. That is all that I can tell you. In any case, I
believe it inappropriate to dishonor the reputation of American
military officers in Vietnam in any manner. I received a great deal of
personal support from former American military officers who served in
Vietnam when I returned from Vietnam. Many of them, like all other
Vietnam Veterans, were subject to a great deal of
discrimination,insult, and oppression when they returned from Vietnam
to the U.S.A.. That is another reason why we should continue to honor,
respect, and support them.
Prior posts by Mr. Reiman appear to support our effort in Vietnam and
our soldiers there, in general.
I want to thank him for his military service in Vietnam
don't I know if they were killed or wounded? They were covered with
blood and unconscious. That is all that I can tell you. In any case, I
believe it inappropriate to dishonor the reputation of American
military officers in Vietnam in any manner. I received a great deal of
personal support from former American military officers who served in
Vietnam when I returned from Vietnam. Many of them, like all other
Vietnam Veterans, were subject to a great deal of
discrimination,insult, and oppression when they returned from Vietnam
to the U.S.A.. That is another reason why we should continue to honor,
respect, and support them.
Prior posts by Mr. Reiman appear to support our effort in Vietnam and
our soldiers there, in general.
I want to thank him for his military service in Vietnam
dino
Jan 19, 2012, 1:30:17 PM1/19/12
to
In article <jf897...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
believable than a commander thumping his own chest. And if the commander would
happen to be modest, a third party would feel more comfortable with highlighting
the successes while diminishing the shortcomings.
The few after-action reports that I have read were written by lieutenants and
events were skewed to make incidents appear quite favorable whether they were or
not. It's a military making out it's own report card.
>
>
>I worked for and knew very well the
>S-3 of the 1/1 Cav and the S-3 of
>the 196th LIB. To think either man
>would allow some 1Lt to write his
>after action report is laughable.
Actually, I think it makes good sense. A disinterested third party sounds more
>
>I worked for and knew very well the
>S-3 of the 1/1 Cav and the S-3 of
>the 196th LIB. To think either man
>would allow some 1Lt to write his
>after action report is laughable.
believable than a commander thumping his own chest. And if the commander would
happen to be modest, a third party would feel more comfortable with highlighting
the successes while diminishing the shortcomings.
The few after-action reports that I have read were written by lieutenants and
events were skewed to make incidents appear quite favorable whether they were or
not. It's a military making out it's own report card.
Bill Clarke
Jan 19, 2012, 2:01:20 PM1/19/12
to
In article <9npr1a...@mid.individual.net>, Nigel Brooks says...
I thought you would. Small grin here.
That is my understanding of “sworn testimony” too.
Bill Clarke
That is my understanding of “sworn testimony” too.
Bill Clarke
Bill Clarke
Jan 19, 2012, 3:04:28 PM1/19/12
to
In article <96751fe1-aa71-4797...@m2g2000pbg.googlegroups.com>,
Marcus Aurelius says...
Screw him. You call this bullshit supporting our soldiers? Do you really think
ALL of the lieutenants he knew had the Silver Star?
‘I personally found it hard to find a competent shave tail, not to mention a
brave
one. But ALL of the Lt's I knew received the "Silver Star." Makes you wonder. “
Makes me wonder how brave this sucker was.
Bill Clarke
Marcus Aurelius says...
ALL of the lieutenants he knew had the Silver Star?
‘I personally found it hard to find a competent shave tail, not to mention a
brave
one. But ALL of the Lt's I knew received the "Silver Star." Makes you wonder. “
Makes me wonder how brave this sucker was.
Bill Clarke
dino
Jan 19, 2012, 5:25:52 PM1/19/12
to
>I thinks he's wrong about that "sworn
>by Vietnam Vets in front of Congress"
>bit too. To the best of my recollection
>- Winter Soldier was put on by the
>Vietnam Veterans Against The War. None
>of the "testimony" was sworn to.
I've been swearing at Congress lately. Is that the same thing?
>by Vietnam Vets in front of Congress"
>bit too. To the best of my recollection
>- Winter Soldier was put on by the
>Vietnam Veterans Against The War. None
>of the "testimony" was sworn to.
Neolibertarian
Jan 19, 2012, 10:15:53 PM1/19/12
to
In article <_MadnbgW4JkwzIrS...@giganews.com>,
The Dellums hearings were held in the House of Representatives. But
these were unofficial, ad hoc, and held in the House Caucus Chamber--not
in a committee room--mostly because all but a handful of Representatives
refused to participate in that anarchist lunacy.
There were still consequences to elected bureaucrats for engaging in
anarchist lunacy back then.
Ah, for the good old days.
Dellums hearings were never entered into the Congressional records.
The Winter Soldier Investigation was not held "in front of Congress."
The investigation was organized by well-known marxist-anarchists,
including Jeremy Rifkin, Michael Uhl and Bob Johnson. The hearings were
financed primarily by Hollywood Actress, Jane Fonda.
A month after those hearings were held in Michigan, Ms. Fonda traveled
to Paris, France for a meeting with Madam Nguyen Binh, Foreign Minister
of the National Liberation Front (aka Viet Cong). Presumably, this was a
meeting to finalize her much touted and loathed trip to Hanoi a few
months later.
A complete transcript of these hearings was later entered into the
Congressional Record by Senator Mark Hatfield (kind of the John McCain
of the late 60's-early 70's). Reading them into the record gives certain
imprimatur, of course, but no other value. There were no binding oaths
sworn, nor was there at any time a threat of perjury for testimony
presented.
However, once entered in the Congressional record, the testimony could
no longer be ignored. The ludicrous claims uttered in those hearings
triggered an investigation by the USDoD's Criminal Investigative Unit.
The investigation turned up no corroborating evidence whatsoever.
Interviewees uniformly refused to offer statements to investigating
officers confirming their Winter Solder Investigation testimony. Some
were found to be out-and-out lying, having not served in Vietnam at all,
or actually found to have served in units other than those they claimed
at the Michigan hearings. Every single investigation was eventually
terminated due to insufficient evidence.
http://www.wintersoldier.com/staticpages/index.php?page=WSI_CID
> I
> will publish some of it later.
Good for you.
There's always that "all lawful orders" thingy getting in the way.
Senate in 1971 was proved false. Called out on it during his 2004
Presidential bid, Kerry rightly pointed out that the questionable
portions of his testimony were merely hearsay.
There are reasons hearsay testimony is given no weight in a court of law.
dummy.
It couldn't be any other way.
Silver Stars require corroboration. Except in the case of Lyndon
Johnson. of course. Well, even in his case, too. And that was World War
II, after all!
It isn't like fraud doesn't happen, but it requires conspiracy of a
pretty high order.
You're not going to find "thousands" of conspiracies in the US military
concerning medals for valor. It didn't happen, and it never will happen.
There's never been any wonder about it. It's useless, and sometimes far
worse than useless.
was designed to stimulate.
> Politically correct wars, and "shave tails" bucking for
> medals to enhance their careers is not a good combination for the men
> that really end up doing most of the fighting - the enlisted men.
Officer casualty rates were slightly higher than for enlisted men. In
Vietnam, the casualty rates for warrant officers was 30 times higher
than it had been in World War II.
Revolutionary War for crying out loud.
Who would you suppose is to write up the after action report?
> either through S-3 or in some other
> capacity such as being chums with the authors.
>
> I am not saying *every* officer that served in Viet Nam
Your opinions are worth what we paid for them.
--
Neolibertarian
"Global Warming: It ain't the heat, it's the stupidity."
"DGVREIMAN" <dgvr...@comcast.net> wrote:
> I have amassed quite a bit of information on the Winter Soldier
> testimony which was sworn by Viet Nam vets in front of Congress.
Clumsy falsehood.
> I have amassed quite a bit of information on the Winter Soldier
> testimony which was sworn by Viet Nam vets in front of Congress.
The Dellums hearings were held in the House of Representatives. But
these were unofficial, ad hoc, and held in the House Caucus Chamber--not
in a committee room--mostly because all but a handful of Representatives
refused to participate in that anarchist lunacy.
There were still consequences to elected bureaucrats for engaging in
anarchist lunacy back then.
Ah, for the good old days.
Dellums hearings were never entered into the Congressional records.
The Winter Soldier Investigation was not held "in front of Congress."
The investigation was organized by well-known marxist-anarchists,
including Jeremy Rifkin, Michael Uhl and Bob Johnson. The hearings were
financed primarily by Hollywood Actress, Jane Fonda.
A month after those hearings were held in Michigan, Ms. Fonda traveled
to Paris, France for a meeting with Madam Nguyen Binh, Foreign Minister
of the National Liberation Front (aka Viet Cong). Presumably, this was a
meeting to finalize her much touted and loathed trip to Hanoi a few
months later.
A complete transcript of these hearings was later entered into the
Congressional Record by Senator Mark Hatfield (kind of the John McCain
of the late 60's-early 70's). Reading them into the record gives certain
imprimatur, of course, but no other value. There were no binding oaths
sworn, nor was there at any time a threat of perjury for testimony
presented.
However, once entered in the Congressional record, the testimony could
no longer be ignored. The ludicrous claims uttered in those hearings
triggered an investigation by the USDoD's Criminal Investigative Unit.
The investigation turned up no corroborating evidence whatsoever.
Interviewees uniformly refused to offer statements to investigating
officers confirming their Winter Solder Investigation testimony. Some
were found to be out-and-out lying, having not served in Vietnam at all,
or actually found to have served in units other than those they claimed
at the Michigan hearings. Every single investigation was eventually
terminated due to insufficient evidence.
http://www.wintersoldier.com/staticpages/index.php?page=WSI_CID
> I
> will publish some of it later.
>
> I was especially interested in the fact ALL of the "information
> officers" (commissioned and NCO's) universally testified they were
> "ordered to lie in their after action reports and news accounts of
> encounters with the enemy by MACV."
No one was ordered to lie.
> I was especially interested in the fact ALL of the "information
> officers" (commissioned and NCO's) universally testified they were
> "ordered to lie in their after action reports and news accounts of
> encounters with the enemy by MACV."
There's always that "all lawful orders" thingy getting in the way.
>
> They also mentioned that perhaps tens of thousands of "officers"
> received medals as a result of those lies.
As credible as any of their Michigan testimony.
> They also mentioned that perhaps tens of thousands of "officers"
> received medals as a result of those lies.
>
> I know we all remember that John Kerry was allowed to write up his own
> after action reports - which of course is something that I hope has
> been stopped in our more modern all volunteer Army - for obvious
> reasons.
It is also known today that the majority of Kerry's testimony to the
> I know we all remember that John Kerry was allowed to write up his own
> after action reports - which of course is something that I hope has
> been stopped in our more modern all volunteer Army - for obvious
> reasons.
Senate in 1971 was proved false. Called out on it during his 2004
Presidential bid, Kerry rightly pointed out that the questionable
portions of his testimony were merely hearsay.
There are reasons hearsay testimony is given no weight in a court of law.
>
> I also know I personally knew of commissioned officers receiving the
> "Silver Star" for outright fraud stated in after action reports. . . I
> don't know how many were involved overall in this type of fraud, but
> all those "medals" delivered to almost every commissioned officer that
> served in Viet Nam makes one wonder whether all of these men really
> deserved them?
Every officer involved is required to write an "after action report,"
> I also know I personally knew of commissioned officers receiving the
> "Silver Star" for outright fraud stated in after action reports. . . I
> don't know how many were involved overall in this type of fraud, but
> all those "medals" delivered to almost every commissioned officer that
> served in Viet Nam makes one wonder whether all of these men really
> deserved them?
dummy.
It couldn't be any other way.
Silver Stars require corroboration. Except in the case of Lyndon
Johnson. of course. Well, even in his case, too. And that was World War
II, after all!
It isn't like fraud doesn't happen, but it requires conspiracy of a
pretty high order.
You're not going to find "thousands" of conspiracies in the US military
concerning medals for valor. It didn't happen, and it never will happen.
>
> I personally found it hard to find a competent shave tail, not to
> mention a brave one. But ALL of the Lt's I knew received the "Silver
> Star." Makes you wonder.
Wonder about what? The merits of anecdotal evidence?
> I personally found it hard to find a competent shave tail, not to
> mention a brave one. But ALL of the Lt's I knew received the "Silver
> Star." Makes you wonder.
There's never been any wonder about it. It's useless, and sometimes far
worse than useless.
>
> The above mentioned fraud was a terrible black mark on the US Military
> in Viet Nam.
Not in the real world. Just within your dark fantasies, which the WSI
> The above mentioned fraud was a terrible black mark on the US Military
> in Viet Nam.
was designed to stimulate.
> Politically correct wars, and "shave tails" bucking for
> medals to enhance their careers is not a good combination for the men
> that really end up doing most of the fighting - the enlisted men.
Vietnam, the casualty rates for warrant officers was 30 times higher
than it had been in World War II.
>
> If you run into an "officer" with a bunch of Viet Nam era medals, ask
> him who wrote up his after action reports, and there is a good chance
> he was involved in the write ups,
OF COURSE he was, goofy. That's been US military doctrine since the
> If you run into an "officer" with a bunch of Viet Nam era medals, ask
> him who wrote up his after action reports, and there is a good chance
> he was involved in the write ups,
Revolutionary War for crying out loud.
Who would you suppose is to write up the after action report?
> either through S-3 or in some other
> capacity such as being chums with the authors.
>
> I am not saying *every* officer that served in Viet Nam
--
Neolibertarian
"Global Warming: It ain't the heat, it's the stupidity."
dino
Jan 19, 2012, 11:18:21 PM1/19/12
to
In article <35673$4f18d999$18f556a5$30...@allthenewsgroups.com>, Neolibertarian
says...
never seen any evidence to support these assertions. Do you have this evidence
that no one else has ever seen? If so, please present them and be as specific
as possible.
says...
>
>Some were found to be out-and-out
>lying, having not served in Vietnam
>at all, or actually found to have
>served in units other than those
>they claimed at the Michigan
>hearings.
These claims are repeated ad nausaum in the Righteous Right web sites, but I've
>Some were found to be out-and-out
>lying, having not served in Vietnam
>at all, or actually found to have
>served in units other than those
>they claimed at the Michigan
>hearings.
never seen any evidence to support these assertions. Do you have this evidence
that no one else has ever seen? If so, please present them and be as specific
as possible.
DGVREIMAN
Jan 20, 2012, 6:09:59 PM1/20/12
to
Mr. Clarke, I suspect you are the one that is full of shit. The
officers that worked in preparing the after action reports stated in
sworn testimony to Congress that input about the event was almost
ALWAYS provided by the officers involved in the action, and that they
were ordered to embellish and lie in those reports.
If you never saw a 2nd Lt in Vietnam then you must have been in a very
safe area. If you knew officers in Finance then, as far as I knew,
Fiance was not even located at base camp.
Moreover, what were the names of the 8 LT's and 3 Captians you said
your unit "lost?" What was the name of their respective units, and
when were they killed, which year, which location. If you cannot
remember the names then provide the specifics of the troop you were
assigned to, year and location in which that single troop lost all of
those officers, and they never got any medals, but one.
Which year were you a member of "F" troop, and what was the name of
your commanding officer?
Writing up your own purple hearts generally never happened. All
someone had to do is walk over to the Aid Station with a scratch and
whine that he received it while running to the bunker. That medal
was so easy to obtain the "personal writeup" came directly from the
Soldier involved - it was impossible to determine where the scratch
really did come from. Anyone that wanted to sink low enough to whine
for a purple heart medal got one. This kind of bullshit actually
steals the valor of those that actually deserved receiving medals in
my opinion.
If you wish to deny the sworn testimony in front of Congress, then
please provide some evidence those that swore were lying. I won't
hold my breath waiting for the other information I requested since you
are chums with Nigel Brooks.
Doug Grant (Tm)
>
DGVREIMAN
Jan 20, 2012, 6:19:57 PM1/20/12
to
news:9npr1a...@mid.individual.net...
> Interesting post by Mr. Reiman. As it appears he is agreeing with
> the claims regarding reporting and awards for Commissioned Officers,
> I wonder if he also agrees with the main thrust of Winter Soldier
> that the US Armed Forces routinely engaged in atrocities and war
> crimes.
Mr. Brooks, as usual you are inserting something I did not say into my
> the claims regarding reporting and awards for Commissioned Officers,
> I wonder if he also agrees with the main thrust of Winter Soldier
> that the US Armed Forces routinely engaged in atrocities and war
> crimes.
posts. Standard con from Nigel Brooks. There is no reason why ALL of
the officers and NCO's that were responsible for writing up After
Action Reports and News Articles about encounters with the enemy to
lie to Congress (under oath). They said they were ordered to lie in
those reports by MACV, and they provided several examples of such
lies. (If you would like for me to post some of their transcripts I
will be more than happy to do it).
In respect to "War Crimes" OTHERS might have described, that has
nothing to do with what the Information Officers had to say about
being ordered to lie. So stop the obfusication, cons, fraud and
inserting statements into my posts that (1) I did not say, and (2) has
absolutely nothing with what I posted (as we can see above).
All offical testimony in front of Congress must be sworn testimony,
and a record of that testimony is recorded and preserved.
Pathetic, but typical.
Doug Grant (Tm)
DGVREIMAN
Jan 20, 2012, 6:24:25 PM1/20/12
to
"Marcus Aurelius" <alexan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:96751fe1-aa71-4797...@m2g2000pbg.googlegroups.com...
Nam. However, exposing the fraud that went on there, promoted and
ordered by the Generals and the Politicians, does nothing but help our
military avoid and overcome similar outrages. If the information
officers were ordered to lie like they ALL said in front of Congress,
then in my opinion, that fact takes away the honor and valor from
those soldiers that actually deserved the medals they received.
Exposing such fraud can only help our military in the future. And
stop it from happening again. Personally, I respect and honor anyone
that went to Viet Nam willingly, regardless of their occupation or
duties.
Doug Grant (Tm)
DGVREIMAN
Jan 20, 2012, 6:28:40 PM1/20/12
to
"dino" <dino_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:jf9nf...@drn.newsguy.com...
and the Information Officers from the 25th testified they were ordered
to lie in those reports, and in many cases, took descriptions of the
enemy encounters directly from the officers involved without question.
How deep this fraud went is anyone's guess, but it did exist.
Exposing this type of fraud can only help our military in the future.
No enlisted man can honor an officer that writes up his own reports,
or provides the information that is used to publish them by S-3. This
is especially true when he receives a medal due to that report.
Doug Grant (Tm)
>
DGVREIMAN
Jan 20, 2012, 6:35:04 PM1/20/12
to
"Neolibertarian" <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:35673$4f18d999$18f556a5$30...@allthenewsgroups.com...
> In article <_MadnbgW4JkwzIrS...@giganews.com>,
> "DGVREIMAN" <dgvr...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> I have amassed quite a bit of information on the Winter Soldier
>> testimony which was sworn by Viet Nam vets in front of Congress.
>
> Clumsy falsehood.
I see I am going to be required to publish what I retrieved from the
> "DGVREIMAN" <dgvr...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> I have amassed quite a bit of information on the Winter Soldier
>> testimony which was sworn by Viet Nam vets in front of Congress.
>
> Clumsy falsehood.
record.
>
> >>
>> If you run into an "officer" with a bunch of Viet Nam era medals,
>> ask
>> him who wrote up his after action reports, and there is a good
>> chance
>> he was involved in the write ups,
>
> OF COURSE he was, goofy. That's been US military doctrine since the
> Revolutionary War for crying out loud.
>
> Who would you suppose is to write up the after action report?
>
>> either through S-3 or in some other
>> capacity such as being chums with the authors.
Obviously, this poster just made my point. You cannot expect an
> >>
>> If you run into an "officer" with a bunch of Viet Nam era medals,
>> ask
>> him who wrote up his after action reports, and there is a good
>> chance
>> he was involved in the write ups,
>
> OF COURSE he was, goofy. That's been US military doctrine since the
> Revolutionary War for crying out loud.
>
> Who would you suppose is to write up the after action report?
>
>> either through S-3 or in some other
>> capacity such as being chums with the authors.
officer to write up his own after action report and say he was a
coward.
>>
>> I am not saying *every* officer that served in Viet Nam
>
> Your opinions are worth what we paid for them.
I do not remember charging for them - but I will produce the
>> I am not saying *every* officer that served in Viet Nam
>
> Your opinions are worth what we paid for them.
Congressional record. Moreover, considering ALL of the information
officers that testified confirmed they were ordered to lie in the
After Action reports, most people would consider that "corroboration."
MACV clearly was using politics, and censorship to make themselves
look good - if you had served in Viet Nam you would know this fact to
be true.
DGVREIMAN
Jan 20, 2012, 6:41:29 PM1/20/12
to
news:jfapu...@drn.newsguy.com...
Dino: I will post just the opposite - ALL of the Information officers
that testified before Congress they were ordered to lie in their after
action reports and news articles served in Viet Nam, and ALL served in
the Units they said they did.
I suspect some of the testimony about war crimes and such was probably
blown out of porportiion, and the opposition planted some ringers in
the group to discredit it, but I cannot prove that either way. I CAN
prove some After Action Reports were falsified, as I have read reports
on patrols I was involved with and I and some of the men that were on
those patrols could not stop laughing at them.
Doug Grant (Tm)
>
that testified before Congress they were ordered to lie in their after
action reports and news articles served in Viet Nam, and ALL served in
the Units they said they did.
I suspect some of the testimony about war crimes and such was probably
blown out of porportiion, and the opposition planted some ringers in
the group to discredit it, but I cannot prove that either way. I CAN
prove some After Action Reports were falsified, as I have read reports
on patrols I was involved with and I and some of the men that were on
those patrols could not stop laughing at them.
Doug Grant (Tm)
>
Dai Uy
Jan 20, 2012, 9:44:50 PM1/20/12
to
On Jan 20, 1:35 pm, "DGVREIMAN" <dgvrei...@comcast.net> wrote:
> "Neolibertarian" <cognac...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:35673$4f18d999$18f556a5$30...@allthenewsgroups.com...
>
> > In article <_MadnbgW4JkwzIrSnZ2dnUVZ5vedn...@giganews.com>,
Investigation... http://www.wintersoldier.com/index.php?topic=CompletWSI
or http://tinyurl.com/8yzcjo2 Knock yourself out, see if you can
find where these lying assholes were sworn to anything. Their
testimony is worth no more than your own tales of your military
exploits, being wounded, shooting five year olds, cooking fake babies,
etc. It's all the same bull-shit.
In regards to PIO officers ordered to lie, if you were a little
more familiar with the combat end of the military rather than the
clerical end, you would know that Public Information Officers write
articles for hometown newspapers -- not after action reports.
After action reports are summaries of operations used for unit
histories, Identifying problems that arose, ways of improvement,
and arriving at “lessons learned”.
***
"When other beings, especially those who hold a grudge against
you, abuse and harm you out of envy, you should not abandon them, but
hold them as objects of your greatest compassion and take care of
them."
-His Holiness the Dalai Lama
> "Neolibertarian" <cognac...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:35673$4f18d999$18f556a5$30...@allthenewsgroups.com...
>
> > In article <_MadnbgW4JkwzIrSnZ2dnUVZ5vedn...@giganews.com>,
> > "DGVREIMAN" <dgvrei...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >> I have amassed quite a bit of information on the Winter Soldier
> >> testimony which was sworn by Viet Nam vets in front of Congress.
>
> > Clumsy falsehood.
>
> I see I am going to be required to publish what I retrieved from the
> record.
Here is the complete transcript for the so called Winter Soldier
>
> >> I have amassed quite a bit of information on the Winter Soldier
> >> testimony which was sworn by Viet Nam vets in front of Congress.
>
> > Clumsy falsehood.
>
> I see I am going to be required to publish what I retrieved from the
> record.
Investigation... http://www.wintersoldier.com/index.php?topic=CompletWSI
or http://tinyurl.com/8yzcjo2 Knock yourself out, see if you can
find where these lying assholes were sworn to anything. Their
testimony is worth no more than your own tales of your military
exploits, being wounded, shooting five year olds, cooking fake babies,
etc. It's all the same bull-shit.
In regards to PIO officers ordered to lie, if you were a little
more familiar with the combat end of the military rather than the
clerical end, you would know that Public Information Officers write
articles for hometown newspapers -- not after action reports.
After action reports are summaries of operations used for unit
histories, Identifying problems that arose, ways of improvement,
and arriving at “lessons learned”.
***
"When other beings, especially those who hold a grudge against
you, abuse and harm you out of envy, you should not abandon them, but
hold them as objects of your greatest compassion and take care of
them."
-His Holiness the Dalai Lama
dino
Jan 20, 2012, 9:56:12 PM1/20/12
to
In article <Df6dneY5p_E2ZYTS...@giganews.com>, DGVREIMAN says...
It's always existed. True historians know this.
dino
Jan 20, 2012, 11:11:35 PM1/20/12
to
In article <x9CdnUfGObExZoTS...@giganews.com>, DGVREIMAN says...
Neither has anyone else.
>I CAN prove some After Action Reports
>were falsified, as I have read reports
>on patrols I was involved with and I
>and some of the men that were on those
>patrols could not stop laughing at
>them.
Me and others have had similar experiences.
>I CAN prove some After Action Reports
>were falsified, as I have read reports
>on patrols I was involved with and I
>and some of the men that were on those
>patrols could not stop laughing at
>them.
Bill Clarke
Jan 21, 2012, 1:31:35 AM1/21/12
to
In article <d42dnYdohZPXaYTS...@giganews.com>, DGVREIMAN says...
I’m not the one claiming that every Lieutenant I knew had a Silver Star. You
and I both know that is so much bullshit.
>officers that worked in preparing the after action reports stated in
>sworn testimony to Congress that input about the event was almost
>ALWAYS provided by the officers involved in the action, and that they
>were ordered to embellish and lie in those reports.
>
>If you never saw a 2nd Lt in Vietnam then you must have been in a very
>safe area. If you knew officers in Finance then, as far as I knew,
>Fiance was not even located at base camp.
I don’t believe you will find anyone that thinks the Que Son Valley, the Heip
Duc Valley and the Pineapple Forest were SAFE. I didn’t say I knew anyone in
Finance. I said some of the rear area boys might have been 2nd LTs. All the
lieutenants in the 1/1 Cav were 1st Lieutenants. Same for those that I knew in
the 196th LIB.
>Moreover, what were the names of the 8 LT's and 3 Captians you said
>your unit "lost?" What was the name of their respective units, and
>when were they killed, which year, which location. If you cannot
>remember the names then provide the specifics of the troop you were
>assigned to, year and location in which that single troop lost all of
>those officers, and they never got any medals, but one.
I didn’t say we “lost them”. I said we "went through them". Do you know the
difference?
F Troop page
www.ftrp17cav196.com/
Capt. Gary L. Schappaugh, September 70 to October 70. Relieved of command.
Capt Timothy A. Fisher, October 70 to January 71. Relieved of command.
Capt Chester W. Fetner, January 71 to April 71. Leg blown off. Silver Star
awarded.
1st LT. William H. Clarke, April 71 to May 71. DEROS/
Lieutenant Smith and I are listed as O-1 below. We made O-2 the day we left the
U.S.
1LT Kenneth T. Biscan
1LT David B. Miller KIA, the LT I replaced
1LT Thomas M. Petty
1LT Gary G. Trinkle
1LT Gary S. Williams 3rd Plt
1LT Harry Sharper 2nd Plt
1LT Delmus E. Williams 3rd Lpt 70-71.
LT Eric Soiu FO
2LT William H. Clarke Jun 70 - May 71 1st Plt Ldr, XO, CO
2LT Jeremy L. Smith 3rd Plt
1LT David B. Wood KIA April 26, 1971 (2nd Plt)
The web page list two Silver Stars for F Troop from 1966 to 1972. Both earned
by enlisted men. I doesn’t list the SS for Capt. Fetner.
Now, about all those Lieutenants you know with Silver Stars? You got you list
handy?
Are the numnuts that washed out of OCS?
Bill Clarke
and I both know that is so much bullshit.
>officers that worked in preparing the after action reports stated in
>sworn testimony to Congress that input about the event was almost
>ALWAYS provided by the officers involved in the action, and that they
>were ordered to embellish and lie in those reports.
>
>If you never saw a 2nd Lt in Vietnam then you must have been in a very
>safe area. If you knew officers in Finance then, as far as I knew,
>Fiance was not even located at base camp.
Duc Valley and the Pineapple Forest were SAFE. I didn’t say I knew anyone in
Finance. I said some of the rear area boys might have been 2nd LTs. All the
lieutenants in the 1/1 Cav were 1st Lieutenants. Same for those that I knew in
the 196th LIB.
>Moreover, what were the names of the 8 LT's and 3 Captians you said
>your unit "lost?" What was the name of their respective units, and
>when were they killed, which year, which location. If you cannot
>remember the names then provide the specifics of the troop you were
>assigned to, year and location in which that single troop lost all of
>those officers, and they never got any medals, but one.
difference?
F Troop page
www.ftrp17cav196.com/
Capt. Gary L. Schappaugh, September 70 to October 70. Relieved of command.
Capt Timothy A. Fisher, October 70 to January 71. Relieved of command.
Capt Chester W. Fetner, January 71 to April 71. Leg blown off. Silver Star
awarded.
1st LT. William H. Clarke, April 71 to May 71. DEROS/
Lieutenant Smith and I are listed as O-1 below. We made O-2 the day we left the
U.S.
1LT Kenneth T. Biscan
1LT David B. Miller KIA, the LT I replaced
1LT Thomas M. Petty
1LT Gary G. Trinkle
1LT Gary S. Williams 3rd Plt
1LT Harry Sharper 2nd Plt
1LT Delmus E. Williams 3rd Lpt 70-71.
LT Eric Soiu FO
2LT William H. Clarke Jun 70 - May 71 1st Plt Ldr, XO, CO
2LT Jeremy L. Smith 3rd Plt
1LT David B. Wood KIA April 26, 1971 (2nd Plt)
The web page list two Silver Stars for F Troop from 1966 to 1972. Both earned
by enlisted men. I doesn’t list the SS for Capt. Fetner.
Now, about all those Lieutenants you know with Silver Stars? You got you list
handy?
Are the numnuts that washed out of OCS?
Bill Clarke
Neolibertarian
Jan 21, 2012, 2:10:24 AM1/21/12
to
In article <BtednS-gS-63Z4TS...@giganews.com>,
The Winter Soldier testimony was conducted in a Detroit Hotel, which had
been rented out by Jane Fonda.
It was later entered into the Congressional record by a Senator who
probably thought he was doing the right thing.
As to publishing, you're a little late. The full testimony is already
published and freely available on the internet:
http://www.wintersoldier.com/index.php?topic=CompletWSI
accountability than the Winter Soldier testimony.
To say the least.
Those reports aren't a venue for boasting. And never have been.
objective criteria.
But you haven't even begun to make a valid case for the kind of
corruption you're imagining.
It just didn't happen.
Myths, once accepted as facts, are almost impossible to unlearn.
You prolly think the so-called "body counts" were inflated, too.
"DGVREIMAN" <dgvr...@comcast.net> wrote:
> "Neolibertarian" <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:35673$4f18d999$18f556a5$30...@allthenewsgroups.com...
> > In article <_MadnbgW4JkwzIrS...@giganews.com>,
> > "DGVREIMAN" <dgvr...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> >> I have amassed quite a bit of information on the Winter Soldier
> >> testimony which was sworn by Viet Nam vets in front of Congress.
> >
> > Clumsy falsehood.
>
> I see I am going to be required to publish what I retrieved from the
> record.
Produce whatever you wish, none of it was "sworn...in front of Congress."
> "Neolibertarian" <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:35673$4f18d999$18f556a5$30...@allthenewsgroups.com...
> > In article <_MadnbgW4JkwzIrS...@giganews.com>,
> > "DGVREIMAN" <dgvr...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> >> I have amassed quite a bit of information on the Winter Soldier
> >> testimony which was sworn by Viet Nam vets in front of Congress.
> >
> > Clumsy falsehood.
>
> I see I am going to be required to publish what I retrieved from the
> record.
The Winter Soldier testimony was conducted in a Detroit Hotel, which had
been rented out by Jane Fonda.
It was later entered into the Congressional record by a Senator who
probably thought he was doing the right thing.
As to publishing, you're a little late. The full testimony is already
published and freely available on the internet:
http://www.wintersoldier.com/index.php?topic=CompletWSI
> > >>
> >> If you run into an "officer" with a bunch of Viet Nam era medals,
> >> ask
> >> him who wrote up his after action reports, and there is a good
> >> chance
> >> he was involved in the write ups,
> >
> > OF COURSE he was, goofy. That's been US military doctrine since the
> > Revolutionary War for crying out loud.
> >
> > Who would you suppose is to write up the after action report?
> >
> >> either through S-3 or in some other
> >> capacity such as being chums with the authors.
>
> Obviously, this poster just made my point. You cannot expect an
> officer to write up his own after action report and say he was a
> coward.
After action reports are written with far more cross-checking and
> >> If you run into an "officer" with a bunch of Viet Nam era medals,
> >> ask
> >> him who wrote up his after action reports, and there is a good
> >> chance
> >> he was involved in the write ups,
> >
> > OF COURSE he was, goofy. That's been US military doctrine since the
> > Revolutionary War for crying out loud.
> >
> > Who would you suppose is to write up the after action report?
> >
> >> either through S-3 or in some other
> >> capacity such as being chums with the authors.
>
> Obviously, this poster just made my point. You cannot expect an
> officer to write up his own after action report and say he was a
> coward.
accountability than the Winter Soldier testimony.
To say the least.
Those reports aren't a venue for boasting. And never have been.
> >>
> >> I am not saying *every* officer that served in Viet Nam
> >
> > Your opinions are worth what we paid for them.
>
> I do not remember charging for them - but I will produce the
> Congressional record. Moreover, considering ALL of the information
> officers that testified confirmed they were ordered to lie in the
> After Action reports, most people would consider that "corroboration."
The testimony of the WSI is completely worthless by any and all
> >> I am not saying *every* officer that served in Viet Nam
> >
> > Your opinions are worth what we paid for them.
>
> I do not remember charging for them - but I will produce the
> Congressional record. Moreover, considering ALL of the information
> officers that testified confirmed they were ordered to lie in the
> After Action reports, most people would consider that "corroboration."
objective criteria.
>
> MACV clearly was using politics, and censorship to make themselves
> look good - if you had served in Viet Nam you would know this fact to
> be true.
There's politics and ambition in the army? Who'da thunk?
> MACV clearly was using politics, and censorship to make themselves
> look good - if you had served in Viet Nam you would know this fact to
> be true.
But you haven't even begun to make a valid case for the kind of
corruption you're imagining.
It just didn't happen.
Myths, once accepted as facts, are almost impossible to unlearn.
You prolly think the so-called "body counts" were inflated, too.
Neolibertarian
Jan 21, 2012, 2:18:35 AM1/21/12
to
In article <jfapu...@drn.newsguy.com>,
I already did, dummy.
http://www.wintersoldier.com/index.php?topic=CID
For instance:
Beitzel, John, 21, Sgt. (E-5), 4/21, 11th Brigade, Americal Division
(January 1969 to January 1970).
Allegation: 1) Indiscriminate firing upon unarmed Vietnamese, 2) Torture
and maltreatment of prisoners/detainees, 3) Mutilation of dead bodies.
Investigation summary: Complainants Beitzel and Joseph Brenman refused
to provide specific information to support their allegations, which were
made in a venue other than WSI, but are basically the same. Joe Bangert
(USMC) and Jeffrey Dubrow (USN) accompanied Beitzel and Brenman at the
subject venue.
Result: Investigation terminated; insufficient evidence.
Followed by a copy of the actual CID record obtained through FOIA
requests:
http://www.wintersoldier.com/cid/Brenman-Beitzel.pdf
Right wing, left wing, the evidence won't get more firm for a Usenet
discussion.
http://www.wintersoldier.com/index.php?topic=CID
For instance:
Beitzel, John, 21, Sgt. (E-5), 4/21, 11th Brigade, Americal Division
(January 1969 to January 1970).
Allegation: 1) Indiscriminate firing upon unarmed Vietnamese, 2) Torture
and maltreatment of prisoners/detainees, 3) Mutilation of dead bodies.
Investigation summary: Complainants Beitzel and Joseph Brenman refused
to provide specific information to support their allegations, which were
made in a venue other than WSI, but are basically the same. Joe Bangert
(USMC) and Jeffrey Dubrow (USN) accompanied Beitzel and Brenman at the
subject venue.
Result: Investigation terminated; insufficient evidence.
Followed by a copy of the actual CID record obtained through FOIA
requests:
http://www.wintersoldier.com/cid/Brenman-Beitzel.pdf
Right wing, left wing, the evidence won't get more firm for a Usenet
discussion.
Mac
Jan 21, 2012, 3:52:39 AM1/21/12
to
On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 15:19:57 -0800, DGVREIMAN wrote:
> I have amassed quite a bit of information on the Winter Soldier
> testimony which was sworn by Viet Nam vets in front of Congress. I
> will publish some of it later.
[ SNIP ]
> I have amassed quite a bit of information on the Winter Soldier
> testimony which was sworn by Viet Nam vets in front of Congress. I
> will publish some of it later.
With all due respect but from what little I can remember with my usual
five cups of coffee, I do NOT believe that those persons were under
oath when testifying.
At the same time. out of, let's say twenty persons, how many were
actually stationed in Vietnam during 1964-1970??
And were those one or two people actually in a combat situation?
Kindlyadvise.
And, by the way, I believe that this NewsGroup delved into the matter of
the "Winter Soldier" antics a couple of years past...
-Mac, the Medic
Mac
Jan 21, 2012, 4:06:28 AM1/21/12
to
On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 15:11:39 -0800, DGVREIMAN wrote:
> I have amassed quite a bit of information on the Winter Soldier
> testimony which was sworn by Viet Nam vets in front of Congress. I
> will publish some of it later.
******************************************
> I have amassed quite a bit of information on the Winter Soldier
> testimony which was sworn by Viet Nam vets in front of Congress. I
> will publish some of it later.
Rather than BEFORE Congress, here is where the initial presentation was
made:
<< http://www.wintersoldier.com/ >>
On January 31, 1971, members of Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW)
met in a Detroit hotel to discuss war crimes they claimed to have
participated in or witnessed during their combat tours in Vietnam. During
the next three days, more than 100 Vietnam veterans and 16 civilians gave
anguished, emotional testimony describing hundreds of atrocities against
innocent civilians in South Vietnam, including rape, arson, torture,
murder, and the shelling or napalming of entire villages. The witnesses
stated that these acts were being committed casually and routinely, under
orders, as a matter of policy.
In April, the VVAW stormed Washington in a week-long protest. At its
height, spokesman John Kerry went before the Senate Committee on Foreign
Relations to accuse the United States military of committing massive
numbers of war crimes in Vietnam. The appearance launched Kerry's
political career. The charges he made shocked and sickened a nation,
changed the course of a war and stained the reputation of the American
military for decades.
But the mass murder of civilians was never American policy in Vietnam.
War crimes were the exception, not the rule. And the Winter Soldier
tribunal itself -- which John Kerry had helped moderate -- turned out to
be "packed with pretenders and liars."
----------
What happened when military investigators asked the "winter soldiers" for
evidence of all the war crimes they had alleged? Mostly stonewalling,
backtracking, and statements that failed to support the VVAW's claims...
See Newly Discovered Army Reports Discredit "Winter Soldier" Claims by
Scott Swett for the full story.
<< http://www.wintersoldier.com/staticpages/index.php?page=Swett_CID >>
Also check out the original summary reports of the Army's VVAW
investigations.
<< http://www.wintersoldier.com/staticpages/index.php?page=WSI_CID >>
----------
Enemy documents from 1971 show that Vietnamese communists guided the
American antiwar movement via meetings between the communist delegations
to the Paris Peace talks and American antiwar activists. John Kerry and
the VVAW were working toward the exact goals set forth in the communist
directives.
Read about it in John Kerry and the VVAW: Hanoi's American Puppets? by
Dr. Jerome Corsi and Scott Swett.
<< http://www.wintersoldier.com/staticpages/index.php?page=puppets >>
----------
In Yesterday's Lies: Steve Pitkin and the Winter Soldiers, Scott Swett
tells the story of a former VVAW member and participant in the Winter
Soldier Investigation who has now filed an affidavit stating that John
Kerry and others pressured him to give false testimony about American
atrocities in Vietnam.
<< http://www.wintersoldier.com/staticpages/index.php?
page=YesterdaysLies1 >>
-------------------------
-Mac,the Medic
!Jones
Jan 21, 2012, 9:16:35 AM1/21/12
to
On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 15:11:39 -0800, in alt.war.vietnam "DGVREIMAN"
<dgvr...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Yet since
>those that actually wrote the reports testified under oath in front of
>Congress that they were ordered to lie in *every* report, one must
>wonder just how wide spread bogus medals to officers based upon those
>lies really were? If all the reports were lies, then all the medals
>based upon those reports must also be lies. . . stands to reason
Doug, you can't *order* somebody to lie on an official report. I
<dgvr...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Yet since
>those that actually wrote the reports testified under oath in front of
>Congress that they were ordered to lie in *every* report, one must
>wonder just how wide spread bogus medals to officers based upon those
>lies really were? If all the reports were lies, then all the medals
>based upon those reports must also be lies. . . stands to reason
mean, you can, of course (for example, I was ordered to rape the nuns
and kill the babies); however, since *you* cannot legally lie on the
report, the order has no meaning and any NCO would know that. They
either lied or they didn't. If they did, then why do you believe that
they've suddenly become truthful people?
I have seen some reports that were purely works of fiction. I have
seen people receive medals for nothing more than doing a little
yelling and shooting into the foliage.
But, I disagree with your logic. It "stands to reason" (to me,
anyway) that if someone is willing to lie for a medal, then he or she
is equally likely to lie under oath; what difference does it make?
Jones
!Jones
Jan 21, 2012, 9:31:44 AM1/21/12
to
On 18 Jan 2012 21:20:58 -0800, in alt.war.vietnam Bill Clarke
kind... their Moms, did, anyway. My brother received the Silver
Star... if you strap on an F4 or amtrac, that's pretty heroic... but,
all he did in addition to *that* was to take a direct hit from the AAA
and game over. He even has a street on Shepard AFB named after him.
And I'm not saying they're not real... not saying they are. If you
send the kid home in a box, what's the harm in adding a medal in there
with him? Kinna like a toy in a ceral box, I guess? I'd be willing
to wager that somebody at DOA probably awarded the Lts a medal as
their coffins came through graves registration.
Back in the '90s, we had a guy posting here who worked graves
registration... what was that turkey's name? from Escalante, UT, as I
recall... Robert Brown??? Anyway, he said 'bout the same thing.
Jones
<Bill_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>I don’t remember seeing any “shaved tails” (2nd Lieutenants) in Vietnam. There
>might have and probably were some in Chu Lai in finance and supply but I don’t
>remember any on Hawk Hill. Just what were these shaved tails that you saw doing
>in Vietnam? Did they have a combat MOS?
>
>The year I was a member of F Troop we went through 3 Captains and 8 First
>Lieutenants. The only Silver Star awarded was to the last Captain. The CO of
>the 196th LIB told me if I wrote it up he would sign it. I did and he did. The
>Captain couldn’t write it because he was in the hospital in Chu Lai with his leg
>blown off.
>
>And I have to ask; just how many Lts did you know that received the Silver Star?
>
>I think you are full of shit. I worked for and knew very well the S-3 of the
>1/1 Cav and the S-3 of the 196th LIB. To think either man would allow some 1Lt
>to write his after action report is laughable.
>
>Bill Clarke, who didn’t write his own Purple Heart either.
As a rule, Uncle, most anyone who was killed received a medal of some
>I don’t remember seeing any “shaved tails” (2nd Lieutenants) in Vietnam. There
>might have and probably were some in Chu Lai in finance and supply but I don’t
>remember any on Hawk Hill. Just what were these shaved tails that you saw doing
>in Vietnam? Did they have a combat MOS?
>
>The year I was a member of F Troop we went through 3 Captains and 8 First
>Lieutenants. The only Silver Star awarded was to the last Captain. The CO of
>the 196th LIB told me if I wrote it up he would sign it. I did and he did. The
>Captain couldn’t write it because he was in the hospital in Chu Lai with his leg
>blown off.
>
>And I have to ask; just how many Lts did you know that received the Silver Star?
>
>I think you are full of shit. I worked for and knew very well the S-3 of the
>1/1 Cav and the S-3 of the 196th LIB. To think either man would allow some 1Lt
>to write his after action report is laughable.
>
>Bill Clarke, who didn’t write his own Purple Heart either.
kind... their Moms, did, anyway. My brother received the Silver
Star... if you strap on an F4 or amtrac, that's pretty heroic... but,
all he did in addition to *that* was to take a direct hit from the AAA
and game over. He even has a street on Shepard AFB named after him.
And I'm not saying they're not real... not saying they are. If you
send the kid home in a box, what's the harm in adding a medal in there
with him? Kinna like a toy in a ceral box, I guess? I'd be willing
to wager that somebody at DOA probably awarded the Lts a medal as
their coffins came through graves registration.
Back in the '90s, we had a guy posting here who worked graves
registration... what was that turkey's name? from Escalante, UT, as I
recall... Robert Brown??? Anyway, he said 'bout the same thing.
Jones
!Jones
Jan 21, 2012, 9:35:00 AM1/21/12
to
On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 00:21:59 -0600, in alt.war.vietnam "Nigel Brooks"
<nbr...@msn.com> wrote:
>I agree with you about him being full of shit.
<GASP>
<nbr...@msn.com> wrote:
>I agree with you about him being full of shit.
On AWV? Say it ain't so!!!
Nigel Brooks
Jan 21, 2012, 11:11:11 AM1/21/12
to
news:jfddt...@drn.newsguy.com...
> Me and others have had similar experiences.
Shouldn't that be Myself and others?
Bill Clarke
Jan 21, 2012, 11:34:27 AM1/21/12
to
In article <18ilh7dd87icqmhq0...@4ax.com>, !Jones says...
Of course Nephew. They would all receive the Purple Heart. And I agree with
you, there were probably sometimes other medals added, mostly for the families
and I really have no problem with that. But I doubt these added medals
routinely included the Silver Star. They were more likely in the form of
commendation medals and Bronze Stars with and without the V device.
I remember the fellow that worked in graves registration (the coolers as the
troops called it) but not his name.
Bill Clarke
you, there were probably sometimes other medals added, mostly for the families
and I really have no problem with that. But I doubt these added medals
routinely included the Silver Star. They were more likely in the form of
commendation medals and Bronze Stars with and without the V device.
I remember the fellow that worked in graves registration (the coolers as the
troops called it) but not his name.
Bill Clarke
Nigel Brooks
Jan 21, 2012, 11:43:06 AM1/21/12
to
"Bill Clarke" <Bill_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:jfdm4...@drn.newsguy.com...
Reiman said the following:
Joe, the sad truth is the Brits are right. I went through three
Butter Bars during my first tour in Vietnam (as a SFC) then I
went to OCS and returned as a Butter Bar myself. Half of my
graduating class in OCS Ft. Benning ended up dead or wounded.
Doug Grant (Tm)
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.security.terrorism/msg/27feae319d3c592d?&hl=en
The "sad truth" however is that Mr. Reiman's military records received under
a hotly contested Freedom of Information Act Request revealed the following
concerning his Vietnam service and his graduating class in OCS Ft. Benning:
Reiman was assigned to OCS Class 13-66 at Ft Benning with orders to report
April 24, 1966. At that time his rank was Special Five - E-5. His records
do not reflect any information whatsoever that he had served a tour of
Vietnam prior to reporting to OCS.
On May 19, 1966, approximately 4 weeks after his report date, Mr. Reiman
was no longer an OCS Candidate but was awaiting further reassignment in the
Casual Company.
Regarding his claim "I went through three butter bars during my first tour
in Vietnam (as a SFC) then I went to OCS and returned as a butter bar
myself"
Mr. Reiman never received a commission, and instead of returning as a
"butter bar", Mr. Reiman was reassigned to Europe directly from Ft. Benning
as a Finance Specialist. His first assignment to Vietnam was in February
1968 about 21 months after he departed OCS. He was promoted to SFC E-7 in
December 1968.
Considering the fact that Mr. Reiman never graduated from any OCS class at
Ft. Benning, I'll leave it to the reader to assess the veracity of his claim
that "half my graduating class in OCS Ft. Benning ended up dead or
wounded"
Bill Clarke
Jan 21, 2012, 4:13:52 PM1/21/12
to
In article <9o085r...@mid.individual.net>, Nigel Brooks says...
Ah ha! Just as Nigel and I suspected. The man is full of shit. A big fat
liar.
Thanks for the intel.
Bill Clarke
liar.
Thanks for the intel.
Bill Clarke
dino
Jan 21, 2012, 11:06:12 PM1/21/12
to
In article <9b86c$4f1a63f5$18f556a5$40...@allthenewsgroups.com>, Neolibertarian
says...
evidence means that there is insufficient evidence to prosecute. There is no
evidence anywhere by anyone that supports the allegation that they did not serve
in Vietnam. If you had this evidence, you would present it. Instead you
present unfounded assertions.
>For instance:
>
>Beitzel, John, 21, Sgt. (E-5), 4/21,
>11th Brigade, Americal Division
>(January 1969 to January 1970).
>
>Allegation: 1) Indiscriminate firing
>upon unarmed Vietnamese, 2) Torture
>and maltreatment of prisoners/detainees,
>3) Mutilation of dead bodies.
>Investigation summary: Complainants
>Beitzel and Joseph Brenman refused
>to provide specific information to
>support their allegations, which were
>made in a venue other than WSI, but
>are basically the same. Joe Bangert
>(USMC) and Jeffrey Dubrow (USN)
>accompanied Beitzel and Brenman at the
>subject venue.
>
>Result: Investigation terminated;
>insufficient evidence.
>
>Followed by a copy of the actual CID
>record obtained through FOIA requests:
>
>http://www.wintersoldier.com/cid/Brenman-Beitzel.pdf
"On 19 Mar 71, Beitzel was interviewed and declined to furnish the photographs
or specific information concerning his allegations. Beitzel stated that the
Army was capable of investigating only localized incidents. He felt that only a
Congressional investigation could emcopass all war crimes committed in RVN, and
place the responsibility on the 'Major Commander.' Until such time, he would
withold all information."
It couldn't be anymore clear: Beitzel demanded accountability from those in
command but was refused. There is absolutely nothing in the CID summary that
even hints that Beitzel was not telling the truth.
>Right wing, left wing, the evidence
>won't get more firm for a Usenet
>discussion.
From wintersoldier.com:
"Enemy documents from 1971 show that Vietnamese communists guided the American
antiwar movement via meetings between the communist delegations to the Paris
Peace talks and American antiwar activists. John Kerry and the VVAW were working
toward the exact goals set forth in the communist directives.
Read about it in John Kerry and the VVAW: Hanoi's American Puppets? by Dr.
Jerome Corsi and Scott Swett."
Sure, let us read about Jerome Corsi:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerome_Corsi
"Jerome Robert Corsi (born August 31, 1946) is an American author, political
commentator and conspiracy theorist."
"In other books and columns for conservative websites such as WorldNetDaily and
Human Events, Corsi has discussed topics that are considered conspiracy theories
in some circles, such as the alleged plans for a North American Government, the
theory that President Barack Obama is not an American citizen; criticism of the
United States government for allegedly covering up information about the
terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, promoting the Abiogenic hypothesis of
the origin of oil (arguing that oil is produced from chemical reactions in the
Earth, in contrast to the general consensus of the scientific community that oil
is produced from organic materials, such as zooplankton and algae), and alleged
United States support of Iran in its attempts to develop nuclear weapons."
So, that's it, isn't it? You rally around the Righteous Right conspirasists
because that is what tickles your ears.
I'll say it again: There is no evidence that any of the Winter Soldiers did did
not serve in Vietnam. There is no evidence that any of their stories have been
proven to be false.
says...
>
>In article <jfapu...@drn.newsguy.com>,
> dino <dino_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <35673$4f18d999$18f556a5$30...@allthenewsgroups.com>,
>> Neolibertarian
>> says...
>> >
>> >Some were found to be out-and-out
>> >lying, having not served in Vietnam
>> >at all, or actually found to have
>> >served in units other than those
>> >they claimed at the Michigan
>> >hearings.
>>
>> These claims are repeated ad nausaum
>> in the Righteous Right web sites, but
>> I've never seen any evidence to
>> support these assertions. Do you
>> have this evidence that no one else
>> has ever seen? If so, please present
>> them and be as specific as possible.
>
>I already did, dummy.
>
>http://www.wintersoldier.com/index.php?topic=CID
What part of "insufficient evidence" do you not understand? Insufficient
>In article <jfapu...@drn.newsguy.com>,
> dino <dino_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <35673$4f18d999$18f556a5$30...@allthenewsgroups.com>,
>> Neolibertarian
>> says...
>> >
>> >Some were found to be out-and-out
>> >lying, having not served in Vietnam
>> >at all, or actually found to have
>> >served in units other than those
>> >they claimed at the Michigan
>> >hearings.
>>
>> These claims are repeated ad nausaum
>> in the Righteous Right web sites, but
>> I've never seen any evidence to
>> support these assertions. Do you
>> have this evidence that no one else
>> has ever seen? If so, please present
>> them and be as specific as possible.
>
>I already did, dummy.
>
>http://www.wintersoldier.com/index.php?topic=CID
evidence means that there is insufficient evidence to prosecute. There is no
evidence anywhere by anyone that supports the allegation that they did not serve
in Vietnam. If you had this evidence, you would present it. Instead you
present unfounded assertions.
>For instance:
>
>Beitzel, John, 21, Sgt. (E-5), 4/21,
>11th Brigade, Americal Division
>(January 1969 to January 1970).
>
>Allegation: 1) Indiscriminate firing
>upon unarmed Vietnamese, 2) Torture
>and maltreatment of prisoners/detainees,
>3) Mutilation of dead bodies.
>Investigation summary: Complainants
>Beitzel and Joseph Brenman refused
>to provide specific information to
>support their allegations, which were
>made in a venue other than WSI, but
>are basically the same. Joe Bangert
>(USMC) and Jeffrey Dubrow (USN)
>accompanied Beitzel and Brenman at the
>subject venue.
>
>Result: Investigation terminated;
>insufficient evidence.
>
>Followed by a copy of the actual CID
>record obtained through FOIA requests:
>
>http://www.wintersoldier.com/cid/Brenman-Beitzel.pdf
or specific information concerning his allegations. Beitzel stated that the
Army was capable of investigating only localized incidents. He felt that only a
Congressional investigation could emcopass all war crimes committed in RVN, and
place the responsibility on the 'Major Commander.' Until such time, he would
withold all information."
It couldn't be anymore clear: Beitzel demanded accountability from those in
command but was refused. There is absolutely nothing in the CID summary that
even hints that Beitzel was not telling the truth.
>Right wing, left wing, the evidence
>won't get more firm for a Usenet
>discussion.
"Enemy documents from 1971 show that Vietnamese communists guided the American
antiwar movement via meetings between the communist delegations to the Paris
Peace talks and American antiwar activists. John Kerry and the VVAW were working
toward the exact goals set forth in the communist directives.
Read about it in John Kerry and the VVAW: Hanoi's American Puppets? by Dr.
Jerome Corsi and Scott Swett."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerome_Corsi
"Jerome Robert Corsi (born August 31, 1946) is an American author, political
commentator and conspiracy theorist."
"In other books and columns for conservative websites such as WorldNetDaily and
Human Events, Corsi has discussed topics that are considered conspiracy theories
in some circles, such as the alleged plans for a North American Government, the
theory that President Barack Obama is not an American citizen; criticism of the
United States government for allegedly covering up information about the
terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, promoting the Abiogenic hypothesis of
the origin of oil (arguing that oil is produced from chemical reactions in the
Earth, in contrast to the general consensus of the scientific community that oil
is produced from organic materials, such as zooplankton and algae), and alleged
United States support of Iran in its attempts to develop nuclear weapons."
So, that's it, isn't it? You rally around the Righteous Right conspirasists
because that is what tickles your ears.
I'll say it again: There is no evidence that any of the Winter Soldiers did did
not serve in Vietnam. There is no evidence that any of their stories have been
proven to be false.
Newt
Jan 21, 2012, 11:20:38 PM1/21/12
to
In article <fjhlh718uqlh26vlv...@4ax.com>, !Jones says...
large as a watermellon; may your piles get pus infected...
>
>
>I have seen some reports that were purely works of fiction. I have
>seen people receive medals for nothing more than doing a little
>yelling and shooting into the foliage.
You anti-American asshole! May your dick rot off; may your prostate grow as
>
>I have seen some reports that were purely works of fiction. I have
>seen people receive medals for nothing more than doing a little
>yelling and shooting into the foliage.
large as a watermellon; may your piles get pus infected...
dino
Jan 21, 2012, 11:27:07 PM1/21/12
to
Tankfixer
Jan 22, 2012, 11:55:21 AM1/22/12
to
In article <C--dnYwV57w2aoTS...@giganews.com>, - DGVREIMAN
dgvr...@comcast.net spouted !
> Exposing such fraud can only help our military in the future.
Rather ironic you said that...
dgvr...@comcast.net spouted !
> Exposing such fraud can only help our military in the future.
Neolibertarian
Jan 22, 2012, 12:59:29 PM1/22/12
to
In article <jfg1v...@drn.newsguy.com>,
That particular assertion was from the NIS (NCIS of TV fame) reports,
not the CID investigation reports. The CID merely couldn't turn up
several of the witnesses--who knows if they were real names in the first
place, or merely individuals who proved hard to locate?
The assertion is from Lewy's seminal history "America in Vietnam"
(1978), "Lewy also reported that several veterans told the NIS in sworn
statements corroborated by witnesses that they had not been in Detroit
-- i.e., the VVAW activists who used their names were imposters."
http://www.wintersoldier.com/staticpages/index.php?page=Swett_CID
Congressmen aren't going to convene an investigative committee if the
witnesses in question refuse to corroborate their claims to military
investigators.
The Winter Soldier witnesses knew that perfectly well, even if you don't.
Claiming you won't testify except before Congress amounts to the same as
saying you won't testify.
The opportunity to report war crimes is when you're being interviewed by
CID.
Red herring: No one was discussing Corsi, until you brought him up.
We were discussing the discredited Winter Soldier testimony.
Aggravated assault.
Investigation summary: Complainant refused to make any statement or
provide any information.
===
Allegation: 1) Murder of unidentified Vietnamese and prisoners, 2)
Assault, 3) Destruction of private property.
Investigation summary: Complainant refused to provide any statement,
saying the only subject he would identify was President Johnson.
>
===
Allegation: 1) Murder of Vietnamese civilians and prisoners, 2)
Mutilation of enemy dead, 3) Indiscriminate use of fire power, 4)
Refusing to render medical aid.
Investigation summary: Complainant refused to provide any statement on
advice of counsel concerning both WSI and LIFE Magazine allegations.
===
Allegation: 1) Indiscriminate use of fire power resulting in the deaths
of unidentified Vietnamese, 2) Maltreatment of prisoners.
Investigation summary: Complainant backtracked on his WSI allegations,
saying that he had not witnessed the maltreatment of prisoners, and that
he saw no bodies and could not identify the military units involved in
the alleged events.
===
Allegation: 1) Maltreatment of prisoners.
Investigation summary: Complainant backtracked on his WSI allegations,
stating that Vietnamese troops rather than American troops had committed
illegal acts.
===
Allegation: 1) Mutilation of enemy dead and unidentified Vietnamese.
Investigation summary: Complainant provided a written, sworn statement
in support of his allegation. Multiple witnesses interviewed
contradicted Shepard's claims, and further investigation also failed to
support his statements.
===
Allegation: 1) Murder of unidentified Vietnamese, 2) Desecration of
graves, 3 Destruction of private property.
Investigation summary: Complainant refused to answer any questions about
his allegations. He further stated that if the President of the United
States was investigated for war crimes, he would release information
relative to his testimony.
===
There's lots more.
None of the testimony was corroborated nor substantiated.
John Kerry used the WSI testimony as the basis for his allegations
before Congress.
Even Kerry was forced to admit, much later, that all of those
accusations were false. He exonerated himself by pointing out all those
claims were made before the Senate as hearsay evidence.
not the CID investigation reports. The CID merely couldn't turn up
several of the witnesses--who knows if they were real names in the first
place, or merely individuals who proved hard to locate?
The assertion is from Lewy's seminal history "America in Vietnam"
(1978), "Lewy also reported that several veterans told the NIS in sworn
statements corroborated by witnesses that they had not been in Detroit
-- i.e., the VVAW activists who used their names were imposters."
http://www.wintersoldier.com/staticpages/index.php?page=Swett_CID
witnesses in question refuse to corroborate their claims to military
investigators.
The Winter Soldier witnesses knew that perfectly well, even if you don't.
Claiming you won't testify except before Congress amounts to the same as
saying you won't testify.
The opportunity to report war crimes is when you're being interviewed by
CID.
We were discussing the discredited Winter Soldier testimony.
>
> I'll say it again: There is no evidence that any of the Winter Soldiers did
> did
> not serve in Vietnam. There is no evidence that any of their stories have
> been
> proven to be false.
>
Allegation: 1) Murder of unidentified North Vietnamese Army soldier, 2)
> I'll say it again: There is no evidence that any of the Winter Soldiers did
> did
> not serve in Vietnam. There is no evidence that any of their stories have
> been
> proven to be false.
>
Aggravated assault.
Investigation summary: Complainant refused to make any statement or
provide any information.
===
Allegation: 1) Murder of unidentified Vietnamese and prisoners, 2)
Assault, 3) Destruction of private property.
Investigation summary: Complainant refused to provide any statement,
saying the only subject he would identify was President Johnson.
>
===
Allegation: 1) Murder of Vietnamese civilians and prisoners, 2)
Mutilation of enemy dead, 3) Indiscriminate use of fire power, 4)
Refusing to render medical aid.
Investigation summary: Complainant refused to provide any statement on
advice of counsel concerning both WSI and LIFE Magazine allegations.
===
Allegation: 1) Indiscriminate use of fire power resulting in the deaths
of unidentified Vietnamese, 2) Maltreatment of prisoners.
Investigation summary: Complainant backtracked on his WSI allegations,
saying that he had not witnessed the maltreatment of prisoners, and that
he saw no bodies and could not identify the military units involved in
the alleged events.
===
Allegation: 1) Maltreatment of prisoners.
Investigation summary: Complainant backtracked on his WSI allegations,
stating that Vietnamese troops rather than American troops had committed
illegal acts.
===
Allegation: 1) Mutilation of enemy dead and unidentified Vietnamese.
Investigation summary: Complainant provided a written, sworn statement
in support of his allegation. Multiple witnesses interviewed
contradicted Shepard's claims, and further investigation also failed to
support his statements.
===
Allegation: 1) Murder of unidentified Vietnamese, 2) Desecration of
graves, 3 Destruction of private property.
Investigation summary: Complainant refused to answer any questions about
his allegations. He further stated that if the President of the United
States was investigated for war crimes, he would release information
relative to his testimony.
===
There's lots more.
None of the testimony was corroborated nor substantiated.
John Kerry used the WSI testimony as the basis for his allegations
before Congress.
Even Kerry was forced to admit, much later, that all of those
accusations were false. He exonerated himself by pointing out all those
claims were made before the Senate as hearsay evidence.
dino
Jan 22, 2012, 2:28:40 PM1/22/12
to
In article <27362$4f1c4ba6$18f556a5$11...@allthenewsgroups.com>, Neolibertarian
No, it wasn't. There are no NIS reports.
>The CID merely couldn't turn up several
>of the witnesses--who knows if they were
>real names in the first place, or merely
>individuals who proved hard to locate?
The CID did interrogate several members of the WSI. The summaries of those
investigations are included as links to the URL that you offered:
http://www.wintersoldier.com/index.php?topic=CID
>The assertion is from Lewy's seminal
>history "America in Vietnam" (1978),
>"Lewy also reported that several
>veterans told the NIS in sworn
>statements corroborated by witnesses
>that they had not been in Detroit
>-- i.e., the VVAW activists who used
>their names were imposters."
And, where are these "witnesses" and sworn statements? The documents that Lewy
claimed to have existed are nowhere to be found. NCIS has no record that such
documents ever existed. Recently, Lewy stated that he couldn't remember if he
ever saw those documents or just heard about them from somebody. In other
words: The documents do not exist and probably never did. Until someone
actually finds them, we can mark that off as bullshit.
Apparently not in this case.
>The Winter Soldier witnesses knew
>that perfectly well, even if you don't.
That's your assertion. Do you have evidence of your assertion?
Testimony from the WSI members says otherwise. They felt that atrocities were a
systemic problem therefore they would not testify against individuals because
they felt that the fault did not lie with them, but with the commanding
officers. It's right there in their testimony. You can find it on
wintersoldier.com
>Claiming you won't testify except
>before Congress amounts to the same
>as saying you won't testify.
They had already testified. They just didn't provide further clarification
during interrogation for reasons which they quite clearly explained. That is
not proof that they were lying. No one has ever proved any of their comments to
be lies nor has anyone ever proved that they were lying about their service in
Vietnam.
>The opportunity to report war crimes
>is when you're being interviewed by
>CID.
Read their testimonies and you'll understand it better.
How do you not discuss him? That information was taken from the website that
you provided, wintersoldier.com. It's him and his accomplice, Scott Swett, that
are the primary muck rakers. I told Dai Uy some time ago that this bullshit was
nothing more than a conspiracy theory, and here we have one of the originators
of it, Jerome Corsi, conspiracy theorist.
>We were discussing the discredited
>Winter Soldier testimony.
None of it has ever been discredited. That is an unfounded assertion. You have
presented no evidence to back up your assertion.
>> I'll say it again: There is no
>> evidence that any of the Winter Soldiers
>> did did not serve in Vietnam. There is
>> no evidence that any of their stories have
>> been proven to be false.
>>
>Allegation: 1) Murder of unidentified
>North Vietnamese Army soldier, 2)
>Aggravated assault.
>
>Investigation summary: Complainant
>refused to make any statement or
>provide any information.
No evidence of lying here.
>Allegation: 1) Murder of unidentified
>Vietnamese and prisoners, 2) Assault,
>3) Destruction of private property.
>
>Investigation summary: Complainant
>refused to provide any statement,
>saying the only subject he would
>identify was President Johnson.
No lying here.
>Allegation: 1) Murder of Vietnamese
>civilians and prisoners, 2) Mutilation
>of enemy dead, 3) Indiscriminate use
>of fire power, 4) Refusing to render
>medical aid.
>
>Investigation summary: Complainant
>refused to provide any statement on
>advice of counsel concerning both WSI
>and LIFE Magazine allegations.
No lying here.
>Allegation: 1) Indiscriminate use of
>fire power resulting in the deaths
>of unidentified Vietnamese, 2)
>Maltreatment of prisoners.
>
>Investigation summary: Complainant
>backtracked on his WSI allegations,
>saying that he had not witnessed the
>maltreatment of prisoners, and that
>he saw no bodies and could not identify
>the military units involved in
>the alleged events.
This is not the CID summary. This is the opinion of Scott Swett. If you wish
to produce the actual summary, I will be more than pleased to show you that
there was no backtracking involved.
>Allegation: 1) Maltreatment of
>prisoners.
>
>Investigation summary: Complainant
>backtracked on his WSI allegations,
>stating that Vietnamese troops rather
>than American troops had committed
>illegal acts.
This is not the CID summary. This is the personal opinion of Scott Swett. If
you wish to produce the actual summary, I will be more than pleased to show you
that there was no backtracking involved.
>Allegation: 1) Mutilation of enemy
>dead and unidentified Vietnamese.
>
>Investigation summary: Complainant
>provided a written, sworn statement
>in support of his allegation.
>Multiple witnesses interviewed
>contradicted Shepard's claims, and
>further investigation also failed to
>support his statements.
Let me guess? He provided a sworn statement and those who could have been held
responsible denied the allegations. Right? Produce a copy of the CID summary
and I'll discuss this with you, otherwise we'll chalk this up as more Scott
Swett bullshit.
>Allegation: 1) Murder of unidentified
>Vietnamese, 2) Desecration of graves,
>3 Destruction of private property.
>
>Investigation summary: Complainant
>refused to answer any questions about
>his allegations. He further stated that
>if the President of the United States
>was investigated for war crimes, he
>would release information relative to
>his testimony.
No lying there.
>There's lots more.
You haven't produced even one piece of evidence to support your assertions, but
if you believe you have some, please present them.
>None of the testimony was corroborated
>nor substantiated.
That's not true, but never-the-less, that has nothing to do with the assertions
that there is evidence that the WSI members were not Vietnam vets and that the
testimonies were proven false. Those assertions are completely without
evidence.
>John Kerry used the WSI testimony as
>the basis for his allegations
>before Congress.
>
>Even Kerry was forced to admit, much
>later, that all of those accusations
>were false.
Cite please.
>He exonerated himself by pointing
>out all those claims were made before
>the Senate as hearsay evidence.
They weren't made before the Senate; they were made in a hotel. Similar claims
have been recently discovered that were investigated by the CID that did prove
that such things were occurring in all divisions throughout the war. Books
written, letters home, articles written, veteran's testimonies... there is too
much to deny unless you're a conspiracist.
>The CID merely couldn't turn up several
>of the witnesses--who knows if they were
>real names in the first place, or merely
>individuals who proved hard to locate?
investigations are included as links to the URL that you offered:
http://www.wintersoldier.com/index.php?topic=CID
>The assertion is from Lewy's seminal
>history "America in Vietnam" (1978),
>"Lewy also reported that several
>veterans told the NIS in sworn
>statements corroborated by witnesses
>that they had not been in Detroit
>-- i.e., the VVAW activists who used
>their names were imposters."
claimed to have existed are nowhere to be found. NCIS has no record that such
documents ever existed. Recently, Lewy stated that he couldn't remember if he
ever saw those documents or just heard about them from somebody. In other
words: The documents do not exist and probably never did. Until someone
actually finds them, we can mark that off as bullshit.
>The Winter Soldier witnesses knew
>that perfectly well, even if you don't.
Testimony from the WSI members says otherwise. They felt that atrocities were a
systemic problem therefore they would not testify against individuals because
they felt that the fault did not lie with them, but with the commanding
officers. It's right there in their testimony. You can find it on
wintersoldier.com
>Claiming you won't testify except
>before Congress amounts to the same
>as saying you won't testify.
during interrogation for reasons which they quite clearly explained. That is
not proof that they were lying. No one has ever proved any of their comments to
be lies nor has anyone ever proved that they were lying about their service in
Vietnam.
>The opportunity to report war crimes
>is when you're being interviewed by
>CID.
you provided, wintersoldier.com. It's him and his accomplice, Scott Swett, that
are the primary muck rakers. I told Dai Uy some time ago that this bullshit was
nothing more than a conspiracy theory, and here we have one of the originators
of it, Jerome Corsi, conspiracy theorist.
>We were discussing the discredited
>Winter Soldier testimony.
presented no evidence to back up your assertion.
>> I'll say it again: There is no
>> evidence that any of the Winter Soldiers
>> did did not serve in Vietnam. There is
>> no evidence that any of their stories have
>> been proven to be false.
>>
>Allegation: 1) Murder of unidentified
>North Vietnamese Army soldier, 2)
>Aggravated assault.
>
>Investigation summary: Complainant
>refused to make any statement or
>provide any information.
>Allegation: 1) Murder of unidentified
>Vietnamese and prisoners, 2) Assault,
>3) Destruction of private property.
>
>Investigation summary: Complainant
>refused to provide any statement,
>saying the only subject he would
>identify was President Johnson.
>Allegation: 1) Murder of Vietnamese
>civilians and prisoners, 2) Mutilation
>of enemy dead, 3) Indiscriminate use
>of fire power, 4) Refusing to render
>medical aid.
>
>Investigation summary: Complainant
>refused to provide any statement on
>advice of counsel concerning both WSI
>and LIFE Magazine allegations.
>Allegation: 1) Indiscriminate use of
>fire power resulting in the deaths
>of unidentified Vietnamese, 2)
>Maltreatment of prisoners.
>
>Investigation summary: Complainant
>backtracked on his WSI allegations,
>saying that he had not witnessed the
>maltreatment of prisoners, and that
>he saw no bodies and could not identify
>the military units involved in
>the alleged events.
to produce the actual summary, I will be more than pleased to show you that
there was no backtracking involved.
>Allegation: 1) Maltreatment of
>prisoners.
>
>Investigation summary: Complainant
>backtracked on his WSI allegations,
>stating that Vietnamese troops rather
>than American troops had committed
>illegal acts.
you wish to produce the actual summary, I will be more than pleased to show you
that there was no backtracking involved.
>Allegation: 1) Mutilation of enemy
>dead and unidentified Vietnamese.
>
>Investigation summary: Complainant
>provided a written, sworn statement
>in support of his allegation.
>Multiple witnesses interviewed
>contradicted Shepard's claims, and
>further investigation also failed to
>support his statements.
responsible denied the allegations. Right? Produce a copy of the CID summary
and I'll discuss this with you, otherwise we'll chalk this up as more Scott
Swett bullshit.
>Allegation: 1) Murder of unidentified
>Vietnamese, 2) Desecration of graves,
>3 Destruction of private property.
>
>Investigation summary: Complainant
>refused to answer any questions about
>his allegations. He further stated that
>if the President of the United States
>was investigated for war crimes, he
>would release information relative to
>his testimony.
>There's lots more.
You haven't produced even one piece of evidence to support your assertions, but
if you believe you have some, please present them.
>None of the testimony was corroborated
>nor substantiated.
that there is evidence that the WSI members were not Vietnam vets and that the
testimonies were proven false. Those assertions are completely without
evidence.
>John Kerry used the WSI testimony as
>the basis for his allegations
>before Congress.
>
>Even Kerry was forced to admit, much
>later, that all of those accusations
>were false.
>He exonerated himself by pointing
>out all those claims were made before
>the Senate as hearsay evidence.
have been recently discovered that were investigated by the CID that did prove
that such things were occurring in all divisions throughout the war. Books
written, letters home, articles written, veteran's testimonies... there is too
much to deny unless you're a conspiracist.
red...@lava.net
Jan 22, 2012, 6:33:53 PM1/22/12
to
reasons you will be defeated. -
redvet
Facilitator
Hawaii Outpost
Vietnam Veterans Against the War/Anti-Imperialist
http://host274.hostmonster.com/~vvawaior/
Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
Jan 22, 2012, 6:49:55 PM1/22/12
to
Neolibertarian wrote:
>
> None of the testimony was corroborated nor substantiated.
It could have been, one way or the other, if there had been
>
> None of the testimony was corroborated nor substantiated.
a real investigation (the goal of WSI) by the CID, but *clearly*
the U.S. military was afraid of that Pandora's box...oh what fun
that would have been!
The U.S. military's failure to do a bonafide investigation is
*strong* evidence that WSI was true.
;-)
!Jones
Jan 22, 2012, 7:39:03 PM1/22/12
to
On 21 Jan 2012 20:20:38 -0800, in alt.war.vietnam Newt
(I hate it when that happens.)
Jones
<Newt_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>You anti-American asshole! May your dick rot off; may your prostate grow as
>large as a watermellon; may your piles get pus infected...
Awww... CRAP! I've been flamed!
>You anti-American asshole! May your dick rot off; may your prostate grow as
>large as a watermellon; may your piles get pus infected...
(I hate it when that happens.)
Jones
!Jones
Jan 22, 2012, 7:42:38 PM1/22/12
to
On Sun, 22 Jan 2012 13:33:53 -1000, in alt.war.vietnam red...@lava.net
wrote:
>We think your anger is miss-directed and wrong. Which is one of the
>reasons you will be defeated. -
I voted for Obama in the last election. I'd probably have considered
McCain; however, Palin took him off the table. I could easily be
coaxed away from Obama; however, it'll take a moderate to do it as I
tend to center. I like Newt in that he brings some color; however,
I'm not even *about* to vote for him.
Jones
wrote:
>We think your anger is miss-directed and wrong. Which is one of the
>reasons you will be defeated. -
McCain; however, Palin took him off the table. I could easily be
coaxed away from Obama; however, it'll take a moderate to do it as I
tend to center. I like Newt in that he brings some color; however,
I'm not even *about* to vote for him.
Jones
dino
Jan 22, 2012, 8:17:10 PM1/22/12
to
In article <evaph7hv8ptaksu40...@4ax.com>, !Jones says...
It was just me, dickhead. It was irony or sarcasm or too much wine. You get to
choose. I'm doing stuffed peppers tonight. They should be done in a few
minutes. How's things along the coast? Done any fishing lately? You still
have that Boston Whaler or whatever it was?
choose. I'm doing stuffed peppers tonight. They should be done in a few
minutes. How's things along the coast? Done any fishing lately? You still
have that Boston Whaler or whatever it was?
dino
Jan 22, 2012, 8:21:27 PM1/22/12
to
In article <t1bph7d1l9pc1l25k...@4ax.com>, !Jones says...
I voted for McCain. Said with head held low. This time I'm voting for Obama.
It's so sad that Americans vote with their pocketbook...
It's so sad that Americans vote with their pocketbook...
!Jones
Jan 22, 2012, 9:14:25 PM1/22/12
to
On 22 Jan 2012 17:21:27 -0800, in alt.war.vietnam dino
Yup; we damn sure don't vote with our brains, do we?
Jones
Jones
!Jones
Jan 22, 2012, 9:20:53 PM1/22/12
to
On 22 Jan 2012 17:17:10 -0800, in alt.war.vietnam dino
I *never* would have guessed that.
>It was irony or sarcasm or too much wine. You get to
>choose. I'm doing stuffed peppers tonight. They should be done in a few
>minutes. How's things along the coast? Done any fishing lately? You still
>have that Boston Whaler or whatever it was?
A Grand Banks dory, you illiterate nitwit! "Boston whaler"? <scoff>
That's a piece of fiberglass shit built for pussies that need gasoline
engines.
Yeah, I go out to the islands pretty regularly. I've been doing more
floundering lately... tasty little units, they are. I favor stuffed
peppers; I do Poblanos with polenta and cheese stuffing... I *never*
beep fry 'em.
Jones
I *never* would have guessed that.
>It was irony or sarcasm or too much wine. You get to
>choose. I'm doing stuffed peppers tonight. They should be done in a few
>minutes. How's things along the coast? Done any fishing lately? You still
>have that Boston Whaler or whatever it was?
That's a piece of fiberglass shit built for pussies that need gasoline
engines.
Yeah, I go out to the islands pretty regularly. I've been doing more
floundering lately... tasty little units, they are. I favor stuffed
peppers; I do Poblanos with polenta and cheese stuffing... I *never*
beep fry 'em.
Jones
Bill Clarke
Jan 22, 2012, 11:47:54 PM1/22/12
to
In article <pkgph75ps1at8418u...@4ax.com>, !Jones says...
Why not. Everything is better deep fried.
Bill Clarke
Bill Clarke
Bill Clarke
Jan 22, 2012, 11:54:52 PM1/22/12
to
Top post.
It appears that this turd head has rapidly un-assed the AO since Nigel dropped
the hammer on him. What a liar. And the nerve of him to degrade anyone’s
“bravery”. I’m sure it was hell in the Finance shop.
Bye pussy.
Bill Clarke
It appears that this turd head has rapidly un-assed the AO since Nigel dropped
the hammer on him. What a liar. And the nerve of him to degrade anyone’s
“bravery”. I’m sure it was hell in the Finance shop.
Bye pussy.
Bill Clarke
Neolibertarian
Jan 23, 2012, 12:08:21 AM1/23/12
to
In article <uOCdnen7FsE-PYHS...@supernews.com>,
"Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <dr...@coldine.edu> wrote:
> Neolibertarian wrote:
> >
> > None of the testimony was corroborated nor substantiated.
>
> It could have been, one way or the other, if there had been
> a real investigation (the goal of WSI) by the CID, but *clearly*
> the U.S. military was afraid of that Pandora's box...oh what fun
> that would have been!
"Fun?"
> Neolibertarian wrote:
> >
> > None of the testimony was corroborated nor substantiated.
>
> It could have been, one way or the other, if there had been
> a real investigation (the goal of WSI) by the CID, but *clearly*
> the U.S. military was afraid of that Pandora's box...oh what fun
> that would have been!
>
> The U.S. military's failure to do a bonafide investigation is
> *strong* evidence that WSI was true.
That's abysmal illogic. Even for Usenet.
> The U.S. military's failure to do a bonafide investigation is
> *strong* evidence that WSI was true.
Neolibertarian
Jan 23, 2012, 1:27:06 AM1/23/12
to
In article <jfho1...@drn.newsguy.com>,
There aren't? Just because Wiki says so?
Lewy may have been mistaken, or he might not have been. He hasn't ever
recanted, AFAIK.
> Recently, Lewy stated that he couldn't remember if
> he
> ever saw those documents or just heard about them from somebody. In other
> words: The documents do not exist and probably never did. Until someone
> actually finds them, we can mark that off as bullshit.
An unsubstantiated claim, I'll freely admit since I'm in no position to
dig any further.
But according to you, unsubstantiated claims are as good as
substantiated claims.
Help me out here, which is it?
I'll willingly withdraw this one unsubstantiated claim, if you'll
withdraw the 100's of unsubstantiated claims of the WSI.
Not ever in any case. Elected officials have a mortal aversion to egg on
the face. It's bad for job security.
Besides, they're all lawyers. They don't put anyone on the stand who
hasn't already testified (at the very least in a deposition) to what
they're going to say in the witness chair.
marxist or not, would know how to prevent the thing from snowballing
into an embarrassing Congressional or criminal investigation, n'est ce
pas?
The only way they could guarantee damage to the credibility of the
United States military, without risk to themselves, was to do exactly
what they did:
Make the accusations at a venue where there were zero legal liabilities
in doing so.
Repeating those accusations to law enforcement officers conducting an
official investigation would carry negative consequences, if later
proved untrue.
Repeating those accusations under oath to Congress would carry negative
consequences, if later proved untrue.
State Military to commit (or even to tolerate) war crimes in Vietnam.
Period.
The My Lai prosecution, spun as indictment of the policy of the United
States military by Seymour Hersh and the New York Times, was thought to
be a large blow to the US morale and the war effort in Vietnam. The
organizers of the WSI were attempting to capitalize on this wound.
And, in fact, they did capitalize on it, without ever having to expose
themselves to any legal consequences whatsoever.
They could say "President Johnson personally ordered me to kill all the
babies in some village," and there could be zero legal consequences for
making such a claim.
> They just didn't provide further clarification
> during interrogation for reasons which they quite clearly explained. That is
> not proof that they were lying. No one has ever proved any of their comments
> to
> be lies nor has anyone ever proved that they were lying about their service
> in
> Vietnam.
Some of the subsequent investigations proved the claims to be false
(lying is a state of mind, and much harder to prove). None of the other
charges could be corroborated.
That's a dismal record by anyone's account.
Corsi didn't write the testimony. We're discussing the testimony.
Corsi is an irrelevancy fallacy.
Heh.
President Johnson was his CO?
An allegation that we can consider withdrawn.
You obviously don't know anything about it, but I can assure you the
United States military takes allegations of war crimes extremely
seriously.
http://www.wintersoldier.com/cid/Smith.pdf
Not Scott Swett, but CID.
Right.
Over 40.
read, but call me an optimist:
http://tinyurl.com/7fucm5p
from WSI.
> Similar
> claims
> have been recently discovered that were investigated by the CID that did
> prove
> that such things were occurring in all divisions throughout the war. Books
> written, letters home, articles written, veteran's testimonies... there is
> too
> much to deny unless you're a conspiracist.
Most of what you're referring to is just regurgitation of WSI.
The fact of the matter is, the "all lawful orders" thingy in the oath is
explained in detail to all US military personnel. They too tend to take
this extremely seriously. After all, it's their asses on the line if
they don't.
Lewy may have been mistaken, or he might not have been. He hasn't ever
recanted, AFAIK.
>
> >The CID merely couldn't turn up several
> >of the witnesses--who knows if they were
> >real names in the first place, or merely
> >individuals who proved hard to locate?
>
> The CID did interrogate several members of the WSI. The summaries of those
> investigations are included as links to the URL that you offered:
> http://www.wintersoldier.com/index.php?topic=CID
Yes, and you might examine them.
> >The CID merely couldn't turn up several
> >of the witnesses--who knows if they were
> >real names in the first place, or merely
> >individuals who proved hard to locate?
>
> The CID did interrogate several members of the WSI. The summaries of those
> investigations are included as links to the URL that you offered:
> http://www.wintersoldier.com/index.php?topic=CID
>
> >The assertion is from Lewy's seminal
> >history "America in Vietnam" (1978),
> >"Lewy also reported that several
> >veterans told the NIS in sworn
> >statements corroborated by witnesses
> >that they had not been in Detroit
> >-- i.e., the VVAW activists who used
> >their names were imposters."
>
> And, where are these "witnesses" and sworn statements? The documents that
> Lewy
> claimed to have existed are nowhere to be found. NCIS has no record that
> such
> documents ever existed.
Who at NCIS ever claimed that?
> >The assertion is from Lewy's seminal
> >history "America in Vietnam" (1978),
> >"Lewy also reported that several
> >veterans told the NIS in sworn
> >statements corroborated by witnesses
> >that they had not been in Detroit
> >-- i.e., the VVAW activists who used
> >their names were imposters."
>
> And, where are these "witnesses" and sworn statements? The documents that
> Lewy
> claimed to have existed are nowhere to be found. NCIS has no record that
> such
> documents ever existed.
> Recently, Lewy stated that he couldn't remember if
> he
> ever saw those documents or just heard about them from somebody. In other
> words: The documents do not exist and probably never did. Until someone
> actually finds them, we can mark that off as bullshit.
dig any further.
But according to you, unsubstantiated claims are as good as
substantiated claims.
Help me out here, which is it?
I'll willingly withdraw this one unsubstantiated claim, if you'll
withdraw the 100's of unsubstantiated claims of the WSI.
the face. It's bad for job security.
Besides, they're all lawyers. They don't put anyone on the stand who
hasn't already testified (at the very least in a deposition) to what
they're going to say in the witness chair.
>
> >The Winter Soldier witnesses knew
> >that perfectly well, even if you don't.
>
> That's your assertion. Do you have evidence of your assertion?
They were represented by the VVAW lawyers. We assume the lawyers,
> >The Winter Soldier witnesses knew
> >that perfectly well, even if you don't.
>
> That's your assertion. Do you have evidence of your assertion?
marxist or not, would know how to prevent the thing from snowballing
into an embarrassing Congressional or criminal investigation, n'est ce
pas?
The only way they could guarantee damage to the credibility of the
United States military, without risk to themselves, was to do exactly
what they did:
Make the accusations at a venue where there were zero legal liabilities
in doing so.
Repeating those accusations to law enforcement officers conducting an
official investigation would carry negative consequences, if later
proved untrue.
Repeating those accusations under oath to Congress would carry negative
consequences, if later proved untrue.
>
> Testimony from the WSI members says otherwise. They felt that atrocities
> were a
> systemic problem therefore they would not testify against individuals because
> they felt that the fault did not lie with them, but with the commanding
> officers. It's right there in their testimony. You can find it on
> wintersoldier.com
There was no "systematic" policy, implicit or explicit, by the United
> Testimony from the WSI members says otherwise. They felt that atrocities
> were a
> systemic problem therefore they would not testify against individuals because
> they felt that the fault did not lie with them, but with the commanding
> officers. It's right there in their testimony. You can find it on
> wintersoldier.com
State Military to commit (or even to tolerate) war crimes in Vietnam.
Period.
The My Lai prosecution, spun as indictment of the policy of the United
States military by Seymour Hersh and the New York Times, was thought to
be a large blow to the US morale and the war effort in Vietnam. The
organizers of the WSI were attempting to capitalize on this wound.
And, in fact, they did capitalize on it, without ever having to expose
themselves to any legal consequences whatsoever.
>
> >Claiming you won't testify except
> >before Congress amounts to the same
> >as saying you won't testify.
>
> They had already testified.
Not under oath.
> >Claiming you won't testify except
> >before Congress amounts to the same
> >as saying you won't testify.
>
> They had already testified.
They could say "President Johnson personally ordered me to kill all the
babies in some village," and there could be zero legal consequences for
making such a claim.
> They just didn't provide further clarification
> during interrogation for reasons which they quite clearly explained. That is
> not proof that they were lying. No one has ever proved any of their comments
> to
> be lies nor has anyone ever proved that they were lying about their service
> in
> Vietnam.
(lying is a state of mind, and much harder to prove). None of the other
charges could be corroborated.
That's a dismal record by anyone's account.
>
> >The opportunity to report war crimes
> >is when you're being interviewed by
> >CID.
>
> Read their testimonies and you'll understand it better.
I did, goofy, Evidently it's you who did not.
> >The opportunity to report war crimes
> >is when you're being interviewed by
> >CID.
>
> Read their testimonies and you'll understand it better.
Corsi is an irrelevancy fallacy.
President Johnson was his CO?
>
> >Allegation: 1) Murder of Vietnamese
> >civilians and prisoners, 2) Mutilation
> >of enemy dead, 3) Indiscriminate use
> >of fire power, 4) Refusing to render
> >medical aid.
> >
> >Investigation summary: Complainant
> >refused to provide any statement on
> >advice of counsel concerning both WSI
> >and LIFE Magazine allegations.
>
> No lying here.
Right.
> >Allegation: 1) Murder of Vietnamese
> >civilians and prisoners, 2) Mutilation
> >of enemy dead, 3) Indiscriminate use
> >of fire power, 4) Refusing to render
> >medical aid.
> >
> >Investigation summary: Complainant
> >refused to provide any statement on
> >advice of counsel concerning both WSI
> >and LIFE Magazine allegations.
>
> No lying here.
An allegation that we can consider withdrawn.
>
> >Allegation: 1) Indiscriminate use of
> >fire power resulting in the deaths
> >of unidentified Vietnamese, 2)
> >Maltreatment of prisoners.
> >
> >Investigation summary: Complainant
> >backtracked on his WSI allegations,
> >saying that he had not witnessed the
> >maltreatment of prisoners, and that
> >he saw no bodies and could not identify
> >the military units involved in
> >the alleged events.
>
> This is not the CID summary. This is the opinion of Scott Swett. If you
> wish
> to produce the actual summary, I will be more than pleased to show you that
> there was no backtracking involved.
Then show me the case CID was able to pursue.
> >Allegation: 1) Indiscriminate use of
> >fire power resulting in the deaths
> >of unidentified Vietnamese, 2)
> >Maltreatment of prisoners.
> >
> >Investigation summary: Complainant
> >backtracked on his WSI allegations,
> >saying that he had not witnessed the
> >maltreatment of prisoners, and that
> >he saw no bodies and could not identify
> >the military units involved in
> >the alleged events.
>
> This is not the CID summary. This is the opinion of Scott Swett. If you
> wish
> to produce the actual summary, I will be more than pleased to show you that
> there was no backtracking involved.
You obviously don't know anything about it, but I can assure you the
United States military takes allegations of war crimes extremely
seriously.
>
> >Allegation: 1) Maltreatment of
> >prisoners.
> >
> >Investigation summary: Complainant
> >backtracked on his WSI allegations,
> >stating that Vietnamese troops rather
> >than American troops had committed
> >illegal acts.
>
> This is not the CID summary. This is the personal opinion of Scott Swett.
> If
> you wish to produce the actual summary, I will be more than pleased to show
> you
> that there was no backtracking involved.
Already provided to you, goofy. I guess you couldn't be bothered.
> >Allegation: 1) Maltreatment of
> >prisoners.
> >
> >Investigation summary: Complainant
> >backtracked on his WSI allegations,
> >stating that Vietnamese troops rather
> >than American troops had committed
> >illegal acts.
>
> This is not the CID summary. This is the personal opinion of Scott Swett.
> If
> you wish to produce the actual summary, I will be more than pleased to show
> you
> that there was no backtracking involved.
http://www.wintersoldier.com/cid/Smith.pdf
Not Scott Swett, but CID.
>
> >Allegation: 1) Mutilation of enemy
> >dead and unidentified Vietnamese.
> >
> >Investigation summary: Complainant
> >provided a written, sworn statement
> >in support of his allegation.
> >Multiple witnesses interviewed
> >contradicted Shepard's claims, and
> >further investigation also failed to
> >support his statements.
>
> Let me guess? He provided a sworn statement and those who could have been
> held
> responsible denied the allegations. Right? Produce a copy of the CID
> summary
> and I'll discuss this with you, otherwise we'll chalk this up as more Scott
> Swett bullshit.
http://www.wintersoldier.com/cid/Shepard.pdf
> >Allegation: 1) Mutilation of enemy
> >dead and unidentified Vietnamese.
> >
> >Investigation summary: Complainant
> >provided a written, sworn statement
> >in support of his allegation.
> >Multiple witnesses interviewed
> >contradicted Shepard's claims, and
> >further investigation also failed to
> >support his statements.
>
> Let me guess? He provided a sworn statement and those who could have been
> held
> responsible denied the allegations. Right? Produce a copy of the CID
> summary
> and I'll discuss this with you, otherwise we'll chalk this up as more Scott
> Swett bullshit.
>
> >Allegation: 1) Murder of unidentified
> >Vietnamese, 2) Desecration of graves,
> >3 Destruction of private property.
> >
> >Investigation summary: Complainant
> >refused to answer any questions about
> >his allegations. He further stated that
> >if the President of the United States
> >was investigated for war crimes, he
> >would release information relative to
> >his testimony.
>
> No lying there.
Yeah, the President of the United States had to be investigated first.
> >Allegation: 1) Murder of unidentified
> >Vietnamese, 2) Desecration of graves,
> >3 Destruction of private property.
> >
> >Investigation summary: Complainant
> >refused to answer any questions about
> >his allegations. He further stated that
> >if the President of the United States
> >was investigated for war crimes, he
> >would release information relative to
> >his testimony.
>
> No lying there.
Right.
>
> >There's lots more.
>
> You haven't produced even one piece of evidence to support your assertions,
> but
> if you believe you have some, please present them.
No, not one.
> >There's lots more.
>
> You haven't produced even one piece of evidence to support your assertions,
> but
> if you believe you have some, please present them.
Over 40.
>
> >None of the testimony was corroborated
> >nor substantiated.
>
> That's not true, but never-the-less, that has nothing to do with the
> assertions
> that there is evidence that the WSI members were not Vietnam vets and that
> the
> testimonies were proven false. Those assertions are completely without
> evidence.
>
> >John Kerry used the WSI testimony as
> >the basis for his allegations
> >before Congress.
> >
> >Even Kerry was forced to admit, much
> >later, that all of those accusations
> >were false.
>
> Cite please.
It's getting a little tedious providing links you don't seem equipped to
> >None of the testimony was corroborated
> >nor substantiated.
>
> That's not true, but never-the-less, that has nothing to do with the
> assertions
> that there is evidence that the WSI members were not Vietnam vets and that
> the
> testimonies were proven false. Those assertions are completely without
> evidence.
>
> >John Kerry used the WSI testimony as
> >the basis for his allegations
> >before Congress.
> >
> >Even Kerry was forced to admit, much
> >later, that all of those accusations
> >were false.
>
> Cite please.
read, but call me an optimist:
http://tinyurl.com/7fucm5p
>
> >He exonerated himself by pointing
> >out all those claims were made before
> >the Senate as hearsay evidence.
>
> They weren't made before the Senate; they were made in a hotel.
Kerry actually testified before the US Senate in 1971. This was separate
> >He exonerated himself by pointing
> >out all those claims were made before
> >the Senate as hearsay evidence.
>
> They weren't made before the Senate; they were made in a hotel.
from WSI.
> Similar
> claims
> have been recently discovered that were investigated by the CID that did
> prove
> that such things were occurring in all divisions throughout the war. Books
> written, letters home, articles written, veteran's testimonies... there is
> too
> much to deny unless you're a conspiracist.
The fact of the matter is, the "all lawful orders" thingy in the oath is
explained in detail to all US military personnel. They too tend to take
this extremely seriously. After all, it's their asses on the line if
they don't.
Daryl
Jan 23, 2012, 2:46:16 AM1/23/12
to
On 1/22/2012 7:20 PM, !Jones wrote:
>I *never*
> beep fry 'em.
Is that where you take them outside and yell "Beep, Beep" at them
>I *never*
> beep fry 'em.
until they are cooked?
--
http://tvmoviesforfree.com
for free movies and Nostalgic TV. Tons of Military shows and
programs.
dino
Jan 23, 2012, 9:15:05 AM1/23/12
to
In article <8d973$4f1cfadc$18f556a5$14...@allthenewsgroups.com>, Neolibertarian
If there were, Scott Swett would have them smeared all over his website in
triplicate. Look, when dealing with historical matters there are primary and
secondary sources. Lewy is a secondary source. The best historians always use
primary source documents. This is what Lewy claimed to have used, but amazingly
he can't remember whether he saw those documents or somebody told him about
them. This sounds all too similar to the conflict thesis promoted by John
Draper and Andrew White. Draper wrote 'History of the Conflict between Religion
and Science' and White wrote 'History of the Warfare of Science with Theology.'
White used primary sources to prove that the Catholic Church opposed the
advancement of science and he used a lot of sources, so many, in fact, that his
conflict thesis remained unchallenged for some 70 years. That's what I was
taught in college, but sometime in the 1970s historians began to check White's
primary sources and guess what? The sources did not offer any evidence of a
conflict between science and religion. Today, White's conflict thesis is
considered nonsense amongst historians.
>Lewy may have been mistaken, or he might
>not have been. He hasn't ever recanted,
>AFAIK.
Believing is a conspiracy is similar to believing in a religion. You really
have to have a lot of faith. Those of us who do not believe in conspiracies
want to see the evidence. If Lewy saw it or heard about it, then it should
exist, but where is it? No one seems to know.
>> >The CID merely couldn't turn up several
>> >of the witnesses--who knows if they were
>> >real names in the first place, or merely
>> >individuals who proved hard to locate?
>>
>> The CID did interrogate several members of the WSI. The summaries of those
>> investigations are included as links to the URL that you offered:
>> http://www.wintersoldier.com/index.php?topic=CID
>
>Yes, and you might examine them.
Why would I need to examine them? Your assertion is that there is evidence that
the WSI members lied. If you truly believe that, then produce the evidence.
>> >The assertion is from Lewy's seminal
>> >history "America in Vietnam" (1978),
>> >"Lewy also reported that several
>> >veterans told the NIS in sworn
>> >statements corroborated by witnesses
>> >that they had not been in Detroit
>> >-- i.e., the VVAW activists who used
>> >their names were imposters."
>>
>> And, where are these "witnesses" and
>> sworn statements? The documents that
>> Lewy claimed to have existed are nowhere
>> to be found. NCIS has no record that
>> such documents ever existed.
>
>Who at NCIS ever claimed that?
Paul O'Donnell
>> Recently, Lewy stated that he couldn't
>> remember if he ever saw those documents
>> or just heard about them from somebody.
>> In other words: The documents do not
>> exist and probably never did. Until
>> someone actually finds them, we can mark
>> that off as bullshit.
>
>An unsubstantiated claim, I'll freely
>admit since I'm in no position to dig any
>further.
>
>But according to you, unsubstantiated
>claims are as good as substantiated
>claims.
>
>Help me out here, which is it?
>
>I'll willingly withdraw this one
>unsubstantiated claim, if you'll
>withdraw the 100's of unsubstantiated
>claims of the WSI.
I have never claimed that the WSI testimonies were substantiated. What I stated
and continue to declare is that there is no evidence to prove that any of the
WSI participants were not Vietnam vets or that their testimonies were proven
false.
All congressmen are lawyers?
>> >The Winter Soldier witnesses knew
>> >that perfectly well, even if you don't.
>>
>> That's your assertion. Do you have
>> evidence of your assertion?
>
>They were represented by the VVAW
>lawyers. We assume the lawyers,
>marxist or not, would know how to
>prevent the thing from snowballing
>into an embarrassing Congressional
>or criminal investigation, n'est ce
>pas?
When you use words like 'they' and 'assume' for evidence, you've pretty much
lost the ball.
>The only way they could guarantee
>damage to the credibility of the
>United States military, without
>risk to themselves, was to do exactly
>what they did:
>
>Make the accusations at a venue
>where there were zero legal
>liabilities in doing so.
All very interesting but that is not evidence that they were lying.
>Repeating those accusations to law
>enforcement officers conducting an
>official investigation would carry
>negative consequences, if later
>proved untrue.
>
>Repeating those accusations under
>oath to Congress would carry negative
>consequences, if later proved untrue.
Interesting conjecture but none of this is evidence that they were lying.
>> Testimony from the WSI members
>> says otherwise. They felt that
>> atrocities were a systemic problem
>> therefore they would not testify
>> against individuals because they
>> felt that the fault did not lie
>> with them, but with the commanding
>> officers. It's right there in their
>> testimony. You can find it on
>> wintersoldier.com
>
>There was no "systematic" policy,
>implicit or explicit, by the United
>State Military to commit (or even to
>tolerate) war crimes in Vietnam.
>
>Period.
Whether is was true or not, that is what the WSI participants said they
believed.
>The My Lai prosecution, spun as
>indictment of the policy of the
>United States military by Seymour
>Hersh and the New York Times, was
>thought to be a large blow to the
>US morale and the war effort in
>Vietnam. The organizers of the WSI
>were attempting to capitalize on
>this wound.
That is an assertion. Where is your evidence to support that assertion?
>And, in fact, they did capitalize
>on it, without ever having to expose
>themselves to any legal consequences
>whatsoever.
What legal consequences?
>> >Claiming you won't testify except
>> >before Congress amounts to the same
>> >as saying you won't testify.
>>
>> They had already testified.
>
>Not under oath.
>
>They could say "President Johnson
>personally ordered me to kill all
>the babies in some village," and
>there could be zero legal
>consequences for making such a claim.
I'm not exactly sure what any of this has to do with producing evidence that the
WSI members lied.
>> They just didn't provide further
>> clarification during interrogation
>> for reasons which they quite clearly
>> explained. That is not proof that
>> they were lying. No one has ever
>> proved any of their comments to be
>> lies nor has anyone ever proved that
>> they were lying about their service
>> in Vietnam.
>
>Some of the subsequent investigations
>proved the claims to be false
I am asking for evidence, not assertions. If 'subsequent investigation proved
the claims to be false' then produce the evidence, please.
>(lying is a state of mind, and much
>harder to prove). None of the other
>charges could be corroborated.
>
>That's a dismal record by anyone's account.
So, you don't have any evidence that they lied?
I'm discussing the testimony; you're discussing the belief in a conspiracy.
>Corsi is an irrelevancy fallacy.
I could think of better adjectives.
I am not defending the WSI testimony. I am saying that there is no evidence
that they lied. Where is your evidence that they lied?
>You obviously don't know anything about
>it, but I can assure you the United
>States military takes allegations of
>war crimes extremely seriously.
As seriously as they did My Lai? Ever heard of Ron Riddenhour?
>> >Allegation: 1) Maltreatment of
>> >prisoners.
>> >
>> >Investigation summary: Complainant
>> >backtracked on his WSI allegations,
>> >stating that Vietnamese troops rather
>> >than American troops had committed
>> >illegal acts.
>>
>> This is not the CID summary. This is
>> the personal opinion of Scott Swett.
>> If you wish to produce the actual
>> summary, I will be more than pleased
>> to show
>> you that there was no backtracking
>> involved.
>
>Already provided to you, goofy. I
>guess you couldn't be bothered.
No, you didn't. This is what you provided:
don't know the difference, do you?
Yes, that link is from CID, not the garbage that you quoted.
Mr. Smith alleged that his unit took prisoners and they were mistreated. He
confirmed that with the CID investigation. There is no backtracking. That is
the difference between primary sources and secondary sources. The primary
source proves that Mr. Smith did not backtrack. The secondary source written by
Scott Swett is bullshit. Learn to know the difference.
>> >Allegation: 1) Mutilation of enemy
>> >dead and unidentified Vietnamese.
>> >
>> >Investigation summary: Complainant
>> >provided a written, sworn statement
>> >in support of his allegation.
>> >Multiple witnesses interviewed
>> >contradicted Shepard's claims, and
>> >further investigation also failed to
>> >support his statements.
>>
>> Let me guess? He provided a sworn statement and those who could have been
>> held
>> responsible denied the allegations. Right? Produce a copy of the CID
>> summary
>> and I'll discuss this with you, otherwise we'll chalk this up as more Scott
>> Swett bullshit.
>
>http://www.wintersoldier.com/cid/Shepard.pdf
This document provides undeniable proof that Mr. Shephard produced the evidence
of exactly what he claimed. Thanks. What part of that did you not understand?
The perpetrators denied the charges. No kidding.
Let me explain something to you: You don't ask the perpetrators of a crime for
evidence of a crime if you want the truth.
There is no evidence that he lied.
>> >Allegation: 1) Murder of unidentified
>> >Vietnamese, 2) Desecration of graves,
>> >3 Destruction of private property.
>> >
>> >Investigation summary: Complainant
>> >refused to answer any questions about
>> >his allegations. He further stated that
>> >if the President of the United States
>> >was investigated for war crimes, he
>> >would release information relative to
>> >his testimony.
>>
>> No lying there.
>
>Yeah, the President of the United States
>had to be investigated first.
>
>Right.
>>
>> >There's lots more.
>>
>> You haven't produced even one piece of
>> evidence to support your assertions,
>> but if you believe you have some, please
>> present them.
>
>No, not one.
>
>Over 40.
So far you haven't produced not one piece of evidence to prove that the WSI
members lied. If you honestly believe that you have proof, please submit it.
>> >None of the testimony was corroborated
>> >nor substantiated.
>>
>> That's not true, but never-the-less,
>> that has nothing to do with the
>> assertions that there is evidence that
>> the WSI members were not Vietnam vets
>> and that the testimonies were proven
>> false. Those assertions are completely
>> without evidence.
>>
>> >John Kerry used the WSI testimony as
>> >the basis for his allegations
>> >before Congress.
>> >
>> >Even Kerry was forced to admit, much
>> >later, that all of those accusations
>> >were false.
>>
>> Cite please.
>
>It's getting a little tedious providing
>links you don't seem equipped to
>read, but call me an optimist:
>
>http://tinyurl.com/7fucm5p
There's nothing in that article that says anything like what you asserted.
Where in that article did Kerry say the accusations were false? If you bothered
to have read it, he said, "The words were honest," not false.
>> >He exonerated himself by pointing
>> >out all those claims were made before
>> >the Senate as hearsay evidence.
>>
>> They weren't made before the Senate;
>> they were made in a hotel.
>
>Kerry actually testified before the US
>Senate in 1971. This was separate from
>WSI.
You're confusing yourself. Read again what you said.
>> Similar claims have been recently
>> discovered that were investigated
>> by the CID that did prove that such
>> things were occurring in all divisions
>> throughout the war. Books written,
>> letters home, articles written,
>> veteran's testimonies... there is
>> too much to deny unless you're a
>> conspiracist.
>
>Most of what you're referring to is
>just regurgitation of WSI.
Actually, no.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War_Crimes_Working_Group_Files
>The fact of the matter is, the "all
>lawful orders" thingy in the oath is
>explained in detail to all US military
>personnel. They too tend to take this
>extremely seriously. After all, it's
>their asses on the line if they don't.
So far you haven't come up with any evidence to prove that the WSI participants
were lying about their service in Vietnam or their statements. If you discover
something, please let me know.
triplicate. Look, when dealing with historical matters there are primary and
secondary sources. Lewy is a secondary source. The best historians always use
primary source documents. This is what Lewy claimed to have used, but amazingly
he can't remember whether he saw those documents or somebody told him about
them. This sounds all too similar to the conflict thesis promoted by John
Draper and Andrew White. Draper wrote 'History of the Conflict between Religion
and Science' and White wrote 'History of the Warfare of Science with Theology.'
White used primary sources to prove that the Catholic Church opposed the
advancement of science and he used a lot of sources, so many, in fact, that his
conflict thesis remained unchallenged for some 70 years. That's what I was
taught in college, but sometime in the 1970s historians began to check White's
primary sources and guess what? The sources did not offer any evidence of a
conflict between science and religion. Today, White's conflict thesis is
considered nonsense amongst historians.
>Lewy may have been mistaken, or he might
>not have been. He hasn't ever recanted,
>AFAIK.
have to have a lot of faith. Those of us who do not believe in conspiracies
want to see the evidence. If Lewy saw it or heard about it, then it should
exist, but where is it? No one seems to know.
>> >The CID merely couldn't turn up several
>> >of the witnesses--who knows if they were
>> >real names in the first place, or merely
>> >individuals who proved hard to locate?
>>
>> The CID did interrogate several members of the WSI. The summaries of those
>> investigations are included as links to the URL that you offered:
>> http://www.wintersoldier.com/index.php?topic=CID
>
>Yes, and you might examine them.
the WSI members lied. If you truly believe that, then produce the evidence.
>> >The assertion is from Lewy's seminal
>> >history "America in Vietnam" (1978),
>> >"Lewy also reported that several
>> >veterans told the NIS in sworn
>> >statements corroborated by witnesses
>> >that they had not been in Detroit
>> >-- i.e., the VVAW activists who used
>> >their names were imposters."
>>
>> And, where are these "witnesses" and
>> sworn statements? The documents that
>> Lewy claimed to have existed are nowhere
>> to be found. NCIS has no record that
>> such documents ever existed.
>
>Who at NCIS ever claimed that?
>> Recently, Lewy stated that he couldn't
>> remember if he ever saw those documents
>> or just heard about them from somebody.
>> In other words: The documents do not
>> exist and probably never did. Until
>> someone actually finds them, we can mark
>> that off as bullshit.
>
>An unsubstantiated claim, I'll freely
>admit since I'm in no position to dig any
>further.
>
>But according to you, unsubstantiated
>claims are as good as substantiated
>claims.
>
>Help me out here, which is it?
>
>I'll willingly withdraw this one
>unsubstantiated claim, if you'll
>withdraw the 100's of unsubstantiated
>claims of the WSI.
and continue to declare is that there is no evidence to prove that any of the
WSI participants were not Vietnam vets or that their testimonies were proven
false.
>> >The Winter Soldier witnesses knew
>> >that perfectly well, even if you don't.
>>
>> That's your assertion. Do you have
>> evidence of your assertion?
>
>They were represented by the VVAW
>lawyers. We assume the lawyers,
>marxist or not, would know how to
>prevent the thing from snowballing
>into an embarrassing Congressional
>or criminal investigation, n'est ce
>pas?
lost the ball.
>The only way they could guarantee
>damage to the credibility of the
>United States military, without
>risk to themselves, was to do exactly
>what they did:
>
>Make the accusations at a venue
>where there were zero legal
>liabilities in doing so.
>Repeating those accusations to law
>enforcement officers conducting an
>official investigation would carry
>negative consequences, if later
>proved untrue.
>
>Repeating those accusations under
>oath to Congress would carry negative
>consequences, if later proved untrue.
>> Testimony from the WSI members
>> says otherwise. They felt that
>> atrocities were a systemic problem
>> therefore they would not testify
>> against individuals because they
>> felt that the fault did not lie
>> with them, but with the commanding
>> officers. It's right there in their
>> testimony. You can find it on
>> wintersoldier.com
>
>There was no "systematic" policy,
>implicit or explicit, by the United
>State Military to commit (or even to
>tolerate) war crimes in Vietnam.
>
>Period.
believed.
>The My Lai prosecution, spun as
>indictment of the policy of the
>United States military by Seymour
>Hersh and the New York Times, was
>thought to be a large blow to the
>US morale and the war effort in
>Vietnam. The organizers of the WSI
>were attempting to capitalize on
>this wound.
>And, in fact, they did capitalize
>on it, without ever having to expose
>themselves to any legal consequences
>whatsoever.
>> >Claiming you won't testify except
>> >before Congress amounts to the same
>> >as saying you won't testify.
>>
>> They had already testified.
>
>Not under oath.
>
>They could say "President Johnson
>personally ordered me to kill all
>the babies in some village," and
>there could be zero legal
>consequences for making such a claim.
WSI members lied.
>> They just didn't provide further
>> clarification during interrogation
>> for reasons which they quite clearly
>> explained. That is not proof that
>> they were lying. No one has ever
>> proved any of their comments to be
>> lies nor has anyone ever proved that
>> they were lying about their service
>> in Vietnam.
>
>Some of the subsequent investigations
>proved the claims to be false
the claims to be false' then produce the evidence, please.
>(lying is a state of mind, and much
>harder to prove). None of the other
>charges could be corroborated.
>
>That's a dismal record by anyone's account.
>Corsi is an irrelevancy fallacy.
that they lied. Where is your evidence that they lied?
>You obviously don't know anything about
>it, but I can assure you the United
>States military takes allegations of
>war crimes extremely seriously.
>> >Allegation: 1) Maltreatment of
>> >prisoners.
>> >
>> >Investigation summary: Complainant
>> >backtracked on his WSI allegations,
>> >stating that Vietnamese troops rather
>> >than American troops had committed
>> >illegal acts.
>>
>> This is not the CID summary. This is
>> the personal opinion of Scott Swett.
>> If you wish to produce the actual
>> summary, I will be more than pleased
>> to show
>> you that there was no backtracking
>> involved.
>
>Already provided to you, goofy. I
>guess you couldn't be bothered.
"Investigation summary: Complainant
backtracked on his WSI allegations,
stating that Vietnamese troops rather
than American troops had committed
illegal acts."
That was written by Scott Swett. That is not copied from any CID document. You
backtracked on his WSI allegations,
stating that Vietnamese troops rather
than American troops had committed
illegal acts."
don't know the difference, do you?
Yes, that link is from CID, not the garbage that you quoted.
Mr. Smith alleged that his unit took prisoners and they were mistreated. He
confirmed that with the CID investigation. There is no backtracking. That is
the difference between primary sources and secondary sources. The primary
source proves that Mr. Smith did not backtrack. The secondary source written by
Scott Swett is bullshit. Learn to know the difference.
>> >Allegation: 1) Mutilation of enemy
>> >dead and unidentified Vietnamese.
>> >
>> >Investigation summary: Complainant
>> >provided a written, sworn statement
>> >in support of his allegation.
>> >Multiple witnesses interviewed
>> >contradicted Shepard's claims, and
>> >further investigation also failed to
>> >support his statements.
>>
>> Let me guess? He provided a sworn statement and those who could have been
>> held
>> responsible denied the allegations. Right? Produce a copy of the CID
>> summary
>> and I'll discuss this with you, otherwise we'll chalk this up as more Scott
>> Swett bullshit.
>
>http://www.wintersoldier.com/cid/Shepard.pdf
of exactly what he claimed. Thanks. What part of that did you not understand?
The perpetrators denied the charges. No kidding.
Let me explain something to you: You don't ask the perpetrators of a crime for
evidence of a crime if you want the truth.
There is no evidence that he lied.
>> >Allegation: 1) Murder of unidentified
>> >Vietnamese, 2) Desecration of graves,
>> >3 Destruction of private property.
>> >
>> >Investigation summary: Complainant
>> >refused to answer any questions about
>> >his allegations. He further stated that
>> >if the President of the United States
>> >was investigated for war crimes, he
>> >would release information relative to
>> >his testimony.
>>
>> No lying there.
>
>Yeah, the President of the United States
>had to be investigated first.
>
>Right.
>>
>> >There's lots more.
>>
>> You haven't produced even one piece of
>> evidence to support your assertions,
>> but if you believe you have some, please
>> present them.
>
>No, not one.
>
>Over 40.
members lied. If you honestly believe that you have proof, please submit it.
>> >None of the testimony was corroborated
>> >nor substantiated.
>>
>> That's not true, but never-the-less,
>> that has nothing to do with the
>> assertions that there is evidence that
>> the WSI members were not Vietnam vets
>> and that the testimonies were proven
>> false. Those assertions are completely
>> without evidence.
>>
>> >John Kerry used the WSI testimony as
>> >the basis for his allegations
>> >before Congress.
>> >
>> >Even Kerry was forced to admit, much
>> >later, that all of those accusations
>> >were false.
>>
>> Cite please.
>
>It's getting a little tedious providing
>links you don't seem equipped to
>read, but call me an optimist:
>
>http://tinyurl.com/7fucm5p
Where in that article did Kerry say the accusations were false? If you bothered
to have read it, he said, "The words were honest," not false.
>> >He exonerated himself by pointing
>> >out all those claims were made before
>> >the Senate as hearsay evidence.
>>
>> They weren't made before the Senate;
>> they were made in a hotel.
>
>Kerry actually testified before the US
>Senate in 1971. This was separate from
>WSI.
>> Similar claims have been recently
>> discovered that were investigated
>> by the CID that did prove that such
>> things were occurring in all divisions
>> throughout the war. Books written,
>> letters home, articles written,
>> veteran's testimonies... there is
>> too much to deny unless you're a
>> conspiracist.
>
>Most of what you're referring to is
>just regurgitation of WSI.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War_Crimes_Working_Group_Files
>The fact of the matter is, the "all
>lawful orders" thingy in the oath is
>explained in detail to all US military
>personnel. They too tend to take this
>extremely seriously. After all, it's
>their asses on the line if they don't.
were lying about their service in Vietnam or their statements. If you discover
something, please let me know.
dino
Jan 23, 2012, 10:23:38 AM1/23/12
to
>I favor stuffed peppers; I do Poblanos
>with polenta and cheese stuffing... I
>*never* beep fry 'em.
Do you take the outer skin off? I've made them both ways and I like them best
>with polenta and cheese stuffing... I
>*never* beep fry 'em.
with the skin removed, but I haven't found a good way of doing that. I tried
tossing them in hot oil until the skin blisters and then quickly dunk them in
ice water. That helps some but it still takes me a long time to remove the
skin.
Try serranos stuffed with blue stilton for an interesting treat. I discovered
those in an English pub, of all places.
Nigel Brooks
Jan 23, 2012, 10:24:21 AM1/23/12
to
"!Jones" <hsoi...@kjipu.com> wrote in message
news:ligph71kihmejd04e...@4ax.com...
> Yup; we damn sure don't vote with our brains, do we?
>
> Jones
Which is why I think a Salma Hayek and Sophia Vergara candidacy would win.
>
> Jones
Nigel Brooks
Jan 23, 2012, 10:33:41 AM1/23/12
to
news:jfjq1...@drn.newsguy.com...
Ok - here's the deal, lets settle this matter for once and for all.
I propose that Dino and Myself - representing the Yin and the Yang of the
truth or untruthfulness of the WSI and it's participants journey to NARA
College Park Maryland where we will spend our time researching all available
records. We will also visit the Hqs of the US Army Criminal Investigation
Divison and the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, Library of Congress,
and any other agency we deem appropriate.
I would estimate that this endeavor will take at least 30 days if not more
and will require a large expenditure of funds for perdiem, travel etc.
All those interested in settling this matter should send their donations to
the expeditions treasurer !jones.
I propose that Dino and Myself - representing the Yin and the Yang of the
truth or untruthfulness of the WSI and it's participants journey to NARA
College Park Maryland where we will spend our time researching all available
records. We will also visit the Hqs of the US Army Criminal Investigation
Divison and the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, Library of Congress,
and any other agency we deem appropriate.
I would estimate that this endeavor will take at least 30 days if not more
and will require a large expenditure of funds for perdiem, travel etc.
All those interested in settling this matter should send their donations to
the expeditions treasurer !jones.
dino
Jan 23, 2012, 10:45:57 AM1/23/12
to
Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
Jan 23, 2012, 2:50:34 PM1/23/12
to
Neolibertarian wrote:
> In article <uOCdnen7FsE-PYHS...@supernews.com>,
> "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <dr...@coldine.edu> wrote:
>
>
>>Neolibertarian wrote:
>>
>>>None of the testimony was corroborated nor substantiated.
>>
>>It could have been, one way or the other, if there had been
>>a real investigation (the goal of WSI) by the CID, but *clearly*
>>the U.S. military was afraid of that Pandora's box...oh what fun
>>that would have been!
>
>
> "Fun?"
"Afraid of that Pandora's box?"
> In article <uOCdnen7FsE-PYHS...@supernews.com>,
> "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <dr...@coldine.edu> wrote:
>
>
>>Neolibertarian wrote:
>>
>>>None of the testimony was corroborated nor substantiated.
>>
>>It could have been, one way or the other, if there had been
>>a real investigation (the goal of WSI) by the CID, but *clearly*
>>the U.S. military was afraid of that Pandora's box...oh what fun
>>that would have been!
>
>
> "Fun?"
Bill Clarke
Jan 23, 2012, 3:09:23 PM1/23/12
to
and we'll never see him again.
Bill Clarke
Neolibertarian
Jan 23, 2012, 11:05:41 PM1/23/12
to
In article <jfjq1...@drn.newsguy.com>,
Best just to assume I appreciate the difference between secondary and
primary sources.
Which I already do.
> >Lewy may have been mistaken, or he might
> >not have been. He hasn't ever recanted,
> >AFAIK.
>
> Believing is a conspiracy is similar to believing in a religion.
> You really
> have to have a lot of faith. Those of us who do not believe in conspiracies
> want to see the evidence. If Lewy saw it or heard about it, then it should
> exist, but where is it? No one seems to know.
No one was discussing a conspiracy until you began to do so.
Which leaves us with the CID evidence.
The NIS evidence indicated WSI witnesses and complainants were lying.
The CID evidence indicates WSI witnesses and complainants were being
extraordinarily evasive (with very few exceptions).
> If you truly believe that, then produce the evidence.
Okay.
existed.
Which doesn't really shed light on whether Lewy actually viewed them, or
not.
Still, the assertion has already been withdrawn two posts ago at this
point.
Press that point all you want, the rest of us have already moved on.
> >> Recently, Lewy stated that he couldn't
> >> remember if he ever saw those documents
> >> or just heard about them from somebody.
> >> In other words: The documents do not
> >> exist and probably never did. Until
> >> someone actually finds them, we can mark
> >> that off as bullshit.
> >
> >An unsubstantiated claim, I'll freely
> >admit since I'm in no position to dig any
> >further.
> >
> >But according to you, unsubstantiated
> >claims are as good as substantiated
> >claims.
> >
> >Help me out here, which is it?
> >
> >I'll willingly withdraw this one
> >unsubstantiated claim, if you'll
> >withdraw the 100's of unsubstantiated
> >claims of the WSI.
>
> I have never claimed that the WSI testimonies were substantiated. What I
> stated
> and continue to declare is that there is no evidence to prove that any of the
> WSI participants were not Vietnam vets
Claim already withdrawn. We won't be proving that one way or the other.
I've already instructed the jury to disregard, your Honor.
> or that their testimonies were proven
> false.
They were.
[snip]
early 1970's, a far higher percentage.
Percentage of lawyers or those who possess a law degree among the
leadership and committee chairs in Congress is far higher.
Being a lawyer comes in handy when writing law, of course.
organizers understood the consequences of what they were doing and how
they were doing it.
I can't read their minds, but I can interpret what they said and did.
Certainly, I've pointed out the obvious and uniform results. Unless
there's reason to believe otherwise, it's often best to assume those who
instigate a particular action have an idea of the possible consequences
of that action.
consequences for their testimony.
Testimony in a court of law is sworn to under penalties of perjury.
Lying to law enforcement officers in an official criminal investigation
can involve multiple misdemeanor and/or felony violations.
Testimony provided in the conference room of a Detroit hotel cannot
carry as much weight as sworn testimony in court, before Congress, or
given in an official criminal investigation.
This diminishes the weight of the available testimony. The sum of zeros
is still zero.
If you'll recall, the earlier poster, to whom I first replied, was under
the impression that the WSI testimony was sworn to before Congress.
You don't think that impression was the aim all along?
I don't know that there was a conspiracy (which you brought up), nor do
I necessarily see evidence of one being put forward by contributers at
WinterSoldier.com.
This is Usenet, and as such is open to both opinions and formal debate.
I've found in past discussions that reasoned opinions can be of some
value to me, so I'm offering mine here to you.
Jeremy Rifkin, Michael Uhl and Jane Fonda among others, were organizers
of the WSI.
Some of the organizers from VVAW, had already participated in the "War
Crimes Tribunals" organized by Bertrand Russell, John Paul Sartre and
Kenneth Coates back in 1967-1968, which were held in Stockholm, et al.
WSI was modeled upon these "tribunals."
It would be silly to ignore the marxist and anarchist undercurrents of
the individuals involved; their stated political beliefs; their alliance
with the New Left in the United States, associated revolutionary groups
and common stated aims.
Too young by one year to have served in Vietnam, I was alive then and
know something of these people; what they said and did at the time;
where they claimed they hoped it would all lead. And I've learned more
about them since.
One can note all that, while not indicting any particular
member/organizer of being a knowing member in a conspiracy to overthrow
the United States. I freely acknowledge one can theoretically advocate
radical social change without advocating violence and treason against
the state--Noam Chomsky being a prominent example of such (Chomsky, a
leftist-libertarian, or non-violent anarchist, consistently claims no
one has a moral right to use force to impose beliefs or will, or even
the law upon others). Chomsky's notions of non violence aren't plausible
in the least, of course, but they are quite firmly stated and held.
I don't speak for the owners of and contributers to WinterSoldier.com,
but I can assure you "conspiracy" isn't the correct term. When you're
completely open, public and vocal about your aims and goals and
organizational activities, it can hardly be called a conspiracy. It is,
rather, a political movement.
What was this political movement?
It might have been many things, but with one main result.
The unavoidable fact is, had Zhou Enlai trained the US anti-war
activists himself, and told them exactly what to say; had the CPV
organized them, paid them, supported them...well, you tell me: how and
in what way would they have acted any differently?
The answer couldn't be more obvious.
I suppose you're familiar with Bui Tin's writings and interviews.
"QUESTION: Was the American antiwar movement important to Hanoi's
victory?
"BUI TIN: It was essential to our strategy. Support of the war from our
rear was completely secure while the American rear was vulnerable. Every
day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9 a.m.
to follow the growth of the American antiwar movement. Visits to Hanoi
by people like Jane Fonda, and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and
ministers gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of
battlefield reverses. We were elated when Jane Fonda, wearing a red
Vietnamese dress, said at a press conference that she was ashamed of
American actions in the war and that she would struggle along with us."
---Former North Vietnamese General Bui Tin
Wall Street Journal Interview (August 3, 1995)
Do you really have the stomach for me to repeat here all the abysmal
things Jane Fonda claimed and said?
I'm not sure I do. Despite her later recantations.
felonies.
that any lied, but the evidence remains an overwhelming majority were
not serious enough about their accusations to pursue them legally.
1) Some changed their testimony for the CID investigation.
2) A vast majority refused to repeat their testimony for investigators.
3) None of the claims (with one exception) could be substantiated.
What if, for instance, you made wild accusations that you'd witnessed US
soldiers indiscriminately shooting civilians and torturing prisoners,
all while you were standing in front of cameras and microphones in a
Detroit hotel.
Later, when criminal investigators interview you as part of an official
investigation, suddenly you remember it wasn't US soldiers after all,
but ARVN troops who'd committed those war crimes.
That's either recklessness, an honest mistake, or a lie. Or some
combination of those.
None of those possibilities changes the basic math:
The sum of zeros is still zero.
>
> >> They just didn't provide further
> >> clarification during interrogation
> >> for reasons which they quite clearly
> >> explained. That is not proof that
> >> they were lying. No one has ever
> >> proved any of their comments to be
> >> lies nor has anyone ever proved that
> >> they were lying about their service
> >> in Vietnam.
> >
> >Some of the subsequent investigations
> >proved the claims to be false
>
> I am asking for evidence, not assertions. If 'subsequent investigation
> proved
> the claims to be false' then produce the evidence, please.
Robert McConnachie:
Between [January and February 1971 at WSI] Mr. McConnachie...alleged
that during a troop movement North of Lai Khe...unidentified troops in
moving vehicles...threw C-ration cans at children...with such force that
one or two were killed when struck. According to McConnachie...MP's and
an unidentified Lt. witnessed the incident. [He] further alleged an
artillery unit...fired 46 rounds into a leper hospital...killing some
civilians...[he] said the artillery unit was aware of the location of
the hospital.
In a CID [July 14 1971] interview...McConnachie stated that two or three
children were injured as a result of the C-rations being thrown at them,
and MP's reprimanded members of the convoy for their actions and
remained in the village with the injured children...[He] said he was not
aware of the extent of [their] injuries. Concerning the artillery
strike, [he] stated [that his earlier WSI testimony] was based on
assumption, and...in retrospect...thought the incidents were
unintentional and accidental.
http://www.wintersoldier.com/cid/McConnachie.pdf
Larry Criag:
Between [January and February 1971] alleged [at WSI] that he observed
unidentified members of the 3/4th Cav shoot and kill a [Prisoner of
War]. On another occasion...observed an unidentified person partially
remove dirt from a grave in order to determine the approximate time of
burial. The grave site was subsequently used as a basis for a body
count...
Mr. Craig [in a July 29, 1971 CID interview] stated that the Vietnamese
male killed could have been a [Viet Cong] and that the US soldier
digging in the cemetery could have been looking for weapons caches. Mr.
Craig was unable to provide specific information.
http://www.wintersoldier.com/cid/LCraig.pdf
John Lytle:
Between [January and February 1971]...Lytle...[at WSI] alleged that
during harassment and interdiction fire, 105mm shells were at times
fired into villages at night as a result of movement in villages...Lytle
inferred that no efforts were made to determine who was in the target
area...
In a [June 16, 1971 interview with CID investigators]...Lytle stated the
villages were fired on because it was suspected that VC [Viet Cong]
occupied them because incoming fire had been received from that
approximate area...
http://www.wintersoldier.com/cid/Lytle.pdf
Douglas Craig:
At WSI, Mr. Craig alleged "unidentified members of his battalion nightly
fired mortar rounds into a local dump with the knowledge that local
civilians would be scavenging food there...as a result...approximately
two civilians a week were killed."
In a CID interview...Mr. Craig stated that he had no direct information
that civilians were killed and...no knowledge as to who fired the
mortars. He further stated that he had misgivings about testifying in
Detroit as he could not substantiate the allegations.
http://www.wintersoldier.com/cid/DCraig.pdf
Again, there's one of three possibilities, and lying is certainly one of
those.
component of any conspiracy is secrecy.
>
[snip]
As I remember (just winging it):
The first investigation turned out to be a dead end. Calley and his men
stuck to their stories.
This didn't stop soldiers involved and witnesses from other units (some
of whom had physically interdicted the massacre, facing down Calley and
his men at gunpoint). The charges against Calley continued to be pursued
with Army command.
The second investigation was opened, and was handled by then Col. Colin
Powell, who botched it so horribly, he had to be destined for promotion.
Evidently, he did such a poor job he was ultimately JCS bound.
Powell concluded that, since nearby villagers were still friendly to US
forces in the area, there wasn't any reason to suppose the charges were
true. The case was dropped yet again.
This is when the Riddenhour letter was sent to Udall, JCS, Nixon, et al.
From what I gather, Udall or his people then contacted Seymour Hersh (at
the time an unemployed press secretary and Democrat speech writer, late
of the Eugene McCarthy campaign).
The investigation had already been reopened, and Hersh was told exactly
where he could find Calley, as he was at that time restricted to base.
Hersh orchestrated a meeting with Calley at the base officer's club.
After buying him rounds of drinks for hours, Hersh bought some six-packs
and steaks for the two of them to grill back at Calley's apartment. At
some point late in the evening, he got Calley talking about the
incident. Once he had Calley talking about the particulars of the case
(something he was under explicit orders not to do), Hersh had his byline.
By all accounts, Calley wasn't very bright, even on his best day. And,
beyond the shadow of a doubt, on his worst days, he was no more than an
unthinking brute. How he managed to fool his way into an officer's
uniform will always remain a mystery.
Everyone here knows what followed that, I presume.
I'm sorry you're having so much trouble with this. Let me clarify the
CID report you failed to read carefully:
"In a [June 21st, 1971] interview, Mr. Smith stated that in [October of
1963] in the Hiep Hoa Hamlet, he observed SVN [South Vietnamese] from
the local Civilian Irregular Defense Group [South Vietnamese Militia or
ad hoc militia] beat PW's [Prisoners of War] and place them in barbed
wire cages..."
http://www.wintersoldier.com/cid/Smith.pdf
The secondary source (Swett) matches exactly with the primary source.
Smith first claimed the crimes had been committed by members of the US
military (his unit), but when interviewed by CID, he claims, instead,
these acts were committed by South Vietnamese militia.
And, in fact, I think this explains much of the WSI erroneous
testimony--that part of it which can't be explained away as reckless
disregard for the facts or out an out lies.
While it was never in any way the policy of the United States Department
of Defense and US military command to condone or tolerate war crimes in
US military operations in South Vietnam, it was, seemingly, the policy
to tolerate war crimes committed by ARVN and RVN militia.
A smaller sin, but a sin nevertheless.
And, let's face it, the Vietnam War was begun in sin, and with a huge
"Operation: Northwoods" style lie.
Johnson beats out Buchanan for worst president in American history in
almost every category. Buchanan's blunders may have cost far more
American lives, but his were mostly passive blunders. Johnson's many
blunders were all very much proactive, and therefore of a far worse sort.
And it's because of no one but Old Bull Nuts, we're still debating these
lies, damned lies, and statistics 39 confused years later.
primary sources.
Which I already do.
> >Lewy may have been mistaken, or he might
> >not have been. He hasn't ever recanted,
> >AFAIK.
>
> Believing is a conspiracy is similar to believing in a religion.
> You really
> have to have a lot of faith. Those of us who do not believe in conspiracies
> want to see the evidence. If Lewy saw it or heard about it, then it should
> exist, but where is it? No one seems to know.
>
> >> >The CID merely couldn't turn up several
> >> >of the witnesses--who knows if they were
> >> >real names in the first place, or merely
> >> >individuals who proved hard to locate?
> >>
> >> The CID did interrogate several members of the WSI. The summaries of
> >> those
> >> investigations are included as links to the URL that you offered:
> >> http://www.wintersoldier.com/index.php?topic=CID
> >
> >Yes, and you might examine them.
>
> Why would I need to examine them? Your assertion is that there is evidence
> that
> the WSI members lied.
The NIS evidence is already withdrawn.
> >> >The CID merely couldn't turn up several
> >> >of the witnesses--who knows if they were
> >> >real names in the first place, or merely
> >> >individuals who proved hard to locate?
> >>
> >> The CID did interrogate several members of the WSI. The summaries of
> >> those
> >> investigations are included as links to the URL that you offered:
> >> http://www.wintersoldier.com/index.php?topic=CID
> >
> >Yes, and you might examine them.
>
> Why would I need to examine them? Your assertion is that there is evidence
> that
> the WSI members lied.
Which leaves us with the CID evidence.
The NIS evidence indicated WSI witnesses and complainants were lying.
The CID evidence indicates WSI witnesses and complainants were being
extraordinarily evasive (with very few exceptions).
> If you truly believe that, then produce the evidence.
>
> >> >The assertion is from Lewy's seminal
> >> >history "America in Vietnam" (1978),
> >> >"Lewy also reported that several
> >> >veterans told the NIS in sworn
> >> >statements corroborated by witnesses
> >> >that they had not been in Detroit
> >> >-- i.e., the VVAW activists who used
> >> >their names were imposters."
> >>
> >> And, where are these "witnesses" and
> >> sworn statements? The documents that
> >> Lewy claimed to have existed are nowhere
> >> to be found. NCIS has no record that
> >> such documents ever existed.
> >
> >Who at NCIS ever claimed that?
>
> Paul O'Donnell
While true, O'Donnell is careful not to claim such documents never
> >> >The assertion is from Lewy's seminal
> >> >history "America in Vietnam" (1978),
> >> >"Lewy also reported that several
> >> >veterans told the NIS in sworn
> >> >statements corroborated by witnesses
> >> >that they had not been in Detroit
> >> >-- i.e., the VVAW activists who used
> >> >their names were imposters."
> >>
> >> And, where are these "witnesses" and
> >> sworn statements? The documents that
> >> Lewy claimed to have existed are nowhere
> >> to be found. NCIS has no record that
> >> such documents ever existed.
> >
> >Who at NCIS ever claimed that?
>
> Paul O'Donnell
existed.
Which doesn't really shed light on whether Lewy actually viewed them, or
not.
Still, the assertion has already been withdrawn two posts ago at this
point.
Press that point all you want, the rest of us have already moved on.
> >> Recently, Lewy stated that he couldn't
> >> remember if he ever saw those documents
> >> or just heard about them from somebody.
> >> In other words: The documents do not
> >> exist and probably never did. Until
> >> someone actually finds them, we can mark
> >> that off as bullshit.
> >
> >An unsubstantiated claim, I'll freely
> >admit since I'm in no position to dig any
> >further.
> >
> >But according to you, unsubstantiated
> >claims are as good as substantiated
> >claims.
> >
> >Help me out here, which is it?
> >
> >I'll willingly withdraw this one
> >unsubstantiated claim, if you'll
> >withdraw the 100's of unsubstantiated
> >claims of the WSI.
>
> I have never claimed that the WSI testimonies were substantiated. What I
> stated
> and continue to declare is that there is no evidence to prove that any of the
> WSI participants were not Vietnam vets
I've already instructed the jury to disregard, your Honor.
> or that their testimonies were proven
> false.
[snip]
> >
> >Besides, they're all lawyers. They don't
> >put anyone on the stand who hasn't
> >already testified (at the very least in
> >a deposition) to what they're going to
> >say in the witness chair.
>
> All congressmen are lawyers?
In the Senate, especially. Over half. It used to be, say back in the
> >Besides, they're all lawyers. They don't
> >put anyone on the stand who hasn't
> >already testified (at the very least in
> >a deposition) to what they're going to
> >say in the witness chair.
>
> All congressmen are lawyers?
early 1970's, a far higher percentage.
Percentage of lawyers or those who possess a law degree among the
leadership and committee chairs in Congress is far higher.
Being a lawyer comes in handy when writing law, of course.
>
> >> >The Winter Soldier witnesses knew
> >> >that perfectly well, even if you don't.
> >>
> >> That's your assertion. Do you have
> >> evidence of your assertion?
> >
> >They were represented by the VVAW
> >lawyers. We assume the lawyers,
> >marxist or not, would know how to
> >prevent the thing from snowballing
> >into an embarrassing Congressional
> >or criminal investigation, n'est ce
> >pas?
>
> When you use words like 'they' and 'assume' for evidence, you've pretty much
> lost the ball.
You asked what evidence I had that the Winter Soldier Investigation
> >> >The Winter Soldier witnesses knew
> >> >that perfectly well, even if you don't.
> >>
> >> That's your assertion. Do you have
> >> evidence of your assertion?
> >
> >They were represented by the VVAW
> >lawyers. We assume the lawyers,
> >marxist or not, would know how to
> >prevent the thing from snowballing
> >into an embarrassing Congressional
> >or criminal investigation, n'est ce
> >pas?
>
> When you use words like 'they' and 'assume' for evidence, you've pretty much
> lost the ball.
organizers understood the consequences of what they were doing and how
they were doing it.
I can't read their minds, but I can interpret what they said and did.
Certainly, I've pointed out the obvious and uniform results. Unless
there's reason to believe otherwise, it's often best to assume those who
instigate a particular action have an idea of the possible consequences
of that action.
>
> >The only way they could guarantee
> >damage to the credibility of the
> >United States military, without
> >risk to themselves, was to do exactly
> >what they did:
> >
> >Make the accusations at a venue
> >where there were zero legal
> >liabilities in doing so.
>
> All very interesting but that is not evidence that they were lying.
It's merely evidence that they were careful to avoid any legal
> >The only way they could guarantee
> >damage to the credibility of the
> >United States military, without
> >risk to themselves, was to do exactly
> >what they did:
> >
> >Make the accusations at a venue
> >where there were zero legal
> >liabilities in doing so.
>
> All very interesting but that is not evidence that they were lying.
consequences for their testimony.
Testimony in a court of law is sworn to under penalties of perjury.
Lying to law enforcement officers in an official criminal investigation
can involve multiple misdemeanor and/or felony violations.
Testimony provided in the conference room of a Detroit hotel cannot
carry as much weight as sworn testimony in court, before Congress, or
given in an official criminal investigation.
>
> >Repeating those accusations to law
> >enforcement officers conducting an
> >official investigation would carry
> >negative consequences, if later
> >proved untrue.
> >
> >Repeating those accusations under
> >oath to Congress would carry negative
> >consequences, if later proved untrue.
>
> Interesting conjecture but none of this is evidence that they were lying.
It's not conjecture, it's fact.
> >Repeating those accusations to law
> >enforcement officers conducting an
> >official investigation would carry
> >negative consequences, if later
> >proved untrue.
> >
> >Repeating those accusations under
> >oath to Congress would carry negative
> >consequences, if later proved untrue.
>
> Interesting conjecture but none of this is evidence that they were lying.
This diminishes the weight of the available testimony. The sum of zeros
is still zero.
If you'll recall, the earlier poster, to whom I first replied, was under
the impression that the WSI testimony was sworn to before Congress.
You don't think that impression was the aim all along?
>
> >> Testimony from the WSI members
> >> says otherwise. They felt that
> >> atrocities were a systemic problem
> >> therefore they would not testify
> >> against individuals because they
> >> felt that the fault did not lie
> >> with them, but with the commanding
> >> officers. It's right there in their
> >> testimony. You can find it on
> >> wintersoldier.com
> >
> >There was no "systematic" policy,
> >implicit or explicit, by the United
> >State Military to commit (or even to
> >tolerate) war crimes in Vietnam.
> >
> >Period.
>
> Whether is was true or not, that is what the WSI participants said they
> believed.
Which was the whole freaking point.
> >> Testimony from the WSI members
> >> says otherwise. They felt that
> >> atrocities were a systemic problem
> >> therefore they would not testify
> >> against individuals because they
> >> felt that the fault did not lie
> >> with them, but with the commanding
> >> officers. It's right there in their
> >> testimony. You can find it on
> >> wintersoldier.com
> >
> >There was no "systematic" policy,
> >implicit or explicit, by the United
> >State Military to commit (or even to
> >tolerate) war crimes in Vietnam.
> >
> >Period.
>
> Whether is was true or not, that is what the WSI participants said they
> believed.
I don't know that there was a conspiracy (which you brought up), nor do
I necessarily see evidence of one being put forward by contributers at
WinterSoldier.com.
This is Usenet, and as such is open to both opinions and formal debate.
I've found in past discussions that reasoned opinions can be of some
value to me, so I'm offering mine here to you.
Jeremy Rifkin, Michael Uhl and Jane Fonda among others, were organizers
of the WSI.
Some of the organizers from VVAW, had already participated in the "War
Crimes Tribunals" organized by Bertrand Russell, John Paul Sartre and
Kenneth Coates back in 1967-1968, which were held in Stockholm, et al.
WSI was modeled upon these "tribunals."
It would be silly to ignore the marxist and anarchist undercurrents of
the individuals involved; their stated political beliefs; their alliance
with the New Left in the United States, associated revolutionary groups
and common stated aims.
Too young by one year to have served in Vietnam, I was alive then and
know something of these people; what they said and did at the time;
where they claimed they hoped it would all lead. And I've learned more
about them since.
One can note all that, while not indicting any particular
member/organizer of being a knowing member in a conspiracy to overthrow
the United States. I freely acknowledge one can theoretically advocate
radical social change without advocating violence and treason against
the state--Noam Chomsky being a prominent example of such (Chomsky, a
leftist-libertarian, or non-violent anarchist, consistently claims no
one has a moral right to use force to impose beliefs or will, or even
the law upon others). Chomsky's notions of non violence aren't plausible
in the least, of course, but they are quite firmly stated and held.
I don't speak for the owners of and contributers to WinterSoldier.com,
but I can assure you "conspiracy" isn't the correct term. When you're
completely open, public and vocal about your aims and goals and
organizational activities, it can hardly be called a conspiracy. It is,
rather, a political movement.
What was this political movement?
It might have been many things, but with one main result.
The unavoidable fact is, had Zhou Enlai trained the US anti-war
activists himself, and told them exactly what to say; had the CPV
organized them, paid them, supported them...well, you tell me: how and
in what way would they have acted any differently?
The answer couldn't be more obvious.
I suppose you're familiar with Bui Tin's writings and interviews.
"QUESTION: Was the American antiwar movement important to Hanoi's
victory?
"BUI TIN: It was essential to our strategy. Support of the war from our
rear was completely secure while the American rear was vulnerable. Every
day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9 a.m.
to follow the growth of the American antiwar movement. Visits to Hanoi
by people like Jane Fonda, and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and
ministers gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of
battlefield reverses. We were elated when Jane Fonda, wearing a red
Vietnamese dress, said at a press conference that she was ashamed of
American actions in the war and that she would struggle along with us."
---Former North Vietnamese General Bui Tin
Wall Street Journal Interview (August 3, 1995)
>
> >The My Lai prosecution, spun as
> >indictment of the policy of the
> >United States military by Seymour
> >Hersh and the New York Times, was
> >thought to be a large blow to the
> >US morale and the war effort in
> >Vietnam. The organizers of the WSI
> >were attempting to capitalize on
> >this wound.
>
> That is an assertion. Where is your evidence to support that assertion?
Their stated aims.
> >The My Lai prosecution, spun as
> >indictment of the policy of the
> >United States military by Seymour
> >Hersh and the New York Times, was
> >thought to be a large blow to the
> >US morale and the war effort in
> >Vietnam. The organizers of the WSI
> >were attempting to capitalize on
> >this wound.
>
> That is an assertion. Where is your evidence to support that assertion?
Do you really have the stomach for me to repeat here all the abysmal
things Jane Fonda claimed and said?
I'm not sure I do. Despite her later recantations.
>
> >And, in fact, they did capitalize
> >on it, without ever having to expose
> >themselves to any legal consequences
> >whatsoever.
>
> What legal consequences?
Perjury. Obstruction of justice. Lying to investigators. Various other
> >And, in fact, they did capitalize
> >on it, without ever having to expose
> >themselves to any legal consequences
> >whatsoever.
>
> What legal consequences?
felonies.
>
> >> >Claiming you won't testify except
> >> >before Congress amounts to the same
> >> >as saying you won't testify.
> >>
> >> They had already testified.
> >
> >Not under oath.
> >
> >They could say "President Johnson
> >personally ordered me to kill all
> >the babies in some village," and
> >there could be zero legal
> >consequences for making such a claim.
>
> I'm not exactly sure what any of this has to do with producing evidence that
> the
> WSI members lied.
The NIS evidence is already withdrawn. The evidence is no longer offered
> >> >Claiming you won't testify except
> >> >before Congress amounts to the same
> >> >as saying you won't testify.
> >>
> >> They had already testified.
> >
> >Not under oath.
> >
> >They could say "President Johnson
> >personally ordered me to kill all
> >the babies in some village," and
> >there could be zero legal
> >consequences for making such a claim.
>
> I'm not exactly sure what any of this has to do with producing evidence that
> the
> WSI members lied.
that any lied, but the evidence remains an overwhelming majority were
not serious enough about their accusations to pursue them legally.
1) Some changed their testimony for the CID investigation.
2) A vast majority refused to repeat their testimony for investigators.
3) None of the claims (with one exception) could be substantiated.
What if, for instance, you made wild accusations that you'd witnessed US
soldiers indiscriminately shooting civilians and torturing prisoners,
all while you were standing in front of cameras and microphones in a
Detroit hotel.
Later, when criminal investigators interview you as part of an official
investigation, suddenly you remember it wasn't US soldiers after all,
but ARVN troops who'd committed those war crimes.
That's either recklessness, an honest mistake, or a lie. Or some
combination of those.
None of those possibilities changes the basic math:
The sum of zeros is still zero.
>
> >> They just didn't provide further
> >> clarification during interrogation
> >> for reasons which they quite clearly
> >> explained. That is not proof that
> >> they were lying. No one has ever
> >> proved any of their comments to be
> >> lies nor has anyone ever proved that
> >> they were lying about their service
> >> in Vietnam.
> >
> >Some of the subsequent investigations
> >proved the claims to be false
>
> I am asking for evidence, not assertions. If 'subsequent investigation
> proved
> the claims to be false' then produce the evidence, please.
Between [January and February 1971 at WSI] Mr. McConnachie...alleged
that during a troop movement North of Lai Khe...unidentified troops in
moving vehicles...threw C-ration cans at children...with such force that
one or two were killed when struck. According to McConnachie...MP's and
an unidentified Lt. witnessed the incident. [He] further alleged an
artillery unit...fired 46 rounds into a leper hospital...killing some
civilians...[he] said the artillery unit was aware of the location of
the hospital.
In a CID [July 14 1971] interview...McConnachie stated that two or three
children were injured as a result of the C-rations being thrown at them,
and MP's reprimanded members of the convoy for their actions and
remained in the village with the injured children...[He] said he was not
aware of the extent of [their] injuries. Concerning the artillery
strike, [he] stated [that his earlier WSI testimony] was based on
assumption, and...in retrospect...thought the incidents were
unintentional and accidental.
http://www.wintersoldier.com/cid/McConnachie.pdf
Larry Criag:
Between [January and February 1971] alleged [at WSI] that he observed
unidentified members of the 3/4th Cav shoot and kill a [Prisoner of
War]. On another occasion...observed an unidentified person partially
remove dirt from a grave in order to determine the approximate time of
burial. The grave site was subsequently used as a basis for a body
count...
Mr. Craig [in a July 29, 1971 CID interview] stated that the Vietnamese
male killed could have been a [Viet Cong] and that the US soldier
digging in the cemetery could have been looking for weapons caches. Mr.
Craig was unable to provide specific information.
http://www.wintersoldier.com/cid/LCraig.pdf
John Lytle:
Between [January and February 1971]...Lytle...[at WSI] alleged that
during harassment and interdiction fire, 105mm shells were at times
fired into villages at night as a result of movement in villages...Lytle
inferred that no efforts were made to determine who was in the target
area...
In a [June 16, 1971 interview with CID investigators]...Lytle stated the
villages were fired on because it was suspected that VC [Viet Cong]
occupied them because incoming fire had been received from that
approximate area...
http://www.wintersoldier.com/cid/Lytle.pdf
Douglas Craig:
At WSI, Mr. Craig alleged "unidentified members of his battalion nightly
fired mortar rounds into a local dump with the knowledge that local
civilians would be scavenging food there...as a result...approximately
two civilians a week were killed."
In a CID interview...Mr. Craig stated that he had no direct information
that civilians were killed and...no knowledge as to who fired the
mortars. He further stated that he had misgivings about testifying in
Detroit as he could not substantiate the allegations.
http://www.wintersoldier.com/cid/DCraig.pdf
>
> >(lying is a state of mind, and much
> >harder to prove). None of the other
> >charges could be corroborated.
> >
> >That's a dismal record by anyone's account.
>
> So, you don't have any evidence that they lied?
I have no reason to believe any were serious.
> >(lying is a state of mind, and much
> >harder to prove). None of the other
> >charges could be corroborated.
> >
> >That's a dismal record by anyone's account.
>
> So, you don't have any evidence that they lied?
Again, there's one of three possibilities, and lying is certainly one of
those.
> >
> >Corsi didn't write the testimony.
> >We're discussing the testimony.
>
> I'm discussing the testimony; you're discussing the belief in a conspiracy.
You brought up conspiracy. Which is silly, because an important
> >Corsi didn't write the testimony.
> >We're discussing the testimony.
>
> I'm discussing the testimony; you're discussing the belief in a conspiracy.
component of any conspiracy is secrecy.
>
> >Corsi is an irrelevancy fallacy.
>
> I could think of better adjectives.
Your problem, and your red herring.
> >Corsi is an irrelevancy fallacy.
>
> I could think of better adjectives.
>
[snip]
> >
> >Then show me the case CID was able to pursue.
>
> I am not defending the WSI testimony. I am saying that there is no evidence
> that they lied. Where is your evidence that they lied?
>
> >You obviously don't know anything about
> >it, but I can assure you the United
> >States military takes allegations of
> >war crimes extremely seriously.
>
> As seriously as they did My Lai? Ever heard of Ron Riddenhour?
Do you know the sequence of events in that case?
> >Then show me the case CID was able to pursue.
>
> I am not defending the WSI testimony. I am saying that there is no evidence
> that they lied. Where is your evidence that they lied?
>
> >You obviously don't know anything about
> >it, but I can assure you the United
> >States military takes allegations of
> >war crimes extremely seriously.
>
> As seriously as they did My Lai? Ever heard of Ron Riddenhour?
As I remember (just winging it):
The first investigation turned out to be a dead end. Calley and his men
stuck to their stories.
This didn't stop soldiers involved and witnesses from other units (some
of whom had physically interdicted the massacre, facing down Calley and
his men at gunpoint). The charges against Calley continued to be pursued
with Army command.
The second investigation was opened, and was handled by then Col. Colin
Powell, who botched it so horribly, he had to be destined for promotion.
Evidently, he did such a poor job he was ultimately JCS bound.
Powell concluded that, since nearby villagers were still friendly to US
forces in the area, there wasn't any reason to suppose the charges were
true. The case was dropped yet again.
This is when the Riddenhour letter was sent to Udall, JCS, Nixon, et al.
From what I gather, Udall or his people then contacted Seymour Hersh (at
the time an unemployed press secretary and Democrat speech writer, late
of the Eugene McCarthy campaign).
The investigation had already been reopened, and Hersh was told exactly
where he could find Calley, as he was at that time restricted to base.
Hersh orchestrated a meeting with Calley at the base officer's club.
After buying him rounds of drinks for hours, Hersh bought some six-packs
and steaks for the two of them to grill back at Calley's apartment. At
some point late in the evening, he got Calley talking about the
incident. Once he had Calley talking about the particulars of the case
(something he was under explicit orders not to do), Hersh had his byline.
By all accounts, Calley wasn't very bright, even on his best day. And,
beyond the shadow of a doubt, on his worst days, he was no more than an
unthinking brute. How he managed to fool his way into an officer's
uniform will always remain a mystery.
Everyone here knows what followed that, I presume.
CID report you failed to read carefully:
"In a [June 21st, 1971] interview, Mr. Smith stated that in [October of
1963] in the Hiep Hoa Hamlet, he observed SVN [South Vietnamese] from
the local Civilian Irregular Defense Group [South Vietnamese Militia or
ad hoc militia] beat PW's [Prisoners of War] and place them in barbed
wire cages..."
http://www.wintersoldier.com/cid/Smith.pdf
The secondary source (Swett) matches exactly with the primary source.
Smith first claimed the crimes had been committed by members of the US
military (his unit), but when interviewed by CID, he claims, instead,
these acts were committed by South Vietnamese militia.
And, in fact, I think this explains much of the WSI erroneous
testimony--that part of it which can't be explained away as reckless
disregard for the facts or out an out lies.
While it was never in any way the policy of the United States Department
of Defense and US military command to condone or tolerate war crimes in
US military operations in South Vietnam, it was, seemingly, the policy
to tolerate war crimes committed by ARVN and RVN militia.
A smaller sin, but a sin nevertheless.
And, let's face it, the Vietnam War was begun in sin, and with a huge
"Operation: Northwoods" style lie.
Johnson beats out Buchanan for worst president in American history in
almost every category. Buchanan's blunders may have cost far more
American lives, but his were mostly passive blunders. Johnson's many
blunders were all very much proactive, and therefore of a far worse sort.
And it's because of no one but Old Bull Nuts, we're still debating these
lies, damned lies, and statistics 39 confused years later.
Bill Clarke
Jan 23, 2012, 11:43:52 PM1/23/12
to
In article <29849$4f1e2b34$18f556a5$19...@allthenewsgroups.com>, Neolibertarian
says...
Allow me just this one. It is my favorite Fonda quote, showing what a dumb
bitch she is.
"If you understood what Communism was, you would hope, you would pray on your
knees that one day we would become Communist." (speaking to students at the
University of Michigan in 1970)
Bill Clarke
says...
bitch she is.
"If you understood what Communism was, you would hope, you would pray on your
knees that one day we would become Communist." (speaking to students at the
University of Michigan in 1970)
Bill Clarke
Nigel Brooks
Jan 24, 2012, 1:32:08 AM1/24/12
to
"Neolibertarian" <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:29849$4f1e2b34$18f556a5$19...@allthenewsgroups.com...
>> As seriously as they did My Lai? Ever heard of Ron Riddenhour?
>
> Do you know the sequence of events in that case?
>
> As I remember (just winging it):
>
> The first investigation turned out to be a dead end. Calley and his men
> stuck to their stories.
>
> This didn't stop soldiers involved and witnesses from other units (some
> of whom had physically interdicted the massacre, facing down Calley and
> his men at gunpoint). The charges against Calley continued to be pursued
> with Army command.
>
> The second investigation was opened, and was handled by then Col. Colin
> Powell, who botched it so horribly, he had to be destined for promotion.
> Evidently, he did such a poor job he was ultimately JCS bound.
>
> Powell concluded that, since nearby villagers were still friendly to US
> forces in the area, there wasn't any reason to suppose the charges were
> true. The case was dropped yet again.
>
> This is when the Riddenhour letter was sent to Udall, JCS, Nixon, et al.
> Neolibertarian
>
> Do you know the sequence of events in that case?
>
> As I remember (just winging it):
>
> The first investigation turned out to be a dead end. Calley and his men
> stuck to their stories.
>
> This didn't stop soldiers involved and witnesses from other units (some
> of whom had physically interdicted the massacre, facing down Calley and
> his men at gunpoint). The charges against Calley continued to be pursued
> with Army command.
>
> The second investigation was opened, and was handled by then Col. Colin
> Powell, who botched it so horribly, he had to be destined for promotion.
> Evidently, he did such a poor job he was ultimately JCS bound.
>
> Powell concluded that, since nearby villagers were still friendly to US
> forces in the area, there wasn't any reason to suppose the charges were
> true. The case was dropped yet again.
>
> This is when the Riddenhour letter was sent to Udall, JCS, Nixon, et al.
>
A bunch of stuff deleted.
Colin Powell had absolutely nothing to do with the My Lai investigation.
On November 27, 1968 a letter was written by a former member of the Americal
Division named Tom Glen in which he complained about violations of MACV
directives and the Geneva Convention regarding the treatment of civilians
and prisoners during his tour in Vietnam.
Glen was not in the units which were responsible for the massacre and there
is no indication that he had any knowledge of that event.
In his letter, Glen did not mention My Lai and was not specific in his
allegations. On December 11, 1968 in his response to Glen's letter, Major
Colin Powell who was no in Vietnam when My Lai occurred responded to
COMUSMACV that "It is unfortunate that SP4 Glen does not specify incidents
or individuals concerned so that an investigation might be conducted".
The My Lai massacre occurred in March 1968.
Ron Ridenour wrote his letter in April of 1969 - the investigation began
that month.
As a direct result of CWO Andre Feher, US Army Criminal Investigation
Commands investigation, charges were preferred against William Calley in
September 1969.
In November 1969 Seymour Hersh caught on to the story
dino
Jan 24, 2012, 1:41:35 AM1/24/12
to
In article <9o71lh...@mid.individual.net>, Nigel Brooks says...
Thanks. I'll address the rest tommorrow.
DGVREIMAN
Jan 24, 2012, 5:28:38 AM1/24/12
to
"Dai Uy" <iims...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f23159a0-8316-41c1...@t13g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 20, 1:35 pm, "DGVREIMAN" <dgvrei...@comcast.net> wrote:
> "Neolibertarian" <cognac...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:35673$4f18d999$18f556a5$30...@allthenewsgroups.com...
>
> > In article <_MadnbgW4JkwzIrSnZ2dnUVZ5vedn...@giganews.com>,
> > "DGVREIMAN" <dgvrei...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >> I have amassed quite a bit of information on the Winter Soldier
> >> testimony which was sworn by Viet Nam vets in front of Congress.
>
> > Clumsy falsehood.
>
> >> I have amassed quite a bit of information on the Winter Soldier
> >> testimony which was sworn by Viet Nam vets in front of Congress.
>
>
> I see I am going to be required to publish what I retrieved from the
> record.
Here is the complete transcript for the so called Winter Soldier
Investigation...
http://www.wintersoldier.com/index.php?topic=CompletWSI
or http://tinyurl.com/8yzcjo2 Knock yourself out, see if you can
find where these lying assholes were sworn to anything. Their
testimony is worth no more than your own tales of your military
exploits, being wounded, shooting five year olds, cooking fake babies,
etc. It's all the same bull-shit.
In regards to PIO officers ordered to lie, if you were a little
more familiar with the combat end of the military rather than the
clerical end, you would know that Public Information Officers write
articles for hometown newspapers -- not after action reports.
After action reports are summaries of operations used for unit
histories, Identifying problems that arose, ways of improvement,
and arriving at “lessons learned”.
***
"When other beings, especially those who hold a grudge against
you, abuse and harm you out of envy, you should not abandon them, but
hold them as objects of your greatest compassion and take care of
them."
-His Holiness the Dalai Lama
If you are claiming that After Action Reports were different from the
news accounts, then perhaps you are not familiar with combat
operations? Apparently, one battle does not make an expert,
obviously. If you had went on enough patrols you would know the After
Action Reports were a "joke" and mostly followed the news accounts
which usually were normally published first. The published accounts
did not contradict the After Action Reports, and those that wrote the
accounts testified they were ordered to lie in those accounts.
Strange you want to ignore this very salient fact? Why?
Note the entire testimony was entered into the Congressional record
and was confirmed later by individual SWORN interviews.
Also, if you had experienced enough combat, and if you had made the
Tet offensive, you would have known about "Free Fire Zones" - the fact
you apparently do not know about them indicates to me that your combat
experiences are very limited.
I noticed zero mention of officers writing up their own after action
reports???
Strange
Doug Grant (Tm)
DGVREIMAN
Jan 24, 2012, 5:34:01 AM1/24/12
to
WINTER SOLDIER FACTS
Doug Says: I believe America should be above all that happened in Viet
Nam war. No doubt War is hell, but still, it has rules. Humanity and
morality dictates those rules.
Are we to emulate the Roman Legions and massacre all enemies, man
woman and child simply because we can? Or should we answer to a higher
voice and a higher morality?
War crime charges imposed on lower ranks for crimes they were ordered
to perpetrate by the higher "untouchable" ranks is not a foundation in
which to build an effective, efficient and honorable military.
Yet Abu Ghrab comes to mind, and I must wonder if all this ordering to
commit crimes then finding scapegoats to stand trial for those crimes
is still going on? From what we read below, it certainly was going on
during the Viet Nam war.
Fraud, in any respect, lying about after action reports, or lying
about war crimes, needs to be exposed and thereby stopped from
happening again.
I know we hamstring our military when it comes to forcing them to
fight wars honorably while our enemies fight them dishonorably.
Nevertheless, we have the best trained and most honorable military in
the world - and of course we should hold them to a higher standard
than our enemies.
As a case in point I remember when I was assigned to Can Tho (which
housed one of the largest POW camps in Viet Nam) how I often read in
interrogation transcripts of POW's (we were VERY interested in POW
interrogations in the Headquarters I was assigned to at the time) how
the NVA and Cong prisoners were amazed at the excellent medical
treatment they received from American doctors and nurses. The POW's
were treated no different that wounded GI's - which was something
they never expected.
That kind of humane treatment was not what Ho Chi Minh had told them
they would receive.
It didn't take the POW's long to realize they had been fed a truck
load of propaganda about the American Army. (I know - I know - our
resident con man has claimed I was never in Can Tho, and I never ever
never was involved with POW interrogations - but then my military
records prove that con man is the serial liar I know him to be, and I
will be glad to prove every word I said about this issue if anyone is
interested).
We need to strive to be better than our enemies. Period. End of
story.
More facts about the Winter Soldier testimony is listed below:
http://tinyurl.com/54skf Winter Soldier Investigation:
Key Excerpts from the link above:
Credibility of the veterans and their testimony
"Since the first day of the WSI event and for more than thirty years
since, individuals and organizations have sought to discredit or at
least minimize the painful revelations brought forth at that event.
Critics have claimed that participants were frauds; that they were
told to not cooperate with later investigators; that their testimonies
were inaccurate or just plain fabricated.[18] To date, no records of
fraudulent participants or fraudulent testimony have been
produced.[10]
"We who have come here to Washington have come here because we feel we
have to be winter soldiers now. We could come back to this country; we
could be quiet; we could hold our silence; we could not tell what went
on in Vietnam, but we feel because of what threatens this country, the
fact that the crimes threaten it, not reds, and not redcoats but the
crimes which we are committing that threaten it, that we have to speak
out.
1. complete transcript was later entered into the Congressional
Record by Senator Mark Hatfield, and discussed in the Fulbright
Hearings in April and May 1971, convened by Senator J. William
Fulbright, chair of the United States Senate Committee on Foreign
Relations.
The program consisted primarily of testimony, with 109 Vietnam
veterans to appear on panels arranged by unit so they could
corroborate each other's reports. Grouping these veterans by unit
would also help to establish that events and practices to which they
testified were unit-wide policy, and not just random and rare
occurrences.
Organizers also investigated the legal implications of veterans
publicly admitting to criminal acts which they had witnessed or
participated in. With legal advice from the 1. Center for
Constitutional Rights, the organizers were assured that the armed
forces could not charge or try veterans for crimes committed while
they were on active duty.[16] The veterans giving testimony were also
instructed not to reveal the specific names of others involved in war
crimes. The goal of these hearings was not to indict individual
soldiers, but instead to expose the frequency of criminal behavior and
its relationship to U.S. war policy.[17]
Verifying the participants
1. The organizers of the Winter Soldier Investigation took several
steps to guarantee the validity of the participants. Each veteran's
authenticity was checked before the hearings by the investigation
event organizers, and subsequently by reporters and Pentagon
officials. In addition, they also gave specific details about their
units and the locations where the events had occurred. Those who
wanted to testify were carefully screened by the officers of VVAW, and
care was taken to verify the service records and testimony of the
veterans.
The identifying military affiliation of each veteran testifying,
including in almost all cases, the dates of service, appears on the
roster for each panel that was included with the testimony in the
Congressional Record.
According to Army reports compiled by the Criminal Investigation
Command (1. CID) and later reported by the Village Voice following
declassification, the Army found the allegations made by 46 veterans
at the hearings to merit further inquiry. As of March 1972, the CID
reported successfully locating 36 of the people who had testified, 31
of whom submitted to interviews.[20]
One WSI participant, Jamie Henry, had reported the massacre he
described at the hearings [21] to the Army, which investigated and
subsequently confirmed his story.
Nixon attempted to discredit the testimony:
Seven years after the hearings, writer 1. Guenter Lewy claimed in his
book, America in Vietnam, that allegations against Marines were
investigated by the Naval Investigative Service. Lewy wrote that the
report stated that some veterans contacted by the NIS said they did
not attend the WSI hearing in Detroit or had never been to Detroit,
and many refused to be interviewed. However, government officials have
no record of the report, and no other historian has seen it.[10] Lewy
later said that he could not recall if he had actually seen the
alleged report or simply been told of its contents.[
Fritz Efaw, a Chapter Representative of VVAW, stated: "The claims that
the WSI hearings contained falsified testimony from men who were not
veterans is an old one, and it's definitely false.
The testimony was startling even at the time it took place: startling
to the general public, startling to the military and the Nixon
administration, and startling to those who participated because each
of them knew a piece of the story, but the hearings brought a great
many of them together for the first time and provided a venue in which
they could be heard for the first time. It's hardly surprising that
those on the other side would set out almost immediately to discredit
them."
The U.S. participation in the Vietnam War was the source of much
deeply divided sentiment among Americans. The Winter Soldier
Investigation produced a conglomerate of testimony resulting in the
implication and indictment of American leadership in criminal conduct,
and thereby further drove a wedge between proponents and opponents of
the war."
End excerpts:
Doug Says:
"Indictment of American leadership in criminal conduct. . ." I know I
witnessed some of it, and I doubt if any real combat Vet would say
otherwise. I grow weary of all the BS claims that officers did not
pander for medals, nor helped to write up their own after action
reports that gained them those medals based upon their fraudulent
reports, of course they did - we all KNOW they did!
Doug Grant (Tm)
news:jfepe...@drn.newsguy.com...
> In article <18ilh7dd87icqmhq0...@4ax.com>, !Jones
> says...
>>
>>On 18 Jan 2012 21:20:58 -0800, in alt.war.vietnam Bill Clarke
>>As a rule, Uncle, most anyone who was killed received a medal of
>>some
>>kind... their Moms, did, anyway. My brother received the Silver
>>Star... if you strap on an F4 or amtrac, that's pretty heroic...
>>but,
>>all he did in addition to *that* was to take a direct hit from the
>>AAA
>>and game over. He even has a street on Shepard AFB named after him.
>>
>>And I'm not saying they're not real... not saying they are. If you
>>send the kid home in a box, what's the harm in adding a medal in
>>there
>>with him? Kinna like a toy in a ceral box, I guess? I'd be willing
>>to wager that somebody at DOA probably awarded the Lts a medal as
>>their coffins came through graves registration.
>>
>>Back in the '90s, we had a guy posting here who worked graves
>>registration... what was that turkey's name? from Escalante, UT, as
>>I
>>recall... Robert Brown??? Anyway, he said 'bout the same thing.
>>
>>Jones
>>
>
> Of course Nephew. They would all receive the Purple Heart. And I
> agree with
> you, there were probably sometimes other medals added, mostly for
> the families
> and I really have no problem with that. But I doubt these added
> medals
> routinely included the Silver Star. They were more likely in the
> form of
> commendation medals and Bronze Stars with and without the V device.
> I remember the fellow that worked in graves registration (the
> coolers as the
> troops called it) but not his name.
> Bill Clarke
Those that went home in a big green box deserved a medal in my
opinion. They gave up everything they had and everything they ever
will have for their country. But any officer that received a medal
who helped to write or wrote up his own after action report should
give it back in my opinion.
Doug Grant (Tm)
Doug Says: I believe America should be above all that happened in Viet
Nam war. No doubt War is hell, but still, it has rules. Humanity and
morality dictates those rules.
Are we to emulate the Roman Legions and massacre all enemies, man
woman and child simply because we can? Or should we answer to a higher
voice and a higher morality?
War crime charges imposed on lower ranks for crimes they were ordered
to perpetrate by the higher "untouchable" ranks is not a foundation in
which to build an effective, efficient and honorable military.
Yet Abu Ghrab comes to mind, and I must wonder if all this ordering to
commit crimes then finding scapegoats to stand trial for those crimes
is still going on? From what we read below, it certainly was going on
during the Viet Nam war.
Fraud, in any respect, lying about after action reports, or lying
about war crimes, needs to be exposed and thereby stopped from
happening again.
I know we hamstring our military when it comes to forcing them to
fight wars honorably while our enemies fight them dishonorably.
Nevertheless, we have the best trained and most honorable military in
the world - and of course we should hold them to a higher standard
than our enemies.
As a case in point I remember when I was assigned to Can Tho (which
housed one of the largest POW camps in Viet Nam) how I often read in
interrogation transcripts of POW's (we were VERY interested in POW
interrogations in the Headquarters I was assigned to at the time) how
the NVA and Cong prisoners were amazed at the excellent medical
treatment they received from American doctors and nurses. The POW's
were treated no different that wounded GI's - which was something
they never expected.
That kind of humane treatment was not what Ho Chi Minh had told them
they would receive.
It didn't take the POW's long to realize they had been fed a truck
load of propaganda about the American Army. (I know - I know - our
resident con man has claimed I was never in Can Tho, and I never ever
never was involved with POW interrogations - but then my military
records prove that con man is the serial liar I know him to be, and I
will be glad to prove every word I said about this issue if anyone is
interested).
We need to strive to be better than our enemies. Period. End of
story.
More facts about the Winter Soldier testimony is listed below:
http://tinyurl.com/54skf Winter Soldier Investigation:
Key Excerpts from the link above:
Credibility of the veterans and their testimony
"Since the first day of the WSI event and for more than thirty years
since, individuals and organizations have sought to discredit or at
least minimize the painful revelations brought forth at that event.
Critics have claimed that participants were frauds; that they were
told to not cooperate with later investigators; that their testimonies
were inaccurate or just plain fabricated.[18] To date, no records of
fraudulent participants or fraudulent testimony have been
produced.[10]
"We who have come here to Washington have come here because we feel we
have to be winter soldiers now. We could come back to this country; we
could be quiet; we could hold our silence; we could not tell what went
on in Vietnam, but we feel because of what threatens this country, the
fact that the crimes threaten it, not reds, and not redcoats but the
crimes which we are committing that threaten it, that we have to speak
out.
1. complete transcript was later entered into the Congressional
Record by Senator Mark Hatfield, and discussed in the Fulbright
Hearings in April and May 1971, convened by Senator J. William
Fulbright, chair of the United States Senate Committee on Foreign
Relations.
The program consisted primarily of testimony, with 109 Vietnam
veterans to appear on panels arranged by unit so they could
corroborate each other's reports. Grouping these veterans by unit
would also help to establish that events and practices to which they
testified were unit-wide policy, and not just random and rare
occurrences.
Organizers also investigated the legal implications of veterans
publicly admitting to criminal acts which they had witnessed or
participated in. With legal advice from the 1. Center for
Constitutional Rights, the organizers were assured that the armed
forces could not charge or try veterans for crimes committed while
they were on active duty.[16] The veterans giving testimony were also
instructed not to reveal the specific names of others involved in war
crimes. The goal of these hearings was not to indict individual
soldiers, but instead to expose the frequency of criminal behavior and
its relationship to U.S. war policy.[17]
Verifying the participants
1. The organizers of the Winter Soldier Investigation took several
steps to guarantee the validity of the participants. Each veteran's
authenticity was checked before the hearings by the investigation
event organizers, and subsequently by reporters and Pentagon
officials. In addition, they also gave specific details about their
units and the locations where the events had occurred. Those who
wanted to testify were carefully screened by the officers of VVAW, and
care was taken to verify the service records and testimony of the
veterans.
The identifying military affiliation of each veteran testifying,
including in almost all cases, the dates of service, appears on the
roster for each panel that was included with the testimony in the
Congressional Record.
According to Army reports compiled by the Criminal Investigation
Command (1. CID) and later reported by the Village Voice following
declassification, the Army found the allegations made by 46 veterans
at the hearings to merit further inquiry. As of March 1972, the CID
reported successfully locating 36 of the people who had testified, 31
of whom submitted to interviews.[20]
One WSI participant, Jamie Henry, had reported the massacre he
described at the hearings [21] to the Army, which investigated and
subsequently confirmed his story.
Nixon attempted to discredit the testimony:
Seven years after the hearings, writer 1. Guenter Lewy claimed in his
book, America in Vietnam, that allegations against Marines were
investigated by the Naval Investigative Service. Lewy wrote that the
report stated that some veterans contacted by the NIS said they did
not attend the WSI hearing in Detroit or had never been to Detroit,
and many refused to be interviewed. However, government officials have
no record of the report, and no other historian has seen it.[10] Lewy
later said that he could not recall if he had actually seen the
alleged report or simply been told of its contents.[
Fritz Efaw, a Chapter Representative of VVAW, stated: "The claims that
the WSI hearings contained falsified testimony from men who were not
veterans is an old one, and it's definitely false.
The testimony was startling even at the time it took place: startling
to the general public, startling to the military and the Nixon
administration, and startling to those who participated because each
of them knew a piece of the story, but the hearings brought a great
many of them together for the first time and provided a venue in which
they could be heard for the first time. It's hardly surprising that
those on the other side would set out almost immediately to discredit
them."
The U.S. participation in the Vietnam War was the source of much
deeply divided sentiment among Americans. The Winter Soldier
Investigation produced a conglomerate of testimony resulting in the
implication and indictment of American leadership in criminal conduct,
and thereby further drove a wedge between proponents and opponents of
the war."
End excerpts:
Doug Says:
"Indictment of American leadership in criminal conduct. . ." I know I
witnessed some of it, and I doubt if any real combat Vet would say
otherwise. I grow weary of all the BS claims that officers did not
pander for medals, nor helped to write up their own after action
reports that gained them those medals based upon their fraudulent
reports, of course they did - we all KNOW they did!
Doug Grant (Tm)
news:jfepe...@drn.newsguy.com...
> In article <18ilh7dd87icqmhq0...@4ax.com>, !Jones
> says...
>>
>>On 18 Jan 2012 21:20:58 -0800, in alt.war.vietnam Bill Clarke
>>some
>>kind... their Moms, did, anyway. My brother received the Silver
>>Star... if you strap on an F4 or amtrac, that's pretty heroic...
>>but,
>>all he did in addition to *that* was to take a direct hit from the
>>AAA
>>and game over. He even has a street on Shepard AFB named after him.
>>
>>And I'm not saying they're not real... not saying they are. If you
>>send the kid home in a box, what's the harm in adding a medal in
>>there
>>with him? Kinna like a toy in a ceral box, I guess? I'd be willing
>>to wager that somebody at DOA probably awarded the Lts a medal as
>>their coffins came through graves registration.
>>
>>Back in the '90s, we had a guy posting here who worked graves
>>registration... what was that turkey's name? from Escalante, UT, as
>>I
>>recall... Robert Brown??? Anyway, he said 'bout the same thing.
>>
>>Jones
>>
>
> Of course Nephew. They would all receive the Purple Heart. And I
> agree with
> you, there were probably sometimes other medals added, mostly for
> the families
> and I really have no problem with that. But I doubt these added
> medals
> routinely included the Silver Star. They were more likely in the
> form of
> commendation medals and Bronze Stars with and without the V device.
> I remember the fellow that worked in graves registration (the
> coolers as the
> troops called it) but not his name.
> Bill Clarke
Those that went home in a big green box deserved a medal in my
opinion. They gave up everything they had and everything they ever
will have for their country. But any officer that received a medal
who helped to write or wrote up his own after action report should
give it back in my opinion.
Doug Grant (Tm)
DGVREIMAN
Jan 24, 2012, 5:42:04 AM1/24/12
to
"Nigel Brooks" <nbr...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:9o085r...@mid.individual.net...
> "Bill Clarke" <Bill_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
> news:jfdm4...@drn.newsguy.com...
>> In article <d42dnYdohZPXaYTS...@giganews.com>,
>> DGVREIMAN says...
>>>
>>>
>> In article <d42dnYdohZPXaYTS...@giganews.com>,
>> DGVREIMAN says...
>>>
>>>
>>>"Bill Clarke" <Bill_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
>>>news:jf897...@drn.newsguy.com...
>>>> In article <_MadnbgW4JkwzIrS...@giganews.com>,
>>>> DGVREIMAN says...
>>>>>
>>>> In article <_MadnbgW4JkwzIrS...@giganews.com>,
>>>> DGVREIMAN says...
>>>>>
>>>>>I have amassed quite a bit of information on the Winter Soldier
>>>>>testimony which was sworn by Viet Nam vets in front of Congress.
>>>>>testimony which was sworn by Viet Nam vets in front of Congress.
>>>>>I
>>>>>will publish some of it later.
>>>>>
>>>>>I was especially interested in the fact ALL of the "information
>>>>>officers" (commissioned and NCO's) universally testified they
>>>>>will publish some of it later.
>>>>>
>>>>>I was especially interested in the fact ALL of the "information
>>>>>were
>>>>>"ordered to lie in their after action reports and news accounts
>>>>>of
>>>>>encounters with the enemy by MACV."
>>>>>
>>>>>They also mentioned that perhaps tens of thousands of "officers"
>>>>>received medals as a result of those lies.
>>>>>
>>>>>I know we all remember that John Kerry was allowed to write up
>>>>>of
>>>>>encounters with the enemy by MACV."
>>>>>
>>>>>They also mentioned that perhaps tens of thousands of "officers"
>>>>>received medals as a result of those lies.
>>>>>
>>>>>his
>>>>>own
dozen times I did not. You fraudulently hid the true context of my
conversation with Joe, and you are hiding all the dozens of times I
posted on this very forum I did not graduate from OCS and left it do
to an emergency leave. Since I never said I received a commission,
your con and fraud straw man hype is obvious - you really need to stop
all of your lying and dishonesty simply to try and smear people that
disagree with you.
We both know the "(as a SFC)" was out of place in the sentance, and
we both know that I had already told the person I was speaking with
that I was a NCO in Vietnam about a dozen times. Your use of known
typos and other general cons and fraud to attempt to defame and smear
me seems to know very little bounds - you really should find a way to
stop all your lying by key omissions, it makes you look even more
dishonest than normal - if that is possible.
I did not need to graduate from the class to know who was in it Mr.
Brooks - pathetic.
Doug Grant (Tm)
>
DGVREIMAN
Jan 24, 2012, 6:13:17 AM1/24/12
to
"Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <dr...@coldine.edu> wrote in message
news:bPqdndUpsbmXJ4DS...@supernews.com...
corroborated by the US Army, and other investigators encouraged by
Congress.
The above statement that the testimony was not confirmed is bull as
the evidence clearly proves. The fact the propaganda stating the
evidence was "never confirmed" still exists and is still being posted
on this forum is what is disturbing. Not to mention new typo cons and
fraud from Nigel Brooks about me in his typical and sick attempt to
smear anyone that contradicts his gang's goofy fraud. Obviously, the
boys are becoming desperate again to shut me up.
Fact: Read below. Also, if you want the SWORN testimony (when some
of the men were interviewed under oath later and that testimony was
delivered to Congress) you need to file FOIA requests as it is not
available - and even then you will need to file an appeal over the
volumes of redactions. All of which I have done.
Here are some of the confirmations of the testimony - investigated as
late as 2009 - and this account does not even include the Vietnamese
corroborations:
Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
Jan 24, 2012, 12:07:55 PM1/24/12
to
Neolibertarian wrote:
>>
>>>You obviously don't know anything about
>>>it, but I can assure you the United
>>>States military takes allegations of
>>>war crimes extremely seriously.
Lie...their intent is *always* to coverup as much as possible.
>>
>>>You obviously don't know anything about
>>>it, but I can assure you the United
>>>States military takes allegations of
>>>war crimes extremely seriously.
>>As seriously as they did My Lai? Ever heard of Ron Riddenhour?
>
>
> Do you know the sequence of events in that case?
>
> As I remember (just winging it):
>
> The first investigation turned out to be a dead end. Calley and his men
> stuck to their stories.
Hundreds of U.S. soldiers not involved in the massacre knew
about it ON THE DAY it happened. A bonafide investigation would
have easily discovered that. Instead they contributed to the cover up.
> This didn't stop soldiers involved and witnesses from other units (some
> of whom had physically interdicted the massacre, facing down Calley and
> his men at gunpoint). The charges against Calley continued to be pursued
> with Army command.
(not until Riddenhour's letters started the second, serious, investigation.)
Again, you are lying and you may not use the excuse "I mis-remembered"
or other similar ploys when caught lying...*typical* of the rightwing.
Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
Jan 24, 2012, 12:36:17 PM1/24/12
to
Nigel Brooks wrote:
>
> Colin Powell had absolutely nothing to do with the My Lai investigation.
That is a lie, son...if Powell had done his job he would have been
>
> Colin Powell had absolutely nothing to do with the My Lai investigation.
investigating the My Lai massacre.
Powell was specifically charged with investigating Tom Glen's letter. He
did not investigate, but instead wrote this absurd whitewashing response:
"In direct refutation of this portrayal is the fact that relations between
American soldiers and the Vietnamese people are excellent."
That statement is a lie as an investigation would have easily shown
that the Vietnamese people were very aware and upset about the My Lai
massacre and relations with Americans were not "excellent".
Powell shirked his responsibility, did *not* investigate *anything*,
and contributed to the coverup and whitewash of My Lai massacre.
Brooks, your "absolutely nothing to do with" is a big fat lie.
;-)
Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
Jan 24, 2012, 12:44:11 PM1/24/12
to
Bill Clarke wrote:
>
> Allow me just this one. It is my favorite Fonda quote, showing what a dumb
> bitch she is.
>
> "If you understood what Communism was, you would hope, you would pray on your
> knees that one day we would become Communist." (speaking to students at the
> University of Michigan in 1970)
>
> Bill Clarke
Dear Sniveling Little Shit,
>
> Allow me just this one. It is my favorite Fonda quote, showing what a dumb
> bitch she is.
>
> "If you understood what Communism was, you would hope, you would pray on your
> knees that one day we would become Communist." (speaking to students at the
> University of Michigan in 1970)
>
> Bill Clarke
That quote allegedly appeared in the Detroit Free Press, but it is
uncorroborated (not appearing in any other media report of that
event) and is most likely not accurate.
but i do enjoy your sniveling
;-)
dino
Jan 24, 2012, 12:58:34 PM1/24/12
to
In article <m4KdnSlvdPz3eIPS...@supernews.com>, Dr. Vincent Quin,
Ph.D. says...
eventually surface and the perpetrators would ALL be prosecuted. Here we have
the worse known atrocity of the war and it was completely covered up. What fool
would believe that many more much lessor atrocities would be ALL accounted for?
That is not rational thinking; that is conspiratorial thinking.
In all the incidents that I personally witnessed and was told about by reliable
individuals, NONE were ever reported. Extrapolate that to the hundreds of
thousands of combat troops and you have thousands of unreported atrocities.
There is no question that atrocities were widespread but rarely reported.
Ph.D. says...
>
>Neolibertarian wrote:
>>>
>>>>You obviously don't know anything about
>>>>it, but I can assure you the United
>>>>States military takes allegations of
>>>>war crimes extremely seriously.
>
>Lie...their intent is *always* to
>coverup as much as possible.
>
>>>As seriously as they did My Lai?
>>>Ever heard of Ron Riddenhour?
>>
>>
>> Do you know the sequence of events
>> in that case?
>>
>> As I remember (just winging it):
>>
>> The first investigation turned out
>> to be a dead end. Calley and his men
>> stuck to their stories.
>
>Lie.
>
>Hundreds of U.S. soldiers not involved
>in the massacre knew about it ON THE
>DAY it happened. A bonafide
>investigation would have easily
>discovered that. Instead they
>contributed to the cover up.
This flies in the face of Dai Uy's silly assumption that ALL atrocities would
>Neolibertarian wrote:
>>>
>>>>You obviously don't know anything about
>>>>it, but I can assure you the United
>>>>States military takes allegations of
>>>>war crimes extremely seriously.
>
>Lie...their intent is *always* to
>coverup as much as possible.
>
>>>As seriously as they did My Lai?
>>>Ever heard of Ron Riddenhour?
>>
>>
>> Do you know the sequence of events
>> in that case?
>>
>> As I remember (just winging it):
>>
>> The first investigation turned out
>> to be a dead end. Calley and his men
>> stuck to their stories.
>
>Lie.
>
>Hundreds of U.S. soldiers not involved
>in the massacre knew about it ON THE
>DAY it happened. A bonafide
>investigation would have easily
>discovered that. Instead they
>contributed to the cover up.
eventually surface and the perpetrators would ALL be prosecuted. Here we have
the worse known atrocity of the war and it was completely covered up. What fool
would believe that many more much lessor atrocities would be ALL accounted for?
That is not rational thinking; that is conspiratorial thinking.
In all the incidents that I personally witnessed and was told about by reliable
individuals, NONE were ever reported. Extrapolate that to the hundreds of
thousands of combat troops and you have thousands of unreported atrocities.
There is no question that atrocities were widespread but rarely reported.
Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
Jan 24, 2012, 1:19:40 PM1/24/12
to
DGVREIMAN wrote:
>
> "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <dr...@coldine.edu> wrote in message
> news:bPqdndUpsbmXJ4DS...@supernews.com...
>
>> Neolibertarian wrote:
>>
>>> In article <uOCdnen7FsE-PYHS...@supernews.com>,
>>> "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <dr...@coldine.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Neolibertarian wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> None of the testimony was corroborated nor substantiated.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It could have been, one way or the other, if there had been
>>>> a real investigation (the goal of WSI) by the CID, but *clearly*
>>>> the U.S. military was afraid of that Pandora's box...oh what fun
>>>> that would have been!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Fun?"
>>
>>
>> "Afraid of that Pandora's box?"
>>
>>
>>>> The U.S. military's failure to do a bonafide investigation is
>>>> *strong* evidence that WSI was true.
>
>
> In fact, Doc, much of the Winter Soldier testimony was confirmed and
> corroborated by the US Army, and other investigators encouraged by
> Congress.
So far we have seen only *opinions* but no official documents.
>
> "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <dr...@coldine.edu> wrote in message
> news:bPqdndUpsbmXJ4DS...@supernews.com...
>
>> Neolibertarian wrote:
>>
>>> In article <uOCdnen7FsE-PYHS...@supernews.com>,
>>> "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <dr...@coldine.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Neolibertarian wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> None of the testimony was corroborated nor substantiated.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It could have been, one way or the other, if there had been
>>>> a real investigation (the goal of WSI) by the CID, but *clearly*
>>>> the U.S. military was afraid of that Pandora's box...oh what fun
>>>> that would have been!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Fun?"
>>
>>
>> "Afraid of that Pandora's box?"
>>
>>
>>>> The U.S. military's failure to do a bonafide investigation is
>>>> *strong* evidence that WSI was true.
>
>
> In fact, Doc, much of the Winter Soldier testimony was confirmed and
> corroborated by the US Army, and other investigators encouraged by
> Congress.
I agree that the failure to discredit WSI is strong evidence.
I agree that the stories of U.S. war crimes by thousands of
returning vets is strong evidence.
I agree that the stories of U.S. war crimes here on usenet by vets
is strong evidence.
I agree that official U.S. policy of lying about reasons for war
is strong evidence of U.S. corruption.
I agree that the unwritten code "don't be a snitch" is strong evidence.
I agree that the "wild west" out-of-control atmosphere is strong evidence.
I agree that senior men condoning bad behavior (illegal and immoral)
sent a message to the young soldiers.
oh hell the list goes on and on...
;-)
dino
Jan 24, 2012, 2:26:58 PM1/24/12
to
>The evidence is no longer offered
>that any lied, but the evidence
>remains an overwhelming majority
>were not serious enough about their
>accusations to pursue them legally.
Thanks. I enjoyed the discussion.
>that any lied, but the evidence
>remains an overwhelming majority
>were not serious enough about their
>accusations to pursue them legally.
Nigel Brooks
Jan 24, 2012, 3:37:00 PM1/24/12
to
news:5YidnZ2w_-mNcYPS...@supernews.com...
Actually it is not a lie.
Tom Glen was not assigned to the same unit which perpetrated the My Lai
Massacre. He was a 81mm mortar man who served at a fire support base. Glen
has never claimed any knowledge whatsoever of the events which happened in
My Lai. His letter contains allegations that are general in nature and lack
any kind of specificity regarding any criminal acts.
Powell was not charged with investigating Tom Glens letter in fact as ACof
S G-3, he referred the letter to the Commanding Officer of the Battalion
Glen had been assigned to.
Lt. Col Albert Russell, Commanding Officer of Glen's unit - the 4th Bn, 3rd
Infantry Regiment was charged with providing a response on which to base a
reply to Glen's letter.
Lt. Colonel Russell noted in his response that Glen's allegations were vague
and general in nature and did not provide sufficient specificity. Russell
remarked that it was unfortunate that Glen had not brought the matter to the
attention of the Battalion Commander prior to his rotation and such an
action would have resulted in an investigation and prompt disciplinary
action.
It is a fact that Powell remarked in his response to MACV that it was
unfortunate that Glen had not specified incidents or named individuals so
that an investigation could be conducted. Neither Powell nor Russell were
charged with contacting Glen - that was done by the Commanding General of
the Americal Division.
Your quantum leap to smear and implicate General Powell in the cover up of
the My Lai massacre is not only disgusting, it is unsupported by the facts.
Now Fetch!!!!
Tom Glen was not assigned to the same unit which perpetrated the My Lai
Massacre. He was a 81mm mortar man who served at a fire support base. Glen
has never claimed any knowledge whatsoever of the events which happened in
My Lai. His letter contains allegations that are general in nature and lack
any kind of specificity regarding any criminal acts.
Powell was not charged with investigating Tom Glens letter in fact as ACof
S G-3, he referred the letter to the Commanding Officer of the Battalion
Glen had been assigned to.
Lt. Col Albert Russell, Commanding Officer of Glen's unit - the 4th Bn, 3rd
Infantry Regiment was charged with providing a response on which to base a
reply to Glen's letter.
Lt. Colonel Russell noted in his response that Glen's allegations were vague
and general in nature and did not provide sufficient specificity. Russell
remarked that it was unfortunate that Glen had not brought the matter to the
attention of the Battalion Commander prior to his rotation and such an
action would have resulted in an investigation and prompt disciplinary
action.
It is a fact that Powell remarked in his response to MACV that it was
unfortunate that Glen had not specified incidents or named individuals so
that an investigation could be conducted. Neither Powell nor Russell were
charged with contacting Glen - that was done by the Commanding General of
the Americal Division.
Your quantum leap to smear and implicate General Powell in the cover up of
the My Lai massacre is not only disgusting, it is unsupported by the facts.
Now Fetch!!!!
Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
Jan 24, 2012, 5:51:41 PM1/24/12
to
Nigel Brooks wrote:
>
>
> "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <dr...@coldine.edu> wrote in message
> news:5YidnZ2w_-mNcYPS...@supernews.com...
>
>> Nigel Brooks wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Colin Powell had absolutely nothing to do with the My Lai investigation.
>>
>>
>> That is a lie, son...if Powell had done his job he would have been
>> investigating the My Lai massacre.
>>
>> Powell was specifically charged with investigating Tom Glen's letter. He
>> did not investigate, but instead wrote this absurd whitewashing response:
>>
>> "In direct refutation of this portrayal is the fact that relations
>> between
>> American soldiers and the Vietnamese people are excellent."
>>
>> That statement is a lie as an investigation would have easily shown
>> that the Vietnamese people were very aware and upset about the My Lai
>> massacre and relations with Americans were not "excellent".
>>
>> Powell shirked his responsibility, did *not* investigate *anything*,
>> and contributed to the coverup and whitewash of My Lai massacre.
>>
>> Brooks, your "absolutely nothing to do with" is a big fat lie.
>> ;-)
>
>
> Actually it is not a lie.
Yes, son, you did lie...Powell had "something to do with" the My
>
>
> "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <dr...@coldine.edu> wrote in message
> news:5YidnZ2w_-mNcYPS...@supernews.com...
>
>> Nigel Brooks wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Colin Powell had absolutely nothing to do with the My Lai investigation.
>>
>>
>> That is a lie, son...if Powell had done his job he would have been
>> investigating the My Lai massacre.
>>
>> Powell was specifically charged with investigating Tom Glen's letter. He
>> did not investigate, but instead wrote this absurd whitewashing response:
>>
>> "In direct refutation of this portrayal is the fact that relations
>> between
>> American soldiers and the Vietnamese people are excellent."
>>
>> That statement is a lie as an investigation would have easily shown
>> that the Vietnamese people were very aware and upset about the My Lai
>> massacre and relations with Americans were not "excellent".
>>
>> Powell shirked his responsibility, did *not* investigate *anything*,
>> and contributed to the coverup and whitewash of My Lai massacre.
>>
>> Brooks, your "absolutely nothing to do with" is a big fat lie.
>> ;-)
>
>
> Actually it is not a lie.
Lai investigation.
If Powell had done his job the My Lai massacre would have been
exposed, and Powell lied with his "excellent" relations statement.
> Neither Powell nor Russell
> were charged with contacting Glen - that was done by the Commanding
> General of the Americal Division.
Powell had the responsibility and accountability...he failed...he covered up.
Such was Army SOP.
Bill Clarke
Jan 24, 2012, 6:00:24 PM1/24/12
to
In article <dNWdnazsSOScFoPS...@giganews.com>, DGVREIMAN says...
So that leaves us with a tour of duty in Vietnam before OCS and an unexplained
connection to the Finance section where I would imagine Silver Stars are rather
rare and bravery not necessary. Mind explaining that for me?
Bill Clarke
connection to the Finance section where I would imagine Silver Stars are rather
rare and bravery not necessary. Mind explaining that for me?
Bill Clarke
Nigel Brooks
Jan 24, 2012, 8:16:51 PM1/24/12
to
news:5NqdnXNrXKBgqILS...@supernews.com...
Well there ya go again dontcha.
Unable to counter my finely researched response which included appropriate
references and the names of those involved in the Glen letter response, you
are unable to do anything except claim that Powell had responsibility and
accountability and that he covered up.
Again - to assist you in your education concerning the events that occurred
as a result of Tom Glen's letter:
1. On November 27, 1968, Tom Glen a former member of Co A, 4th Battalion,
3rd Infantry writes a letter to General Creighton Abrams, Commanding General
United States Army Vietnam in which he alleges the mistreatment of prisoners
and the humiliation and ill treatment of South Vietnamese civilians. Glen
does not make any specific claims nor does he name names or the location and
date of any specific incident.
2. On December 7, 1968 USARV Hqs forwards the letter to the Americal
Division, tasking the Division Commander with researching and responding to
Glen's letter.
3. On December 9, 1968, Lt.Col Bernard Callahan, Americal Division
Adjutant General forwards the correspondence to the Division G-3 requesting
information upon which to base a reply. The reply is to be completed no
later than 0800 hrs, December 12, 1968.
4. Major Colin Powell, Assistant Chief of Staff G-3, forwards all the
correspondence to the 4th Battalion, 3rd Infantry noting the Division
suspense date and requesting a response.
5. On December 11, 1968, LtCol Russell, Commanding Officer of the 4th
Battalion, 3rd Infantry responds to G-3 in a two page letter. The letter
addresses the allegations contained in Glens letter to Abrams. In that
letter, LtCol Russell observed that in addition to the fact that Glens
letter contained no specific information which would identify, places, names
or dates of events, Glens best friend in the unit had stated that he was not
aware of any instance in which Glen had observed the maltreatment of
prisoners or indigenous personnel.
6. On December 11, 1968, Major Colin Powell, ACof S G-3, forwarded all the
correspondence received from Battalion. Powell observed that "It is
unfortunate that SP4 Glen did not bring these allegations to his immediate
superiors or the IG prior to the end of his tour"
7. On December 13, 1968 The Commanding General of the Americal Division
responded directly to Glen as required by CG USARV.
Now Sir - that is the sequence of events as it relates to the letter written
by Tom Glen in November 1968.
It is quite clear that Powell did exactly as he was required to do given the
fact that Glen did not allege any specific violations, name names, units, or
places.
If you actually had a clue, or had bothered to gain access to the
documents - you would know that.
But then again of course, you're a troll and a pretty bad one at that.
Fetch
Unable to counter my finely researched response which included appropriate
references and the names of those involved in the Glen letter response, you
are unable to do anything except claim that Powell had responsibility and
accountability and that he covered up.
Again - to assist you in your education concerning the events that occurred
as a result of Tom Glen's letter:
1. On November 27, 1968, Tom Glen a former member of Co A, 4th Battalion,
3rd Infantry writes a letter to General Creighton Abrams, Commanding General
United States Army Vietnam in which he alleges the mistreatment of prisoners
and the humiliation and ill treatment of South Vietnamese civilians. Glen
does not make any specific claims nor does he name names or the location and
date of any specific incident.
2. On December 7, 1968 USARV Hqs forwards the letter to the Americal
Division, tasking the Division Commander with researching and responding to
Glen's letter.
3. On December 9, 1968, Lt.Col Bernard Callahan, Americal Division
Adjutant General forwards the correspondence to the Division G-3 requesting
information upon which to base a reply. The reply is to be completed no
later than 0800 hrs, December 12, 1968.
4. Major Colin Powell, Assistant Chief of Staff G-3, forwards all the
correspondence to the 4th Battalion, 3rd Infantry noting the Division
suspense date and requesting a response.
5. On December 11, 1968, LtCol Russell, Commanding Officer of the 4th
Battalion, 3rd Infantry responds to G-3 in a two page letter. The letter
addresses the allegations contained in Glens letter to Abrams. In that
letter, LtCol Russell observed that in addition to the fact that Glens
letter contained no specific information which would identify, places, names
or dates of events, Glens best friend in the unit had stated that he was not
aware of any instance in which Glen had observed the maltreatment of
prisoners or indigenous personnel.
6. On December 11, 1968, Major Colin Powell, ACof S G-3, forwarded all the
correspondence received from Battalion. Powell observed that "It is
unfortunate that SP4 Glen does not specify incidents or individuals
concerned so that an investigation might be conducted. It is also
unfortunate that SP4 Glen did not bring these allegations to his immediate
superiors or the IG prior to the end of his tour"
7. On December 13, 1968 The Commanding General of the Americal Division
responded directly to Glen as required by CG USARV.
Now Sir - that is the sequence of events as it relates to the letter written
by Tom Glen in November 1968.
It is quite clear that Powell did exactly as he was required to do given the
fact that Glen did not allege any specific violations, name names, units, or
places.
If you actually had a clue, or had bothered to gain access to the
documents - you would know that.
But then again of course, you're a troll and a pretty bad one at that.
Fetch
Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
Jan 24, 2012, 9:35:39 PM1/24/12
to
had "something to do with" the investigation of My Lai massacre.
Powell's written response is his own recognition of his responsibility.
Powell lied in that letter.
Powell, in the *Americal* Division, could have easily found out
that atrocities by Americans were routinely being done...he
took the easy out and aided the coverup. (IMO he *had* to know
the truth with soldiers and 50 involved officers buzzing talk
around him...or maybe it was so ordinary that no one talked about it).
Glen's letter contained far more than enough information to
warrant a real bonafied investigation.
The so-called Powell Doctrine *requires* coverup. Mandatory...and we
have that in place today.
Your "nobody is at fault" attitude is the attitude that continued
the atrocities by Americans. "Don't be a snitch" and coverup were
*daily* SOP in Vietnam.
Nobody paid for their part in the My Lai massacre...all off scott-free.
Coverup, containment, and phony prosecution was an Army success.
The proof is in the pudding, son.
;-)
Bill Clarke
Jan 25, 2012, 12:00:01 AM1/25/12
to
In article <YPudne8IB6Dm94LS...@supernews.com>, Dr. Vincent Quin,
Ph.D. says...
Tell me, Doctor, what you would do to those Marines for pissing on the dead
enemy ragheads?
Phuoc Vin Ph.D.
Ph.D. says...
enemy ragheads?
Phuoc Vin Ph.D.
Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
Jan 25, 2012, 12:07:05 AM1/25/12
to
Your buddy Brooks is too deep in the shit of his lying...now you
attempt a rescue diversion.
;-)
Nigel Brooks
Jan 25, 2012, 12:09:02 AM1/25/12
to
"Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <dr...@coldine.edu> wrote in message
news:YPudne8IB6Dm94LS...@supernews.com...
(IMO he *had* to know
Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
Jan 25, 2012, 12:59:06 AM1/25/12
to
> 3. On December 9, 1968, Lt.Col Bernard Callahan, Americal Division
> Adjutant General forwards the correspondence to the Division G-3
> requesting information upon which to base a reply. The reply is to be
> completed no later than 0800 hrs, December 12, 1968.
>
> Adjutant General forwards the correspondence to the Division G-3
> requesting information upon which to base a reply. The reply is to be
> completed no later than 0800 hrs, December 12, 1968.
>
> 6. On December 11, 1968, Major Colin Powell, ACof S G-3, forwarded all
Brooks, your attempt at portraying Powell as nothing more than a
time-constrained paper-pusher is yet more lying on your part.
Anyone can easily see that investigating Glen's letter could *not*
be done in 2 days.
Glen wrote that he personally witnessed war crimes and that they
had become routine. So besides pushing the paperwork around, it would
take a minimum of 1 day to locate Glen and question him (never done),
then more days to go question others involved to either confirm or
reject Glen's allegations.
The *only* explanation for the 2 day time constraint (of LtCol Callahan
to G-3 Powell to LtCol Russel back to G-3 Powell back to LtCol) is for
a paper trail coverup.
Cover up...there is no other *possible* explanation.
Powell could have said he needed more time...instead, he went along.
Nigel Brooks
Jan 25, 2012, 1:46:23 AM1/25/12
to
news:1sKdnbuPAdy0B4LS...@supernews.com...
Your response indicates an appalling lack of comprehension regarding the
Glen letter and the events surrounding the response of the Commanding
General, Americal Divison.
For your further education allow me to explain.
The suspense date was initiated by Hqs USARV on receipt of the letter from
Glen. They gave the Americal Division a specific time frame in which to
address the allegations in the letter.
Had you actually seen the correspondence, you would have been aware that in
addition to the suspense date set by the Adjutant General of the Americal
Division to the G-3, that memorandum also stated quite clearly that
"Correspondence will be returned so as to reach this office not later than
0800 hours, 12 December 1968. This suspense date cannot be extended.
Powell acted under the constraints delineated in the referral from USARV.
Have you actually seen the correspondence between USARV and the Americal
Division or the Memorandum from Ltc Callahan? Indeed have you actually even
seen the original three page letter from Glen?
Can you name one specific instance in that letter which gives with any
specificity, any information concerning a specific incident in which a
member of the United States Military engaged in any criminal activity? If
so kindly quote it.
As you profess to be a Ph.D. at a University - have your university provide
the necessary funding for yourself and myself to go to the NARA in College
Park Maryland where we will have access to all of the documentation that I
have referenced.
Otherwise - just move on
Glen letter and the events surrounding the response of the Commanding
General, Americal Divison.
For your further education allow me to explain.
The suspense date was initiated by Hqs USARV on receipt of the letter from
Glen. They gave the Americal Division a specific time frame in which to
address the allegations in the letter.
Had you actually seen the correspondence, you would have been aware that in
addition to the suspense date set by the Adjutant General of the Americal
Division to the G-3, that memorandum also stated quite clearly that
"Correspondence will be returned so as to reach this office not later than
0800 hours, 12 December 1968. This suspense date cannot be extended.
Powell acted under the constraints delineated in the referral from USARV.
Have you actually seen the correspondence between USARV and the Americal
Division or the Memorandum from Ltc Callahan? Indeed have you actually even
seen the original three page letter from Glen?
Can you name one specific instance in that letter which gives with any
specificity, any information concerning a specific incident in which a
member of the United States Military engaged in any criminal activity? If
so kindly quote it.
As you profess to be a Ph.D. at a University - have your university provide
the necessary funding for yourself and myself to go to the NARA in College
Park Maryland where we will have access to all of the documentation that I
have referenced.
Otherwise - just move on
Nigel Brooks
Jan 25, 2012, 1:47:53 AM1/25/12
to
news:PfWdnTzD0cVnEILS...@supernews.com...
Move along son - you've lost this one.
Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
Jan 25, 2012, 5:45:19 AM1/25/12
to
time frames and other irrelevant nonsense. Glen's letter said he
personally witnessed repeated war crimes by U.S. soldiers. Neither
Powell nor anyone else investigated; they covered up with a paper trail.
One outcome of the My Lai massacre was a mad scramble by the
Americal Division to ensure cover-your-ass paper trails.
Again, Powell just went along with the coverup, while a true
investigation certainly would have revealed the My Lai Massacre.
(and his fiasco in 2003 at the U.N. holding up the vial was another
disgraceful time that Powell just went along with it...did what
he was told to do...and he made a fool of himself to the world.)
> Can you name one specific instance in that letter which gives with any
> specificity, any information concerning a specific incident in which a
> member of the United States Military engaged in any criminal activity?
that he feared they had become routine. Now, to cover your lying, you
are asserting that statement is not worthy of investigation.
> If so kindly quote it.
;-)
Nigel Brooks
Jan 25, 2012, 10:56:32 AM1/25/12
to
news:DbCdnb36A4PcQILS...@supernews.com...
I don't need to find the letter myself. I have a copy of the letter and all
of the relevant documents that stemmed from its receipt at USARV through the
reply from the CG of the Americal Division.
I most certainly question your veracity regarding your claim to have "seen
it many times".
Just to allay my suspicions that you are not being truthful regarding having
seen the letter - kindly indicate exactly how Tom Glen signed the letter
following the last sentence which read "Thank you very much for your
attention"
Nowhere in that letter does Glen ever say that he "personally witnessed war
crimes" - nor does he state that "he feared they had become routine".
Keep a spinning
of the relevant documents that stemmed from its receipt at USARV through the
reply from the CG of the Americal Division.
I most certainly question your veracity regarding your claim to have "seen
it many times".
Just to allay my suspicions that you are not being truthful regarding having
seen the letter - kindly indicate exactly how Tom Glen signed the letter
following the last sentence which read "Thank you very much for your
attention"
Nowhere in that letter does Glen ever say that he "personally witnessed war
crimes" - nor does he state that "he feared they had become routine".
Keep a spinning
Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
Jan 25, 2012, 4:57:04 PM1/25/12
to
> Nowhere in that letter does Glen ever say that he "personally witnessed
> war crimes"
You are lying again, son...post the letter you lying piece of shit.
> war crimes"
> nor does he state that "he feared they had become routine".
you are a prolific liar
;-)
Neolibertarian
Jan 26, 2012, 5:12:58 AM1/26/12
to
In article <m4KdnSlvdPz3eIPS...@supernews.com>,
contrary. Definitely not "always." Dozens of other war crimes were
prosecuted to conviction during the Vietnam War.
However:
1) Any bureaucratic entity will act in its own self defense. It can't be
any other way, of course, and you wouldn't necessarily want it to be any
other way, especially in the case of the United States military.
It would be wildly impractical to believe you could have an effective
military force that is, at once, willing to undertake huge personal
risks and sacrifices, while freely opening itself to any and all
accusation and criticism which might come its way.
Humans just can't and don't operate that way. Because these extra,
impractical burdens are, in fact, placed upon UN troops and NATO forces,
for example, their effectiveness is severely limited, and in many cases,
non existent.
2) State of War triggers legal protocols you may or may not be aware of.
Once such is to strictly limit the liability for murder and destruction
of property for those members of the military legally tasked to to
commit both acts.
We all understand you can't have an effective military force without
strong protections and limits against these liabilities.
Were these protections too strong during American involvement in
Vietnam? I think we see here in this thread the debate still rages 39
years after the Paris Peace Agreement. It's doubtful any resolution will
be forthcoming any time soon.
3) Because of these factors, the burden of proof is always going to be
on the accusers.
From statements by Colin Powell and others, we can infer at the time
there existed a general attitude: "one man's war crime is another man's
effective counter insurgency action."
These aren't easy issues.
for ages.
On the "day it happened," besides the men who'd willingly participated
in the atrocities, only a handful of helicopter pilots and crew "knew
about it."
These crimes and incidents were duly reported and confirmed to Major
Frederic W. Watke (Commander B Company, 123rd Aviation Battalion). After
the massacre, within the chain of command, it seems only Major Watke
possessed information conflicting with Calley's after action report.
Why Thompson's report to Watke didn't trigger an investigation at the
time is not known to me. Likewise, why charges were later dropped
against Watke during the court martial and concurrent investigations is
not clear.
> > This didn't stop soldiers involved and witnesses from other units (some
> > of whom had physically interdicted the massacre, facing down Calley and
> > his men at gunpoint). The charges against Calley continued to be pursued
> > with Army command.
>
> Another lie. Nothing was continued to be pursued.
> (not until Riddenhour's letters started the second, serious, investigation.)
More than one failed attempt to trigger a "serious" investigation had
been made, as a matter of historical record.
It is correct to say this matter was continued to be pursued.
> Again, you are lying and you may not use the excuse "I mis-remembered"
> or other similar ploys when caught lying...*typical* of the rightwing.
Heh. I clear stated I was "just winging it."
--
Neolibertarian
"Global Warming: It ain't the heat, it's the stupidity."
"Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <dr...@coldine.edu> wrote:
> Neolibertarian wrote:
> >>
> >>>You obviously don't know anything about
> >>>it, but I can assure you the United
> >>>States military takes allegations of
> >>>war crimes extremely seriously.
>
> Lie...their intent is *always* to coverup as much as possible.
"Always" is unprovable, especially in the face of much evidence to the
> Neolibertarian wrote:
> >>
> >>>You obviously don't know anything about
> >>>it, but I can assure you the United
> >>>States military takes allegations of
> >>>war crimes extremely seriously.
>
> Lie...their intent is *always* to coverup as much as possible.
contrary. Definitely not "always." Dozens of other war crimes were
prosecuted to conviction during the Vietnam War.
However:
1) Any bureaucratic entity will act in its own self defense. It can't be
any other way, of course, and you wouldn't necessarily want it to be any
other way, especially in the case of the United States military.
It would be wildly impractical to believe you could have an effective
military force that is, at once, willing to undertake huge personal
risks and sacrifices, while freely opening itself to any and all
accusation and criticism which might come its way.
Humans just can't and don't operate that way. Because these extra,
impractical burdens are, in fact, placed upon UN troops and NATO forces,
for example, their effectiveness is severely limited, and in many cases,
non existent.
2) State of War triggers legal protocols you may or may not be aware of.
Once such is to strictly limit the liability for murder and destruction
of property for those members of the military legally tasked to to
commit both acts.
We all understand you can't have an effective military force without
strong protections and limits against these liabilities.
Were these protections too strong during American involvement in
Vietnam? I think we see here in this thread the debate still rages 39
years after the Paris Peace Agreement. It's doubtful any resolution will
be forthcoming any time soon.
3) Because of these factors, the burden of proof is always going to be
on the accusers.
From statements by Colin Powell and others, we can infer at the time
there existed a general attitude: "one man's war crime is another man's
effective counter insurgency action."
These aren't easy issues.
>
> >>As seriously as they did My Lai? Ever heard of Ron Riddenhour?
> >
> >
> > Do you know the sequence of events in that case?
> >
> > As I remember (just winging it):
> >
> > The first investigation turned out to be a dead end. Calley and his men
> > stuck to their stories.
>
> Lie.
>
> Hundreds of U.S. soldiers not involved in the massacre knew
> about it ON THE DAY it happened. A bonafide investigation would
> have easily discovered that. Instead they contributed to the cover up.
>
You've forced me to review the case, which I haven't had occasion to do
> >>As seriously as they did My Lai? Ever heard of Ron Riddenhour?
> >
> >
> > Do you know the sequence of events in that case?
> >
> > As I remember (just winging it):
> >
> > The first investigation turned out to be a dead end. Calley and his men
> > stuck to their stories.
>
> Lie.
>
> Hundreds of U.S. soldiers not involved in the massacre knew
> about it ON THE DAY it happened. A bonafide investigation would
> have easily discovered that. Instead they contributed to the cover up.
>
for ages.
On the "day it happened," besides the men who'd willingly participated
in the atrocities, only a handful of helicopter pilots and crew "knew
about it."
These crimes and incidents were duly reported and confirmed to Major
Frederic W. Watke (Commander B Company, 123rd Aviation Battalion). After
the massacre, within the chain of command, it seems only Major Watke
possessed information conflicting with Calley's after action report.
Why Thompson's report to Watke didn't trigger an investigation at the
time is not known to me. Likewise, why charges were later dropped
against Watke during the court martial and concurrent investigations is
not clear.
> > This didn't stop soldiers involved and witnesses from other units (some
> > of whom had physically interdicted the massacre, facing down Calley and
> > his men at gunpoint). The charges against Calley continued to be pursued
> > with Army command.
>
> Another lie. Nothing was continued to be pursued.
> (not until Riddenhour's letters started the second, serious, investigation.)
been made, as a matter of historical record.
It is correct to say this matter was continued to be pursued.
> Again, you are lying and you may not use the excuse "I mis-remembered"
> or other similar ploys when caught lying...*typical* of the rightwing.
--
Neolibertarian
"Global Warming: It ain't the heat, it's the stupidity."
!Jones
Jan 25, 2012, 2:18:01 PM1/25/12
to
On 22 Jan 2012 20:47:54 -0800, in alt.war.vietnam Bill Clarke
<Bill_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>Yeah, I go out to the islands pretty regularly. I've been doing more
>>floundering lately... tasty little units, they are. I favor stuffed
>>peppers; I do Poblanos with polenta and cheese stuffing... I *never*
>>beep fry 'em.
>>
>>Jones
>
>Why not. Everything is better deep fried.
>
>Bill Clarke
I said "beep fried"...
At our age, Uncle, we gotta watch our figure! I know it tastes good,
but... if it tastes good, it's bad; if it tastes like cardboard, then
it's probably healthful.
On beverages: if it makes you shit, it's good; if it makes you feel
good, it's bad.
Same for the little white pills... good is bad... bad is good.
Old age is not for the young, huh?
Jones... who should have simply died in Vietnam.
<Bill_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>Yeah, I go out to the islands pretty regularly. I've been doing more
>>floundering lately... tasty little units, they are. I favor stuffed
>>peppers; I do Poblanos with polenta and cheese stuffing... I *never*
>>beep fry 'em.
>>
>>Jones
>
>Why not. Everything is better deep fried.
>
>Bill Clarke
I said "beep fried"...
At our age, Uncle, we gotta watch our figure! I know it tastes good,
but... if it tastes good, it's bad; if it tastes like cardboard, then
it's probably healthful.
On beverages: if it makes you shit, it's good; if it makes you feel
good, it's bad.
Same for the little white pills... good is bad... bad is good.
Old age is not for the young, huh?
Jones... who should have simply died in Vietnam.
!Jones
Jan 25, 2012, 2:31:14 PM1/25/12
to
On 23 Jan 2012 07:23:38 -0800, in alt.war.vietnam dino
<dino_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>In article <pkgph75ps1at8418u...@4ax.com>, !Jones says...
>with the skin removed, but I haven't found a good way of doing that. I tried
>tossing them in hot oil until the skin blisters and then quickly dunk them in
>ice water. That helps some but it still takes me a long time to remove the
>skin.
>
>Try serranos stuffed with blue stilton for an interesting treat. I discovered
>those in an English pub, of all places.
I can't get the outter skin off, so I go skin my dick instead. I just
eat it and call it fiber.
Today is the wifey's birthday, so I (we) get to eat out on our twice a
year ritual... we deserve a break today!!! Why can't you get a low
fat entree in a restaurant?
Do you eat in restaurants, Dino? I can't afford 'em... 'cept twice a
year. I'm gonna have a margueritia!!! (or however you spell it)
I always order a second and then Wendy gulps down half of it... which
leaves me in shape to drive home.
Jones
<dino_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>In article <pkgph75ps1at8418u...@4ax.com>, !Jones says...
>>
>>I favor stuffed peppers; I do Poblanos
>>with polenta and cheese stuffing... I
>>*never* beep fry 'em.
>
>Do you take the outer skin off? I've made them both ways and I like them best
>>I favor stuffed peppers; I do Poblanos
>>with polenta and cheese stuffing... I
>>*never* beep fry 'em.
>
>with the skin removed, but I haven't found a good way of doing that. I tried
>tossing them in hot oil until the skin blisters and then quickly dunk them in
>ice water. That helps some but it still takes me a long time to remove the
>skin.
>
>Try serranos stuffed with blue stilton for an interesting treat. I discovered
>those in an English pub, of all places.
I can't get the outter skin off, so I go skin my dick instead. I just
eat it and call it fiber.
Today is the wifey's birthday, so I (we) get to eat out on our twice a
year ritual... we deserve a break today!!! Why can't you get a low
fat entree in a restaurant?
Do you eat in restaurants, Dino? I can't afford 'em... 'cept twice a
year. I'm gonna have a margueritia!!! (or however you spell it)
I always order a second and then Wendy gulps down half of it... which
leaves me in shape to drive home.
Jones
!Jones
Jan 25, 2012, 2:40:53 PM1/25/12
to
On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 09:24:21 -0600, in alt.war.vietnam "Nigel Brooks"
<nbr...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>
>"!Jones" <hsoi...@kjipu.com> wrote in message
>news:ligph71kihmejd04e...@4ax.com...
>> Yup; we damn sure don't vote with our brains, do we?
>>
>> Jones
>
>
>Which is why I think a Salma Hayek and Sophia Vergara candidacy would win.
"Sofia", you nitwit.
I'd vote her great boobs. Jand Fonda had nice boobs.
Jones
<nbr...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>
>"!Jones" <hsoi...@kjipu.com> wrote in message
>news:ligph71kihmejd04e...@4ax.com...
>> Yup; we damn sure don't vote with our brains, do we?
>>
>> Jones
>
>
>Which is why I think a Salma Hayek and Sophia Vergara candidacy would win.
"Sofia", you nitwit.
I'd vote her great boobs. Jand Fonda had nice boobs.
Jones
Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
Jan 26, 2012, 9:07:46 PM1/26/12
to
when caught say "just winging it" or "mis-remembered" or "I heard
it somewhere" or any other excuses used *often* by the rightwing.
>>>>>You obviously don't know anything about
>>>>>it, but I can assure you the United
>>>>>States military takes allegations of
>>>>>war crimes extremely seriously.
>>
>>Lie...their intent is *always* to coverup as much as possible.
>
>
> "Always" is unprovable, especially in the face of much evidence to the
> contrary. Definitely not "always." Dozens of other war crimes were
> prosecuted to conviction during the Vietnam War.
they are forced by outside forces (as in the currect Haditha, or My
Lai)...their primary job is not justice but to protect the military,
and they will do whatever it takes to hide an embarrassing case.
> However:
>
> 1) Any bureaucratic entity will act in its own self defense.
> It can't be any other way,
[snipped idiot justification for military war crimes]
> These aren't easy issues.
>>>>As seriously as they did My Lai? Ever heard of Ron Riddenhour?
>>>
>>>
>>>Do you know the sequence of events in that case?
>>>
>>>As I remember (just winging it):
>>>
>>>The first investigation turned out to be a dead end. Calley and his men
>>>stuck to their stories.
>>
>>Lie.
>>
>>Hundreds of U.S. soldiers not involved in the massacre knew
>>about it ON THE DAY it happened. A bonafide investigation would
>>have easily discovered that. Instead they contributed to the cover up.
>>
>
> You've forced me to review the case, which I haven't had occasion to do
> for ages.
>
> On the "day it happened," besides the men who'd willingly participated
> in the atrocities, only a handful of helicopter pilots and crew "knew
> about it."
pilots and crews, troops (undeployed blocking forces), 2 LZs,
headquarters, and a "near riot" back at base afterward. You are
a fool if you think they did not talk among themselves.
> These crimes and incidents were duly reported
> and confirmed to Major
> Frederic W. Watke (Commander B Company, 123rd Aviation Battalion). After
> the massacre, within the chain of command, it seems only Major Watke
> possessed information conflicting with Calley's after action report.
>
> Why Thompson's report to Watke didn't trigger an investigation at the
> time is not known to me.
he dared to defy American troops. It took many years before Thompson
was recognized as a hero.
> Likewise, why charges were later dropped
> against Watke during the court martial and concurrent investigations is
> not clear.
>>>This didn't stop soldiers involved and witnesses from other units (some
>>>of whom had physically interdicted the massacre, facing down Calley and
>>>his men at gunpoint). The charges against Calley continued to be pursued
>>>with Army command.
>>
>>Another lie. Nothing was continued to be pursued.
>>(not until Riddenhour's letters started the second, serious, investigation.)
>
>
> More than one failed attempt to trigger a "serious" investigation had
> been made, as a matter of historical record.
>
> It is correct to say this matter was continued to be pursued.
Your clear intent here is to justify military coverup.
;-)
Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
Jan 27, 2012, 1:11:39 PM1/27/12
to
;-)
Neolibertarian
Jan 28, 2012, 9:55:15 AM1/28/12
to
In article <nK-dnUwKpPdsm7_S...@supernews.com>,
Clear[ly], if I was mistaken, I was mistaken. There's no deceit in that.
Maybe you need to steal a dictionary for yourself.
At any event, it turns out that I wasn't mistaken, after all.
> or any other excuses used *often* by the rightwing.
Irrelevant, of course. What's "used often" by unidentified people of
some group is of no concern to this discussion; nor to the truth; nor to
me.
Besides, it's obvious I'm not "rightwing."
Compared to me, the rightwingers might as well all be Maoists.
You don't have a shred of evidence even /one/ of the 50 or so other
court martials involving war crimes, prosecuted by the Department of
Defense during the Vietnam War, were "forced by outside forces"
(whatever that means).
> their primary job is not justice but to protect the military,
> and they will do whatever it takes to hide an embarrassing case.
Agreed, the military's primary job is not justice.
I'm sorry if you ever believed it was.
The military's primary job is to kill people and destroy property. I'm
mystified by your confusion, since it says so plainly, right there on
the label.
>
> > However:
> >
> > 1) Any bureaucratic entity will act in its own self defense.
>
> Well there you go, that's what I'm saying.
>
Not exactly. What you read was similar to what you'd claimed. What you
didn't read wasn't.
offered nothing but vacuous platitudes. If it's "possible" to institute
a "better justice system," then explain exactly what that might be, and
how it could be practically implemented.
It's apparent NATO and UN military forces, for instance, possess
something similar to your imagined "better justice system."
It's been reported there are some NATO troops in Afghanistan whose
operational parameters preclude them leaving their bases, and some NATO
forces never have.
Talk among themselves?
I'm sorry, you seem to be hopelessly confused. The discussion was about
war crimes.
And actual evidence.
> > These crimes and incidents were duly reported
>
> No, they were not. You're an ignorant bullshitter.
As a matter of fact, they were duly reported.
I find upon further review that my memory is exonerated by the facts.
There were 3 investigations, after all. Your muddled account, claiming
no serious investigation was conducted until the Riddenhour letter was
submitted, is patently false.
==being quote==
2. Observations and Complaints by Aviation Personnel
One element which provided combat support to TF Barker on 16 March was
an aero-scout team from Company B, 123d Aviation Battalion. A pilot of
this team, W01 (now lLT) Hugh Thompson, had been flying at a low
altitude over My Lai (4) during the morning hours and had observed the
actions of C/1-20 Inf. He became greatly concerned over the "needless
and unnecessary killings" he had witnessed. He landed his helicopter
several times to aid the inhabitants and in an attempt to stop the
killing.
Shortly before noon, W01 Thompson returned to LZ Dottie and reported his
observations to his company commander, MAJ Frederic Watke. The
complaints of WO1 Thompson were confirmed by other pilots and crewmen
who had also been over My Lai (4). The complaints were expressed in
most serious terms; those who were present heard the terms "killing" and
"murder" used freely with estimates of the dead in My Lai (4) running
over 100. Upon receipt of this report, MAJ Watke went to the commander
of TF Barker and advised him of the allegations. Watke stated that
Barker then left for his helicopter, presumably to visit C/1-20 Inf.
Watke considered the matter was "in the hands of the man who could do
something about it" and took no further action at that time. Later that
day, he again encountered Barker who advised him that he could find
nothing to substantiate Thompson's allegations. while Watke testified
that he was convinced at the time that LTC Barker was lying, he took no
further action until 2200 hours that night when he reported to his
battalion commander, LTC Holladay, and related for the second time the
substance of what is hereafter referred to as the "Thompson Report."
3. The Order to Return to My Lai
At about 1530 hours on 16 March, after receiving a second report of
civilian casualties, COL Henderson stated he became suspicious and
directed TF Barker to send a company back through My Lai (4) to
ascertain the exact number of casualties and the cause of death. As the
order was being transmitted to C/1-20 Inf by TF Barker, it was monitored
by MG Koster, the commander of the Americal Division, who inquired
concerning the reasons. After a brief explanation by the CO of C/1-20
Inf, during which time MG Koster was advised that 20-28 noncombatants
had been killed, MG Koster countermanded the order and directed that COL
Henderson be notified. There were no further efforts to make an on-site
determination of the cause or extent of the civilian casualties.
4. The Thompson Report Reaches Division Headquarters
Because of the late hour at which LTC Holladay received the report from
MAJ Watke, they waited until the following morning before reporting to
BG Young, an Assistant Division Connander. Watke repeated his story,
which both he and LTC Holladay agree contained the allegations that
there had been "lots of unnecessary killing ... mostly women, children
and old men" and that a confrontation had taken place between personnel
of aviation and ground units; however, there is conflict as to the
number of casualties mentioned. LTC Holladay and MAJ Watke also agree
that BG Young was advised that the complaints made by Thompson had been
confirmed by other aviation unit personnel.
At about noon on the 17th, BG Young reported to MG Koster the
information he had received from MAJ Watke and LTC Holladay. There is
substantive disagreement in testimony between what BG Young testified he
received from Watke and Holladay and what the latter two state they
reported. BG Young stated he was not apprised of any charge of
indiscriminate or unnecessary killing of noncombatants. He further
stated that it was his impression the matter of majorconcern was that
there had been a confrontation between the ground forces aviation unit,
resulting from an incident in which noncombatants had been caught in a
cross fire between US and enemy forces.
BG Young contends that it was this lesser charge he brought to MG
Koster, who directed BG Young to instruct COL Henderson to conduct a
thorough investigation of the incident. MG Koster has confirmed parts
of BG Young's account of this conversation but in a previous statement
before the Criminal Investigation Division (CID), MG Koster stated that
he had been advised of some indiscriminate shooting of civilians.
The Inquiry has concluded that the two general officers received a muted
version of the Thompson Report from Watke and Holladay, but one that
included the allegation that noncombatants had been indiscriminately
killed. Upon receipt of the report, it seems most likely that they
related it to the information MG Koster had received from TF Barker the
previous day, that 20-28 noncombatants had been inadvertently killed.
The information concerning noncombatant casualties had not been
forwarded outside of the Division, although D4ACV and III MAF
regulations required such action, or were the new allegations reported
to higher headquarters. Adopting a "close hold" attitude concerning all
information relating to this matter, MG Koster directed BG Young to have
COL Henderson investigate the incident.
C. INVESTIGATION OF THE INCIDENT AND REVIEW
1. COL Henderson's "Investigation"
BG Young made arrangements for a meeting which was held on 18 March at
0900 hours at LZ Dottie. The meeting was attended by five officers: BG
Young, COL Henderson, LTC Barker, LTC Holladay, and MAJ Watke. BG Young
told the group of the Division Commander's instructions concerning the
investigation and MAJ Watke repeated his account of the complaints.
When the meeting terminated, COL Henderson commenced his "investigation"
with an interview of W01 Thompson and two other aviation unit personnel.
(While Henderson states he talked only with Thompson and for only a few
minutes, the testimony of others indicates that he talked individually
with three persons for almost an hour.) These interviews, together with
the information already possessed by Henderson from personal observation
and conversations with TF Barker personnel, should have provided a full
awareness of the nature and extent of the incident at My Lai (4). From
at least this point forward, Henderson's actions appear to have been
little more than a pretense of an investigation and had as their goal
the suppression of the true facts concerning the events of 16 March.
Following his interview with aviation personnel, Henderson questioned
CPT Medina, whose explanation concerning civilian casualties left him
"suspicious." The remainder of Henderson's "investigation" was without
substance; his "interview with a substantial number of C Company
personnel" consisted of a discussion on the afternoon of 18 March with a
group which, COL Henderson claims, numbered from 30 to 40 personnel.
After complimenting them on their performance in the operation, he asked
them collectively if they had witnessed any atrocities. Henderson
stated that the response he received was negative. While COL Henderson
claims he spoke with other individuals and responsible commanders,
available evidence indicates that his so-called investigative actions
ended after a brief flight which he stated he made over the area of
operation on 18 March.
Commencing on 19 March, COL Henderson is said to have made a series of
oral reports to BG Young and MG Koster in which he was purported to have
related to them the results of his "investigation." It seems clear that
in his reports Henderson deliberately misrepresented both the scope of
his investigation and the ion he had obtained. He reported that while
20 civilians had been killed by artillery and/or gunships, there was no
basis in fact to the allegations made by W01 Thompson. Henderson's
final oral report was accepted by MG Koster as adequately responding to
the charges made by W01 Thompson. The matter appears to have rested
there until about mid-April 1968, when information was received at
Division Headquarters from Vietnamese sources.
==end quote==
General William C. Peers Commission Report; Section 3 Summary.
http://tinyurl.com/7g7alxf
The report was seriously investigated directly after the incident, and
it was definitely covered up at that time--just as I had indicated back
when I was "winging it."
It's apparent to me now why Major Watke was exonerated, since he was not
guilty of covering up any of the incidents at My Lai, and had done his
due diligence in seeing to it the report was received by his superiors.
> > and confirmed to Major
> > Frederic W. Watke (Commander B Company, 123rd Aviation Battalion). After
> > the massacre, within the chain of command, it seems only Major Watke
> > possessed information conflicting with Calley's after action report.
> >
> > Why Thompson's report to Watke didn't trigger an investigation at the
> > time is not known to me.
>
> Because you are ignorant...go read how Thompson was treated because
> he dared to defy American troops. It took many years before Thompson
> was recognized as a hero.
I'm perfectly aware of all that, yet it's irrelevant to the facts of the
case.
> > Likewise, why charges were later dropped
> > against Watke during the court martial and concurrent investigations is
> > not clear.
>
> oh shut the fuck up you ignoramus
Your pretense at being a Usenet administrator is rather anorexic, I'm
afraid.
If the squiggles on the screen disagree with your sensibilities, and for
some reason this upsets Princess...well, best just not to respond.
Just a tip from your Friendly Neighborhood Neolibertarian.
"Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <dr...@coldine.edu> wrote:
> Neolibertarian wrote:
> > In article <m4KdnSlvdPz3eIPS...@supernews.com>,
> > "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <dr...@coldine.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >>Again, you are lying and you may not use the excuse "I mis-remembered"
> >>or other similar ploys when caught lying...*typical* of the rightwing.
> >
> >
> > Heh. I clear stated I was "just winging it."
>
> And I clear on important facts you cannot repeatedly lie, then
> when caught say "just winging it" or "mis-remembered" or "I heard
> it somewhere"
That's just goofy demagoguery.
> Neolibertarian wrote:
> > In article <m4KdnSlvdPz3eIPS...@supernews.com>,
> > "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <dr...@coldine.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >>Again, you are lying and you may not use the excuse "I mis-remembered"
> >>or other similar ploys when caught lying...*typical* of the rightwing.
> >
> >
> > Heh. I clear stated I was "just winging it."
>
> And I clear on important facts you cannot repeatedly lie, then
> when caught say "just winging it" or "mis-remembered" or "I heard
> it somewhere"
Clear[ly], if I was mistaken, I was mistaken. There's no deceit in that.
Maybe you need to steal a dictionary for yourself.
At any event, it turns out that I wasn't mistaken, after all.
> or any other excuses used *often* by the rightwing.
some group is of no concern to this discussion; nor to the truth; nor to
me.
Besides, it's obvious I'm not "rightwing."
Compared to me, the rightwingers might as well all be Maoists.
>
> >>>>>You obviously don't know anything about
> >>>>>it, but I can assure you the United
> >>>>>States military takes allegations of
> >>>>>war crimes extremely seriously.
> >>
> >>Lie...their intent is *always* to coverup as much as possible.
> >
> >
> > "Always" is unprovable, especially in the face of much evidence to the
> > contrary. Definitely not "always." Dozens of other war crimes were
> > prosecuted to conviction during the Vietnam War.
>
> I said "as much as possible"...when they do prosecute it's because
> they are forced by outside forces (as in the currect Haditha, or My
> Lai)...
Composition fallacy, and fallacy of the biased sample.
> >>>>>You obviously don't know anything about
> >>>>>it, but I can assure you the United
> >>>>>States military takes allegations of
> >>>>>war crimes extremely seriously.
> >>
> >>Lie...their intent is *always* to coverup as much as possible.
> >
> >
> > "Always" is unprovable, especially in the face of much evidence to the
> > contrary. Definitely not "always." Dozens of other war crimes were
> > prosecuted to conviction during the Vietnam War.
>
> I said "as much as possible"...when they do prosecute it's because
> they are forced by outside forces (as in the currect Haditha, or My
> Lai)...
You don't have a shred of evidence even /one/ of the 50 or so other
court martials involving war crimes, prosecuted by the Department of
Defense during the Vietnam War, were "forced by outside forces"
(whatever that means).
> their primary job is not justice but to protect the military,
> and they will do whatever it takes to hide an embarrassing case.
I'm sorry if you ever believed it was.
The military's primary job is to kill people and destroy property. I'm
mystified by your confusion, since it says so plainly, right there on
the label.
>
> > However:
> >
> > 1) Any bureaucratic entity will act in its own self defense.
>
> Well there you go, that's what I'm saying.
>
didn't read wasn't.
>
> > It can't be any other way,
>
> bullshit...a better justice system is possible
You haven't offered a "better justice system." To this point, you've
> > It can't be any other way,
>
> bullshit...a better justice system is possible
offered nothing but vacuous platitudes. If it's "possible" to institute
a "better justice system," then explain exactly what that might be, and
how it could be practically implemented.
It's apparent NATO and UN military forces, for instance, possess
something similar to your imagined "better justice system."
It's been reported there are some NATO troops in Afghanistan whose
operational parameters preclude them leaving their bases, and some NATO
forces never have.
>
>
> [snipped idiot justification for military war crimes]
>
> > These aren't easy issues.
>
> No they aren't...for idiots.
>
Of course.
>
> [snipped idiot justification for military war crimes]
>
> > These aren't easy issues.
>
> No they aren't...for idiots.
>
>
> >>>>As seriously as they did My Lai? Ever heard of Ron Riddenhour?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Do you know the sequence of events in that case?
> >>>
> >>>As I remember (just winging it):
> >>>
> >>>The first investigation turned out to be a dead end. Calley and his men
> >>>stuck to their stories.
> >>
> >>Lie.
> >>
> >>Hundreds of U.S. soldiers not involved in the massacre knew
> >>about it ON THE DAY it happened. A bonafide investigation would
> >>have easily discovered that. Instead they contributed to the cover up.
> >>
> >
> > You've forced me to review the case, which I haven't had occasion to do
> > for ages.
> >
> > On the "day it happened," besides the men who'd willingly participated
> > in the atrocities, only a handful of helicopter pilots and crew "knew
> > about it."
>
> Your review sucks. Radio traffic heard for about 15 helicopters,
> pilots and crews, troops (undeployed blocking forces), 2 LZs,
> headquarters, and a "near riot" back at base afterward. You are
> a fool if you think they did not talk among themselves.
Radio traffic?
> >>>>As seriously as they did My Lai? Ever heard of Ron Riddenhour?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Do you know the sequence of events in that case?
> >>>
> >>>As I remember (just winging it):
> >>>
> >>>The first investigation turned out to be a dead end. Calley and his men
> >>>stuck to their stories.
> >>
> >>Lie.
> >>
> >>Hundreds of U.S. soldiers not involved in the massacre knew
> >>about it ON THE DAY it happened. A bonafide investigation would
> >>have easily discovered that. Instead they contributed to the cover up.
> >>
> >
> > You've forced me to review the case, which I haven't had occasion to do
> > for ages.
> >
> > On the "day it happened," besides the men who'd willingly participated
> > in the atrocities, only a handful of helicopter pilots and crew "knew
> > about it."
>
> Your review sucks. Radio traffic heard for about 15 helicopters,
> pilots and crews, troops (undeployed blocking forces), 2 LZs,
> headquarters, and a "near riot" back at base afterward. You are
> a fool if you think they did not talk among themselves.
Talk among themselves?
I'm sorry, you seem to be hopelessly confused. The discussion was about
war crimes.
And actual evidence.
> > These crimes and incidents were duly reported
>
> No, they were not. You're an ignorant bullshitter.
I find upon further review that my memory is exonerated by the facts.
There were 3 investigations, after all. Your muddled account, claiming
no serious investigation was conducted until the Riddenhour letter was
submitted, is patently false.
==being quote==
2. Observations and Complaints by Aviation Personnel
One element which provided combat support to TF Barker on 16 March was
an aero-scout team from Company B, 123d Aviation Battalion. A pilot of
this team, W01 (now lLT) Hugh Thompson, had been flying at a low
altitude over My Lai (4) during the morning hours and had observed the
actions of C/1-20 Inf. He became greatly concerned over the "needless
and unnecessary killings" he had witnessed. He landed his helicopter
several times to aid the inhabitants and in an attempt to stop the
killing.
Shortly before noon, W01 Thompson returned to LZ Dottie and reported his
observations to his company commander, MAJ Frederic Watke. The
complaints of WO1 Thompson were confirmed by other pilots and crewmen
who had also been over My Lai (4). The complaints were expressed in
most serious terms; those who were present heard the terms "killing" and
"murder" used freely with estimates of the dead in My Lai (4) running
over 100. Upon receipt of this report, MAJ Watke went to the commander
of TF Barker and advised him of the allegations. Watke stated that
Barker then left for his helicopter, presumably to visit C/1-20 Inf.
Watke considered the matter was "in the hands of the man who could do
something about it" and took no further action at that time. Later that
day, he again encountered Barker who advised him that he could find
nothing to substantiate Thompson's allegations. while Watke testified
that he was convinced at the time that LTC Barker was lying, he took no
further action until 2200 hours that night when he reported to his
battalion commander, LTC Holladay, and related for the second time the
substance of what is hereafter referred to as the "Thompson Report."
3. The Order to Return to My Lai
At about 1530 hours on 16 March, after receiving a second report of
civilian casualties, COL Henderson stated he became suspicious and
directed TF Barker to send a company back through My Lai (4) to
ascertain the exact number of casualties and the cause of death. As the
order was being transmitted to C/1-20 Inf by TF Barker, it was monitored
by MG Koster, the commander of the Americal Division, who inquired
concerning the reasons. After a brief explanation by the CO of C/1-20
Inf, during which time MG Koster was advised that 20-28 noncombatants
had been killed, MG Koster countermanded the order and directed that COL
Henderson be notified. There were no further efforts to make an on-site
determination of the cause or extent of the civilian casualties.
4. The Thompson Report Reaches Division Headquarters
Because of the late hour at which LTC Holladay received the report from
MAJ Watke, they waited until the following morning before reporting to
BG Young, an Assistant Division Connander. Watke repeated his story,
which both he and LTC Holladay agree contained the allegations that
there had been "lots of unnecessary killing ... mostly women, children
and old men" and that a confrontation had taken place between personnel
of aviation and ground units; however, there is conflict as to the
number of casualties mentioned. LTC Holladay and MAJ Watke also agree
that BG Young was advised that the complaints made by Thompson had been
confirmed by other aviation unit personnel.
At about noon on the 17th, BG Young reported to MG Koster the
information he had received from MAJ Watke and LTC Holladay. There is
substantive disagreement in testimony between what BG Young testified he
received from Watke and Holladay and what the latter two state they
reported. BG Young stated he was not apprised of any charge of
indiscriminate or unnecessary killing of noncombatants. He further
stated that it was his impression the matter of majorconcern was that
there had been a confrontation between the ground forces aviation unit,
resulting from an incident in which noncombatants had been caught in a
cross fire between US and enemy forces.
BG Young contends that it was this lesser charge he brought to MG
Koster, who directed BG Young to instruct COL Henderson to conduct a
thorough investigation of the incident. MG Koster has confirmed parts
of BG Young's account of this conversation but in a previous statement
before the Criminal Investigation Division (CID), MG Koster stated that
he had been advised of some indiscriminate shooting of civilians.
The Inquiry has concluded that the two general officers received a muted
version of the Thompson Report from Watke and Holladay, but one that
included the allegation that noncombatants had been indiscriminately
killed. Upon receipt of the report, it seems most likely that they
related it to the information MG Koster had received from TF Barker the
previous day, that 20-28 noncombatants had been inadvertently killed.
The information concerning noncombatant casualties had not been
forwarded outside of the Division, although D4ACV and III MAF
regulations required such action, or were the new allegations reported
to higher headquarters. Adopting a "close hold" attitude concerning all
information relating to this matter, MG Koster directed BG Young to have
COL Henderson investigate the incident.
C. INVESTIGATION OF THE INCIDENT AND REVIEW
1. COL Henderson's "Investigation"
BG Young made arrangements for a meeting which was held on 18 March at
0900 hours at LZ Dottie. The meeting was attended by five officers: BG
Young, COL Henderson, LTC Barker, LTC Holladay, and MAJ Watke. BG Young
told the group of the Division Commander's instructions concerning the
investigation and MAJ Watke repeated his account of the complaints.
When the meeting terminated, COL Henderson commenced his "investigation"
with an interview of W01 Thompson and two other aviation unit personnel.
(While Henderson states he talked only with Thompson and for only a few
minutes, the testimony of others indicates that he talked individually
with three persons for almost an hour.) These interviews, together with
the information already possessed by Henderson from personal observation
and conversations with TF Barker personnel, should have provided a full
awareness of the nature and extent of the incident at My Lai (4). From
at least this point forward, Henderson's actions appear to have been
little more than a pretense of an investigation and had as their goal
the suppression of the true facts concerning the events of 16 March.
Following his interview with aviation personnel, Henderson questioned
CPT Medina, whose explanation concerning civilian casualties left him
"suspicious." The remainder of Henderson's "investigation" was without
substance; his "interview with a substantial number of C Company
personnel" consisted of a discussion on the afternoon of 18 March with a
group which, COL Henderson claims, numbered from 30 to 40 personnel.
After complimenting them on their performance in the operation, he asked
them collectively if they had witnessed any atrocities. Henderson
stated that the response he received was negative. While COL Henderson
claims he spoke with other individuals and responsible commanders,
available evidence indicates that his so-called investigative actions
ended after a brief flight which he stated he made over the area of
operation on 18 March.
Commencing on 19 March, COL Henderson is said to have made a series of
oral reports to BG Young and MG Koster in which he was purported to have
related to them the results of his "investigation." It seems clear that
in his reports Henderson deliberately misrepresented both the scope of
his investigation and the ion he had obtained. He reported that while
20 civilians had been killed by artillery and/or gunships, there was no
basis in fact to the allegations made by W01 Thompson. Henderson's
final oral report was accepted by MG Koster as adequately responding to
the charges made by W01 Thompson. The matter appears to have rested
there until about mid-April 1968, when information was received at
Division Headquarters from Vietnamese sources.
==end quote==
General William C. Peers Commission Report; Section 3 Summary.
http://tinyurl.com/7g7alxf
The report was seriously investigated directly after the incident, and
it was definitely covered up at that time--just as I had indicated back
when I was "winging it."
It's apparent to me now why Major Watke was exonerated, since he was not
guilty of covering up any of the incidents at My Lai, and had done his
due diligence in seeing to it the report was received by his superiors.
> > and confirmed to Major
> > Frederic W. Watke (Commander B Company, 123rd Aviation Battalion). After
> > the massacre, within the chain of command, it seems only Major Watke
> > possessed information conflicting with Calley's after action report.
> >
> > Why Thompson's report to Watke didn't trigger an investigation at the
> > time is not known to me.
>
> Because you are ignorant...go read how Thompson was treated because
> he dared to defy American troops. It took many years before Thompson
> was recognized as a hero.
case.
> > Likewise, why charges were later dropped
> > against Watke during the court martial and concurrent investigations is
> > not clear.
>
> oh shut the fuck up you ignoramus
afraid.
If the squiggles on the screen disagree with your sensibilities, and for
some reason this upsets Princess...well, best just not to respond.
Just a tip from your Friendly Neighborhood Neolibertarian.
>
> >>>This didn't stop soldiers involved and witnesses from other units (some
> >>>of whom had physically interdicted the massacre, facing down Calley and
> >>>his men at gunpoint). The charges against Calley continued to be pursued
> >>>with Army command.
> >>
> >>Another lie. Nothing was continued to be pursued.
> >>(not until Riddenhour's letters started the second, serious, investigation.)
> >
> >
> > More than one failed attempt to trigger a "serious" investigation had
> > been made, as a matter of historical record.
> >
> > It is correct to say this matter was continued to be pursued.
>
> Son, it was pursued *only* when forced by outside forces.
>
> Your clear intent here is to justify military coverup.
Logic was removed from the curriculum at your peril.
> >>>This didn't stop soldiers involved and witnesses from other units (some
> >>>of whom had physically interdicted the massacre, facing down Calley and
> >>>his men at gunpoint). The charges against Calley continued to be pursued
> >>>with Army command.
> >>
> >>Another lie. Nothing was continued to be pursued.
> >>(not until Riddenhour's letters started the second, serious, investigation.)
> >
> >
> > More than one failed attempt to trigger a "serious" investigation had
> > been made, as a matter of historical record.
> >
> > It is correct to say this matter was continued to be pursued.
>
> Son, it was pursued *only* when forced by outside forces.
>
> Your clear intent here is to justify military coverup.
DGVREIMAN
Jan 28, 2012, 6:21:43 PM1/28/12
to
news:nradnZd1gI91d7zS...@supernews.com...
> dino wrote:
>
>> In article <4F20A1A1...@coldine.edu>, Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
>> says...
>>
>>>Dai Uy wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Jan 25, 12:45 am, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <d...@coldine.edu>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Nigel Brooks wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <d...@coldine.edu> wrote in message
>>>> Here is a copy of the letter written on November 27, 1968,
>>>> from
>>>>Tom Glen to COMUSMACV - Creighton Abrams
>>>>
>>>> http://warstories.bravehost.com/Glenletter.htm
>>>>
>>>> Your having seen the letter many times, let's see if you can
>>>> now
>>>>find the part where he states that he "personally witnessed war
>>>>crimes
>>>> piece
>>>>of shit.
>>>
>>>(ha!...Brooks caught deep in his lying, a buddy tries to come to
>>>the rescue)
>>>
>>>Son, I can't access that site...post the letter.
>>>;-)
>>
>>
>> "What I have outlined here I have seen not only in my own unit, but
>> also in
>> others that we have worked with, and I fear, it is universal."
>>
>> Exactly what you said, Doc.
>
> Yes, thank you.
Doug Says (Former SFC E-7, 25th Infantry Division and other unit SRF
forces 1968-69 Viet Nam - 1962-63 Korea).
Anyone that was really in Viet Nam and saw combat knows about FFZ -
and what they meant. At least during the time I was there and in the
SRF units I was assigned knew (SRF=Special Reactionary Force).
Was the designation of FFZ "routine?" Of course it was. Were all of
those FFZ designations correct? Of course not.
Is any Army at war "perfect?" Of course not.
Yes we made mistakes, and yes innocent people were killed, but when
the politicians and the cry babies find out that is what War is all
about, perhaps they will stop sending our men out to fight wars then
stop them from winning them.
The civilians suffer much less when the war is won quickly. Dragging
it out only means the civilians are caught in the middle for years and
years, and they live in constant fear of one side or the other.
Fighting politically correct wars is not only damaging our military,
but it is the worst possible type of war for all civilians, home and
in the war zone. . . in my opinion.
All this "win the hearts and minds" "sneak and peek" bullshit is
exactly that - bullshit. We need to send in Infantry Divisions with
their Armor division support and fight a total war for about six
weeks - if we did then the wars in the middle east would have been
long over in about a month, and in Viet Nam that war would have been
won in amount six months even if we were required to invade Cambodia
and Laos.
But politicians need the war for political reasons, and the
commissioned officers need it for promotions, and the Military
industrial complex needs it to make money. Hence, the screaming
bullshit we have now - "Politically Correct Wars" that really will
never end.
The only way a War ends is when someone wins and someone loses - there
can be no other ending to War.
Doug Grant (Tm)
> dino wrote:
>
>> In article <4F20A1A1...@coldine.edu>, Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
>> says...
>>
>>>Dai Uy wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Jan 25, 12:45 am, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <d...@coldine.edu>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Nigel Brooks wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <d...@coldine.edu> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:1sKdnbuPAdy0B4LS...@supernews.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>>>Nigel Brooks wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <d...@coldine.edu> wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>>>>Nigel Brooks wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>news:5NqdnXNrXKBgqILS...@supernews.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Nigel Brooks wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>"Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <d...@coldine.edu> wrote in
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Nigel Brooks wrote:
>>>>>
>>>> from
>>>>Tom Glen to COMUSMACV - Creighton Abrams
>>>>
>>>> http://warstories.bravehost.com/Glenletter.htm
>>>>
>>>> Your having seen the letter many times, let's see if you can
>>>> now
>>>>find the part where he states that he "personally witnessed war
>>>>crimes
>>>>and that he feared they had become routine."
>>>>
>>>> You can't, can you? You are lying again, son... you lying
>>>>
>>>> piece
>>>>of shit.
>>>
>>>(ha!...Brooks caught deep in his lying, a buddy tries to come to
>>>the rescue)
>>>
>>>Son, I can't access that site...post the letter.
>>>;-)
>>
>>
>> "What I have outlined here I have seen not only in my own unit, but
>> also in
>> others that we have worked with, and I fear, it is universal."
>>
>> Exactly what you said, Doc.
>
> Yes, thank you.
Doug Says (Former SFC E-7, 25th Infantry Division and other unit SRF
forces 1968-69 Viet Nam - 1962-63 Korea).
Anyone that was really in Viet Nam and saw combat knows about FFZ -
and what they meant. At least during the time I was there and in the
SRF units I was assigned knew (SRF=Special Reactionary Force).
Was the designation of FFZ "routine?" Of course it was. Were all of
those FFZ designations correct? Of course not.
Is any Army at war "perfect?" Of course not.
Yes we made mistakes, and yes innocent people were killed, but when
the politicians and the cry babies find out that is what War is all
about, perhaps they will stop sending our men out to fight wars then
stop them from winning them.
The civilians suffer much less when the war is won quickly. Dragging
it out only means the civilians are caught in the middle for years and
years, and they live in constant fear of one side or the other.
Fighting politically correct wars is not only damaging our military,
but it is the worst possible type of war for all civilians, home and
in the war zone. . . in my opinion.
All this "win the hearts and minds" "sneak and peek" bullshit is
exactly that - bullshit. We need to send in Infantry Divisions with
their Armor division support and fight a total war for about six
weeks - if we did then the wars in the middle east would have been
long over in about a month, and in Viet Nam that war would have been
won in amount six months even if we were required to invade Cambodia
and Laos.
But politicians need the war for political reasons, and the
commissioned officers need it for promotions, and the Military
industrial complex needs it to make money. Hence, the screaming
bullshit we have now - "Politically Correct Wars" that really will
never end.
The only way a War ends is when someone wins and someone loses - there
can be no other ending to War.
Doug Grant (Tm)
Tankfixer
Jan 28, 2012, 7:39:52 PM1/28/12
to
In article <dNWdnazsSOScFoPS...@giganews.com>, - DGVREIMAN
dgvr...@comcast.net spouted !
> I was a NCO in Vietnam about a dozen times
You went to Vietnam a dozen times ?
Or you got busted and made the rank back that many times while you were
there.....
dgvr...@comcast.net spouted !
> I was a NCO in Vietnam about a dozen times
Or you got busted and made the rank back that many times while you were
there.....
DGVREIMAN
Jan 28, 2012, 9:10:49 PM1/28/12
to
"Tankfixer" <paul.c...@gmail.c00m> wrote in message
news:MPG.298e3534...@news.eternal-september.org...
Doug Says: (Former SFC E-7 in Viet Nam 1968-1969 25th Infantry and
other RF units) - What I found interesting was that we owned some of
the FFZ areas during the day, but Charlie owned them at night. When
Sir Charles would enter a Vil he would demand the villagers house his
weapons, rice, and some of his Cadre, or he would murder all of the
villigers. Of course they would comply (what choice did they have)?
But then we would later designate the Vil as a FFZ because of
"existing enemy forces and enemy arms caches."
In a word, the Villagers were "fucked."
I don't know how it was done in areas outside of the areas I was
assigned, or how it was done perhaps even a different time later on
in the war after I left, but during the Tet offensive and
counteroffensive months, the Vietnamese civilians were between a rock
and a hard place, a very very hard place when you consider the fly fly
boys could drop their ordinance on these Vils at will.
Doug Grant (Tm)
>
>> I was a NCO in Vietnam about a dozen times
>
> You went to Vietnam a dozen times ?
>
> Or you got busted and made the rank back that many times while you
> were
> there.....
>
Sir:
I am again hereby providing you with a notice to cease and desist your
harassment, defamation, stalking all based upon your defaming comments
and fraudulent accusations you are publishing about me and
communicating to me via additions to my USENET posts. You know the
above statement is a forgery and a complete con.
I have informed you several times via my responses/notices to your
defaming posts about me that I do not wish you to interrupt my
posts, comment on them in any manner, nor try to communicate with me
in any manner as you have been doing by posting your fraud about me on
my USENET posts that in no manner have anything to do with you nor
reference you in any way.
Please understand that I simply do not wish to have any anything to do
with you, do not wish to converse with you, do not wish to know you,
nor know anything about you, and I simply hereby again ask you to
simply leave me alone.
I have also noticed that you have acknowledged reading my offer to
resolve our differences outside of a court of law. (See above).
Apparently, you are demonstrating to me the only way you intend to
cease and desist your defaming, stalking and harassment campaign you
have been waging against me for years, as I have asked you to do
several times, is if I take legal action against you to stop your
on-line attacks, stalking, harassment and defamation.
I will provide you with this notice several more times if you continue
to snip out my posts that have nothing to do with you and add your
defamation, stalking, harassing and fraudulent comments about me to
them. Your clear and unmistakable pattern and tactic to harass and
stalk me is by (1) communicating to me your fraudulent accusations
via your USENET posts added to mine that have nothing to do with you
(2) furthering your year's long stalking, smear and harassing campaign
you have been waging against me under different Internet names.
Once again, Mr. Paul Carrier, I urge you to cease and desist your
year's long harassment and stalking campaign against me at once.
You must realize that litigation and lawyers are both expensive and
extensive.
Please stop your smear campaign against me if you do not wish to enter
into litigation over my request to simply leave me alone.
If you do not adhere to my request to cease and desist your harassment
after you receive this notice, I must by such actions conclude that
you intend to continue to communicate to me your stalking/harassment,
defaming comments, and fraudulent accusations, and continue to
communicate your defamation and fraudulent accusations about me to
third parties, unless I take appropriate legal action against you.
I urge you to hire and speak with a lawyer if you intend to continue
your pattern of electronically communicating your defamation,
harassment and stalking to me via USENET posts, and of course
publishing same to third parties on International Commerce.
Moreover please read the cease and desist notice below that heretofore
you have, so far, ignored:
Notice to Paul Carrier to Cease and Desist Defamation based Stalking
and Harassment
I have no idea why this non-Vietnam veteran Paul Carrier wants to
continue to stalk and harass a real combat Vietnam Senior NCO. . . not
to mention lie about what I said and present me in the most fraudulent
false light he can dream up out of thin air, not to mention support
his fellow gang member that posts all that Hate America/Hate our
Troops propaganda. (See a sampling of the hate America propaganda
below in the Tiny URL). Also review the "Stalking" references below
from the Psychiatrists. . .that might answer the question. But to
support and defend hate our troops propagandists while claiming he is
some kind of "National Guard Solider" is also beyond my understanding.
. . also note that all of Paul Carrier's cons and lies about me have
been disproved via my recent Polygraph - questions and answers listed
below.
There is obviously something wrong with these stalkers. . . what makes
someone want to maliciously cause someone else extreme emotional harm
by lying about him, and inciting hatred and violence against him via
defamation, harassment cons, and false accusations? And this is
especially questionable when the stalker has been notified to cease
and desist dozens of times. I really have no idea what is wrong
with these pathetic clowns - but soon it will be up to the courts to
figure that one out.
http://tinyurl.com/4mgxwxz The key Nigel Brooks hate gang member and
chief Hate America propagandist forges my posts, and a sampling of
his hate America posts that is supported by his fellow gang members,
AND this is the hate America/hate our troops con man that Nigel Brooks
says "never lies!"
(See the Stalking reasons presented below by the Doctors - which
should answer the question why these pathetic dregs stalk and harass).
CEASE AND DESIST STALKING AND HARASSMENT NOTICE
To: Mr. Paul Carrier: (A.K.A. "Tankfixer" A.K.A. and/or "Political
Pagan" and/or other false names Mr. Paul Carrier may have used, is
using, or might use in the future to continue to stalk, harass, incite
hatred and violence against me, and to cause me and my family extreme
harm).
***This RESPONSE notice and rebuttal to Mr. Paul Carrier is to again
notify him to cease and desist his stalking, harassment and fraud he
has been perpetrating against me for years.***
***I am being forced to post this notice and rebuttal on USENET due to
Mr. Paul Carrier's repeated and malicious personal attacks, harassment
and stalking as the headers and contents of this post from Mr.
Carrier clearly represents.***
Note the headers of this post clearly prove this hate post about me
was initiated by Mr. Paul Carrier, and not by me.
If Mr. Carrier would cease and desist his smear, harassment and
stalking campaign against me as I have requested dozens of times, I
would not need to post this notice and rebuttal to his false
accusations. I have no desire whatsoever to communicate in any manner
with Mr. Carrier or anyone like him.
Notice and Rebuttal Forced to Repeat by Mr. Carrier
As with anyone else that has been attacked with thousands of false
accusations and fraudulent posts published on USENET and elsewhere by
Mr. Paul Carrier, I do have a right to defend myself from Mr. Carrier's
repeated outrageous and proved false accusations, hate, incitements of
hate and violence against me. I have no idea what is wrong with this
person, and frankly, I do not want to know. All I can do is respond
to his fraud and false accusations with a rebuttal that provides the
truth.
I am being forced to repeat this notice and rebuttal as a response
to defend myself against Mr. Carrier's hate post about me due to Mr.
Carrier's malicious and repeated refusal to abide by my notice to
cease and desist his defaming personal attacks, stalking, harassment
and his proved false light hate and outrageous false accusations.
You be the judge why Mr. Carrier is posting his thousands upon
thousands of repeated proved false accusations about me.
Notice date:
To: Mr. Paul Carrier: (A.K.A. "Tankfixer - Political Pagan and other
false names Mr. Carrier has used, is using, or might use in the
future).
Cease and Desist
Mr. Paul Carrier: I have notified and asked you several times to
cease and desist your malicious stalking and harassment, and your
false-light incitements of hatred, threats and violence against me
that you continue to publish and electronically communicate about and
to me on USENET and elsewhere.
Your Stalking and Harassment are Causing me and my Family Extreme
Emotional Harm - Cease and Desist Immediately!
Once again, I hereby inform you that your stalking, harassment and
smears have become intolerable, are causing me and my family extreme
emotional harm, and I again hereby ask and demand that you cease
and desist your hateful and malicious stalking and harassment
campaign you have been waging against me for years.
I further hereby ask and demand that you immediately cease and
desist inciting hatred and violence against me with your electronic
and otherwise malicious communications to USENET and other third
parties about me.
I have also asked you several times to stop invading my privacy and
to stop violating my copyrights.
I hereby repeat my demands to you in all regards.
You Are Not Qualified to Judge My Military Service
2. Based upon your published biography about your military service,
you never attained any senior NCO rank, and you never served in the
Regular nor Reserve U.S. Army as a Senior NCO (SFC E-7) as I did.
Moreover, you were not even connected to the US Army during the time I
was on active duty. Ergo, your defaming statements about my military
service and my duties as a Senior NCO in general are not only
grossly unqualified and uninformed, they are deliberately defaming,
malicious, preposterous and crackbrained. Not to mention every NCO
I have consulted about your and Nigel Brooks preposterous accusations,
including a First Sergeant with 30 years of service, and the head of
the NCO association and several others *including an NCO that has been
posting on this forum for years** has, in writing, disclaimed your
accusations about me and my duties in Vietnam as either "false" or
"grossly uninformed."
2.a. Based upon your military service background, it is impossible
for you to know or even comprehend the myriad of different duties I
performed while I was in the U.S. Army no more than a child could
comprehend. You presently operate as a "part time assistant"
property book junior NCO for the Oregon National Guard. None of your
duties as a "part time property book assistant" NCO for the Oregon
National Guard have any connection, bearing nor relationship to my
duties as a Regular Army Senior NCO SFC E-7 during the Vietnam era and
war, in respect to my combat duties nor any other duties. I never
served in the "National Guard" I served exclusively in the "Regular
Army." I also never had anything to do with being "an assistant
property book junior NCO."
3. Based upon your own published biography about your military
service, you never served in the U.S. Army in the same units as I
did, nor did you ever perform Infantryman nor any other duties I
performed as a senior NCO.
3.a. You also NEVER served in Vietnam although you mysteriously post
your personal attacks, defamation, harassment and stalking against
*real Vietnam Veterans* on a Vietnam veterans forum. Ergo, it is
impossible for you to know or even comprehend the duties I performed
in Vietnam no more than any other part time "assistant property book"
manger in the National Guard could comprehend. Also, since you are
not a Vietnam veteran, even you must realize your claimed knowledge
about my duties in Vietnam are not only preposterous, they are also
obviously arrogantly uninformed and sophomoric.
3.b. Your repeated defaming false accusations and statements about
my military service in general are not only grossly unqualified and
uninformed, but also are deliberately defaming, malicious,
preposterous and idiotic, and directly contradicts not only my
military records, but volumes of Army regulations as well. Not to
mention contradicts every NCO I have consulted about your and Nigel
Brooks preposterous accusations, including a First Sergeant with 30
years of service, and the head of the NCO association and several
others *including an NCO that has been posting on this forum for
years** have, in writing, disclaimed your accusations about me and
your accusations about my duties in Vietnam as either "false" or
"grossly uninformed."
4. Based upon your own biography, you never served in the U.S. Army
as a senior NCO. Moreover, regardless of the fact you spent a few
years in the US Army Reserve, the top rank you could ever achieve was
that of a junior NCO. Moreover, you were never assigned to an
Infantry unit (or any other unit) during a time of war. Ergo, your
defaming statements about my military service duties as a SFC E-7
senior NCO assigned to a famous Infantry Unit in Vietnam, with duty
in SF Reactionary and other duties, are not only grossly unqualified
and uninformed, but also are deliberately defaming, malicious,
preposterous and idiotic, and your false accusations contradicts my
military records and contradicts US Army regulations.
Mr. Paul Carrier; Please Stop Stalking Me!
5. I Do Not Want to exchange posts with you nor communicate with you
nor communicate with people like you in any manner. We have nothing
in common, and your *volumes* of hate and attack posts directed
against me and several others indicates to me that perhaps something
is seriously wrong with you. I suggest you seek counseling in respect
to your obvious obsession with me. I have no idea why you seem so
obsessed with harassing and stalking me me. If you feel that we have
something in common, I assure you that we do not.
5.a. Regardless of my past several notices to you (posted on USENET
which you acknowledged by responding to each time) to cease and desist
your hateful attacks, defamation, stalking and harassment as are
outlined herein, and my past notices to you that I want nothing
whatsoever to do with you, do not wish to converse with you, nor
exchange ideas nor communications with you in any manner, nor have any
desire to know anything about you nor any others like you, you
persist with your malicious electronic communications on USENET and to
third parties containing false, hateful and defaming personal attacks
against me.
5.b. Thus far you have posted thousands of such proved false personal
defaming attacks about me on USENET alone. Not to mention repeatedly
presented me in a false and defaming light in your electronic
communications to USENET and elsewhere for the obvious malicious
purpose to incite hated, threats and violence against me.
You are Distorting and Misrepresenting my Past Posts for the obvious
Purple of Malicious Stalking, harassment and false light defamation.
6. You repeatedly riddle your malicious and harassing electronic
communications on USENET about me with your long disproved fraud,
false accusations, false contexts and false light ludicrous,
child-like and cockamamie distorted and "framed" forged
interpretations of my past posts - always distorted in the most
malicious, defaming and false light manner you can dream up.
6.a. You use these fraudulent defaming tactics regardless of the fact
you have been told several times your goofy interpretations and
distortions of my past posts are false, misleading, and in fact,
ridiculous.
6.b. You have been told dozens of times you cannot read minds, and
the only possible person that knows his true intent and meaning of any
post is the author of the post, not to mention is the ONLY PERSON
that knows whether he made an error or typo or just wrote something
poorly. Your claims to know what an author was thinking when he
wrote something is beyond preposterous, it is akin to drooling
insanity in my opinion.
7. Regardless of my numerous past notices to you to cease and desist
your personal attacks, stalking, harassment and false light
defamation about me - you are continuing with your distortions of my
past posts, including distorting and misrepresenting known errors and
typos as intentional statements and entries by me.
7.a. You post copies of my posts containing known errors and typos
that you knew I removed from the Google archive due to the stated
error and/or typo and that you also knew were long corrected. Yet
you fraudulently and repeatedly state as a statement of fact on USENET
and elsewhere that all errors and typos that I have long discarded or
corrected were intentionally stated by me. Again, such
misrepresentations are preposterous to a degree they indicate to me
something is seriously wrong with the way you process information.
What you *want to think* is not true - what is true is what the author
says is true. Again, claiming to know the mind set of any author is
so idiotic, preposterous and ridiculous, in my opinion such claims
represent an obsessive pathology - or simply put - insanity.
8. You further deceptively hide by omission all of my post
corrections, repeatedly post the exact same defaming false accusations
based upon your own lies by key omission of facts and evidence, and
you further hide the fact you know you are posting known errors and
typos that were dug out of my electronic waste basket by an associate
of yours AFTER they were long removed from the Google archive and/or
corrected or explained.
8.a. The mere fact you are REPEATEDLY posting "out of context
selected excerpts" from my past posts that you know were previously
discarded and/or corrected as a means to smear, harass and stalk me is
clearly malicious, deceptive and deliberately dishonest, or insane. I
cannot possibly know your mental state, so I can only speculate why
you attack me and so many others as well with your fraud and hate. If
you find yourself enamored with me for some reason, I assure you the
feeling is not mutual.
9. You repeatedly use these said deceptive methods of false light
defamation and incitements of hatred against me (and against many
others) regardless of the fact you have been told several times the
context, meaning and intent of my past posts you are referencing did
NOT and do not represent the false contexts, meanings and intents you
are distorting and/or maliciously misrepresenting in the most defaming
manner you can preposterously conjure up.
10. Please note that each one of your demeaning, false, defamatory
and idiotic accusations about me you have posted in this electronic
publication and otherwise communicated to me on USENET and to third
parties, and those you have posted in the past, have been proved
false by me and independent experts dozens of times.
10.a. My recent Polygraph and my Military Records and several
independent Military Experts, and US Army regulations and archives,
and fellow NCO's that post on this forum, have completely disproved
your false accusations. If you disagree, please name or produce any
record from my military records that proves I lied about anything in
the context I presented.
11. Your false accusations about me have been clearly proved FALSE by
not only my military records, but also by several independent military
experts and legal authorities, and of course by a certified Polygraph
examination conducted by a former law enforcement officer and a
federally qualified examiner. (See the URL below for the questions I
was asked on the said Polygraph. Once again you will see the
*certified* truthful and correct answers, contexts, meanings and
intents of all my past posts dealing with each subject issue).
12. Please understand that my answers on the said Polygraph have been
certified as true. Consequently, any other representation on any
issue contained in my "Statement of Facts" that were asked and
answered under the scrutiny of a Polygraph that are contrary to my
answers to the subject question has then also been proved false by the
same Polygraph certification.
12.a. Simply put, since it has been certified that I am telling the
truth then any other version of what I said is false.
13. You have also been advised that my law firm has contacted the
U.S. Attorney about you and other members of the Nigel Brooks gang.
Your electronic communications and/or other publications about me are
being monitored and saved, and they can and will be used against you
in a court of law.
13.a. If you wish to receive a copy of the said letter to the U.S.
Attorney please email me at legal...@comcast.net and request it.
We invite you to respond to the said letter with your smears and
accusations you have communicated about me stated in writing and
complete with your evidence. Please email me, or have your lawyer
email me and request the said letter. I will not post such
information on USENET as before several members of the hate gang
anonymously harassed my former lawyer.
http://tinyurl.com/3bjzzsy REIMAN PASSES POLYGRAPH!
http://tinyurl.com/4542e9s REIMAN'S POLYGRAPH CONFIRMED VALID -
SUPREME COURT AND OTHER EXPERTS SPEAK.
http://tinyurl.com/3f6532w REIMAN'S POLYGRAPH - MOST RELIABLE EVER!
http://tinyurl.com/3oqlq5p NIGEL BROOKS LIES ABOUT POLYGRAPH. Nigel
Brooks posted that I should take a Polygraph test, and he even offered
some sample questions. So when I took the very test he recommended,
certified by a Polygraph examiner that he also recommended, and since
I completely passed the Polygraph on 79 key questions, (my answers
were all certified as truthful by the Polygraph examiner) **Nigel
Brooks then suddenly decided that Polygraphs were not valid.** You be
the Judge why.
14. Please also note that I have offered to pay for a similar
polygraph test for Mr. Paul Carrier, Dennis M. McDonnell, Nigel
Brooks or any of their "associates" or gang members that wish to take
a Polygraph in respect to their accusations about me. I will pay for
the test provided the examiner certifies they are telling the truth.
(See my post "Reiman Passes Polygraph" above for this offer.) Thus
far, Nigel Brooks and his hate cabal have ALL refused this offer
although I have agreed to pay for the test up front!
15. Once again, Mr. Paul Carrier, - I hereby ask and demand that you
Cease and Desist using electronic communications and other methods of
communications and/or publications to harass, stalk and defame me, and
do so immediately.
15.a. Once again Mr. Carrier, I hereby ask and demand that you cease
and desist your personal attacks against me, and cease and desist all
similar procedures and accusations stated heretofore and herein
immediately.
15.b. If you persist with your personal attacks, smears, harassment
and stalking campaigns against me after this notice, I can only
consider such future malicious and deliberate acts by you as you
notifying me that you intend to continue with your smear, stalking and
harassment campaigns against me until I am forced to take legal action
against you.
15.c. If you continue with your personal attacks, smear campaigns,
stalking and/or harassment against me after this notice, (under your
present name or under any other false name) please be advised that if
I am forced to file a civil legal action against you to stop your
malicious and deliberate stalking, smears, incitements of hatred and
violence against me, and harassment, I will have the right to ask the
court for an award of all legal fees, expenses and punitive damages.
Douglas Reiman (a.k.a. Doug Grant (Tm))
The following is posted for reference only.
I am not a Doctor, and since I cannot read minds like Nigel Brooks and
some of his gang members claim they can do, I cannot correctly
diagnose anyone's mental state. I do not know why Mr. Paul Carrier is
so apparently enamored and/or obsessed with me. However, the
following information might be useful to all readers:
stalkers
1. Main article: Stalker (stalking)
Psychologists often group individuals who stalk into two categories:
psychotic and nonpsychotic.[10] Stalkers may have pre-existing
psychotic disorders such as delusional disorder, schizoaffective
disorder, or schizophrenia. Most stalkers are nonpsychotic and may
exhibit disorders or neuroses such as major depression, adjustment
disorder, or substance dependence, as well as a variety of Axis II
personality disorders (such as antisocial, avoidant, borderline,
dependent, narcissistic, or paranoid). Some of the symptoms of
"obsessing" over a person is part of obsessive compulsive personality
disorder. The nonpsychotic stalkers' pursuit of victims can be
influenced by various psychological factors, including anger,
hostility, projection of blame, obsession, dependency, minimization,
denial, and jealousy. Conversely, as is more commonly the case, the
stalker has no antipathic feelings towards the victim, but simply a
longing that cannot be fulfilled due to deficiencies either in their
personality or their society's norms.[11]
In "A Study of Stalkers" Mullen et al.. (2000)[12] identified five
types of stalkers:
Rejected stalkers pursue their victims in order to reverse, correct,
or avenge a rejection (e.g. divorce, separation, termination).
Resentful stalkers pursue a vendetta because of a sense of grievance
against the victims - motivated mainly by the desire to frighten and
distress the victim.
Intimacy seekers seek to establish an intimate, loving relationship
with their victim. To many of them the victim is a long-sought-after
soul mate, and they were 'meant' to be together.
Incompetent suitors, despite poor social or courting skills, have a
fixation, or in some cases a sense of entitlement to an intimate
relationship with those who have attracted their amorous interest.
Their victims are most often already in a dating relationship with
someone else.
Predatory stalkers spy on the victim in order to prepare and plan an
attack - often sexual - on the victim.
The 2002 National Victim Association Academy defines an additional
form of stalking: The vengeance/terrorist stalker. Both the vengeance
stalker and terrorist stalker (the latter sometimes called the
political stalker) do not, in contrast with some of the aforementioned
types of stalkers, seek a personal relationship with their victims but
rather force them to emit a certain response favourable to the
stalker. While the vengeance stalker's motive is "to get even" with
the other person whom he/she perceives has done some wrong to them
(e.g., an employee who believes is fired without justification from
their job by their superior), the political stalker intends to
accomplish a political agenda, also using threats and intimidation to
force his/her target to refrain and/or become involved in some
particular activity, regardless of the victim's consent.[13]
Many stalkers[quantify] fit categories with paranoia disorders.
Intimacy-seeking stalkers often have delusional disorders involving
erotomanic delusions. With rejected stalkers, the continual clinging
to a relationship of an inadequate or dependent person couples with
the entitlement of the narcissistic personality, and the persistent
jealousy of the paranoid personality. In contrast, resentful stalkers
demonstrate an almost "pure culture of persecution," with delusional
disorders of the paranoid type, paranoid personalities, and paranoid
schizophrenia.[12]
One of the uncertainties in understanding the origins of stalking is
that the concept is now widely understood in terms of specific
behaviors[14] which are found to be offensive and/or illegal. As
discussed above, these specific (apparently stalking) behaviors may
have multiple motivations.
Stalking by groups
According to a U.S. Department of Justice special report[16] a
significant number of people reporting stalking incidents claim that
they had been stalked by more than one person, with 18.2% reporting
that they were stalked by two people, 13.1% reporting that they had
been stalked by three or more. The report did not break down these
cases into numbers of victims who claimed to have been stalked by
several people individually, and by people acting in concert.
According to a United Kingdom study by Sheridan and Boon,[17] in 5% of
the cases they studied there was more than one stalker, and 40% of the
victims said that friends or family of their stalker had also been
involved. In 15% of cases, the victim was unaware of any reason for
the harassment"
End References.
Tankfixer
Jan 28, 2012, 9:37:55 PM1/28/12
to
In article <d4GdnVDb15A2N7nS...@giganews.com>, - DGVREIMAN
> Doug Grant (Tm)
>
> >
> >> I was a NCO in Vietnam about a dozen times
> >
> > You went to Vietnam a dozen times ?
> >
> > Or you got busted and made the rank back that many times while you
> > were
> > there.....
> >
> To: Mr. Paul Carrier"
>
> Sir:
>
> I am again hereby providing you with a notice to cease and desist your
> harassment, defamation, stalking all based upon your defaming comments
> and fraudulent accusations you are publishing about me and
> communicating to me via additions to my USENET posts. You know the
> above statement is a forgery and a complete con.
So you deny you said "I was a NCO in Vietnam about a dozen times" ?
>
> I have informed you several times via my responses/notices to your
> defaming posts about me that I do not wish you to interrupt my
> posts, comment on them in any manner, nor try to communicate with me
> in any manner as you have been doing by posting your fraud about me on
> my USENET posts that in no manner have anything to do with you nor
> reference you in any way.
I asked you questions.
You can tell because I put the little "?" at the end.
>
> Please understand that I simply do not wish to have any anything to do
> with you, do not wish to converse with you, do not wish to know you,
> nor know anything about you, and I simply hereby again ask you to
> simply leave me alone.
Then ignore my posts.
It's as simple as that.
>
> I have also noticed that you have acknowledged reading my offer to
> resolve our differences outside of a court of law. (See above).
Really, anad just where have I done so ?
/deletion of several meaningless paragraphs of drivel,
to save the planet.
>
> To: Mr. Paul Carrier: (A.K.A. "Tankfixer" A.K.A. and/or "Political
> Pagan" and/or other false names Mr. Paul Carrier may have used, is
> using, or might use in the future to continue to stalk, harass, incite
> hatred and violence against me, and to cause me and my family extreme
> harm).
>
Please avail yourself of the local VA mental health hot line.
dgvr...@comcast.net spouted !
>
> "Tankfixer" <paul.c...@gmail.c00m> wrote in message
> news:MPG.298e3534...@news.eternal-september.org...
> > In article <dNWdnazsSOScFoPS...@giganews.com>, -
> > DGVREIMAN
> > dgvr...@comcast.net spouted !
>
Unrelated Doug BS
>
> "Tankfixer" <paul.c...@gmail.c00m> wrote in message
> news:MPG.298e3534...@news.eternal-september.org...
> > In article <dNWdnazsSOScFoPS...@giganews.com>, -
> > DGVREIMAN
> > dgvr...@comcast.net spouted !
>
> Doug Grant (Tm)
>
> >
> >> I was a NCO in Vietnam about a dozen times
> >
> > You went to Vietnam a dozen times ?
> >
> > Or you got busted and made the rank back that many times while you
> > were
> > there.....
> >
> To: Mr. Paul Carrier"
>
> Sir:
>
> I am again hereby providing you with a notice to cease and desist your
> harassment, defamation, stalking all based upon your defaming comments
> and fraudulent accusations you are publishing about me and
> communicating to me via additions to my USENET posts. You know the
> above statement is a forgery and a complete con.
>
> I have informed you several times via my responses/notices to your
> defaming posts about me that I do not wish you to interrupt my
> posts, comment on them in any manner, nor try to communicate with me
> in any manner as you have been doing by posting your fraud about me on
> my USENET posts that in no manner have anything to do with you nor
> reference you in any way.
You can tell because I put the little "?" at the end.
>
> Please understand that I simply do not wish to have any anything to do
> with you, do not wish to converse with you, do not wish to know you,
> nor know anything about you, and I simply hereby again ask you to
> simply leave me alone.
It's as simple as that.
>
> I have also noticed that you have acknowledged reading my offer to
> resolve our differences outside of a court of law. (See above).
/deletion of several meaningless paragraphs of drivel,
to save the planet.
>
> To: Mr. Paul Carrier: (A.K.A. "Tankfixer" A.K.A. and/or "Political
> Pagan" and/or other false names Mr. Paul Carrier may have used, is
> using, or might use in the future to continue to stalk, harass, incite
> hatred and violence against me, and to cause me and my family extreme
> harm).
>
Mac
Jan 29, 2012, 1:04:25 AM1/29/12
to
On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 02:34:01 -0800, DGVREIMAN wrote:
> WINTER SOLDIER FACTS
>
> Doug Says: I believe America should be above all that happened in Viet
> Nam war. No doubt War is hell, but still, it has rules. Humanity and
> morality dictates those rules.
>
> Are we to emulate the Roman Legions and massacre all enemies, man woman
> and child simply because we can? Or should we answer to a higher voice
> and a higher morality?
>
> War crime charges imposed on lower ranks for crimes they were ordered to
> perpetrate by the higher "untouchable" ranks is not a foundation in
> which to build an effective, efficient and honorable military.
>
> Yet Abu Ghrab comes to mind, and I must wonder if all this ordering to
> commit crimes then finding scapegoats to stand trial for those crimes is
> still going on? From what we read below, it certainly was going on
> during the Viet Nam war.
>
>
> Fraud, in any respect, lying about after action reports, or lying about
> war crimes, needs to be exposed and thereby stopped from happening
> again.
>
> I know we hamstring our military when it comes to forcing them to fight
> wars honorably while our enemies fight them dishonorably. Nevertheless,
> we have the best trained and most honorable military in the world - and
> of course we should hold them to a higher standard than our enemies.
>
> As a case in point I remember when I was assigned to Can Tho (which
> housed one of the largest POW camps in Viet Nam) how I often read in
> interrogation transcripts of POW's (we were VERY interested in POW
> interrogations in the Headquarters I was assigned to at the time) how
> the NVA and Cong prisoners were amazed at the excellent medical
> treatment they received from American doctors and nurses. The POW's
> were treated no different that wounded GI's - which was something they
> never expected.
>
>
> That kind of humane treatment was not what Ho Chi Minh had told them
> they would receive.
>
> It didn't take the POW's long to realize they had been fed a truck
> load of propaganda about the American Army. (I know - I know - our
> resident con man has claimed I was never in Can Tho, and I never ever
> never was involved with POW interrogations - but then my military
> records prove that con man is the serial liar I know him to be, and I
> will be glad to prove every word I said about this issue if anyone is
> interested).
>
> We need to strive to be better than our enemies. Period. End of story.
>
> More facts about the Winter Soldier testimony is listed below:
>
>
> http://tinyurl.com/54skf Winter Soldier Investigation:
>
> Key Excerpts from the link above:
>
> Credibility of the veterans and their testimony "Since the first day of
> the WSI event and for more than thirty years since, individuals and
> organizations have sought to discredit or at least minimize the painful
> revelations brought forth at that event. Critics have claimed that
> participants were frauds; that they were told to not cooperate with
> later investigators; that their testimonies were inaccurate or just
> plain fabricated.[18] To date, no records of fraudulent participants or
> fraudulent testimony have been produced.[10]
>
> "We who have come here to Washington have come here because we feel we
> have to be winter soldiers now. We could come back to this country; we
> could be quiet; we could hold our silence; we could not tell what went
> on in Vietnam, but we feel because of what threatens this country, the
> fact that the crimes threaten it, not reds, and not redcoats but the
> crimes which we are committing that threaten it, that we have to speak
> out.
>
> 1. complete transcript was later entered into the Congressional
> Record by Senator Mark Hatfield, and discussed in the Fulbright Hearings
> in April and May 1971, convened by Senator J. William Fulbright, chair
> of the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.
>
> The program consisted primarily of testimony, with 109 Vietnam veterans
> to appear on panels arranged by unit so they could corroborate each
> other's reports. Grouping these veterans by unit would also help to
> establish that events and practices to which they testified were
> unit-wide policy, and not just random and rare occurrences.
>
> Organizers also investigated the legal implications of veterans publicly
> admitting to criminal acts which they had witnessed or participated in.
> With legal advice from the 1. Center for Constitutional Rights, the
> organizers were assured that the armed forces could not charge or try
> veterans for crimes committed while they were on active duty.[16] The
> veterans giving testimony were also instructed not to reveal the
> specific names of others involved in war crimes. The goal of these
> hearings was not to indict individual soldiers, but instead to expose
> the frequency of criminal behavior and its relationship to U.S. war
> policy.[17]
>
> Verifying the participants
> 1. The organizers of the Winter Soldier Investigation took several steps
> to guarantee the validity of the participants. Each veteran's
> authenticity was checked before the hearings by the investigation event
> organizers, and subsequently by reporters and Pentagon officials. In
> addition, they also gave specific details about their units and the
> locations where the events had occurred. Those who wanted to testify
> were carefully screened by the officers of VVAW, and care was taken to
> verify the service records and testimony of the veterans.
> The identifying military affiliation of each veteran testifying,
> including in almost all cases, the dates of service, appears on the
> roster for each panel that was included with the testimony in the
> Congressional Record.
>
> According to Army reports compiled by the Criminal Investigation Command
> (1. CID) and later reported by the Village Voice following
> declassification, the Army found the allegations made by 46 veterans at
> the hearings to merit further inquiry. As of March 1972, the CID
> reported successfully locating 36 of the people who had testified, 31 of
> whom submitted to interviews.[20]
> One WSI participant, Jamie Henry, had reported the massacre he described
> at the hearings [21] to the Army, which investigated and subsequently
> confirmed his story.
>
> Nixon attempted to discredit the testimony:
>
> Seven years after the hearings, writer 1. Guenter Lewy claimed in his
> book, America in Vietnam, that allegations against Marines were
> investigated by the Naval Investigative Service. Lewy wrote that the
> report stated that some veterans contacted by the NIS said they did not
> attend the WSI hearing in Detroit or had never been to Detroit, and many
> refused to be interviewed. However, government officials have no record
> of the report, and no other historian has seen it.[10] Lewy later said
> that he could not recall if he had actually seen the alleged report or
> simply been told of its contents.[
>
> Fritz Efaw, a Chapter Representative of VVAW, stated: "The claims that
> the WSI hearings contained falsified testimony from men who were not
> veterans is an old one, and it's definitely false.
>
> The testimony was startling even at the time it took place: startling to
> the general public, startling to the military and the Nixon
> administration, and startling to those who participated because each of
> them knew a piece of the story, but the hearings brought a great many of
> them together for the first time and provided a venue in which they
> could be heard for the first time. It's hardly surprising that those on
> the other side would set out almost immediately to discredit them."
>
>
> The U.S. participation in the Vietnam War was the source of much deeply
> divided sentiment among Americans. The Winter Soldier Investigation
> produced a conglomerate of testimony resulting in the implication and
> indictment of American leadership in criminal conduct, and thereby
> further drove a wedge between proponents and opponents of the war."
>
> End excerpts:
>
> Doug Says:
> "Indictment of American leadership in criminal conduct. . ." I know I
> witnessed some of it, and I doubt if any real combat Vet would say
> otherwise. I grow weary of all the BS claims that officers did not
> pander for medals, nor helped to write up their own after action reports
> that gained them those medals based upon their fraudulent reports, of
> course they did - we all KNOW they did!
>
> Doug Grant (Tm)
> news:jfepe...@drn.newsguy.com...
>> In article <18ilh7dd87icqmhq0...@4ax.com>, !Jones says...
>>>
>>>On 18 Jan 2012 21:20:58 -0800, in alt.war.vietnam Bill Clarke
>>>As a rule, Uncle, most anyone who was killed received a medal of some
>>>kind... their Moms, did, anyway. My brother received the Silver
>>>Star... if you strap on an F4 or amtrac, that's pretty heroic... but,
>>>all he did in addition to *that* was to take a direct hit from the AAA
>>>and game over. He even has a street on Shepard AFB named after him.
>>>
>>>And I'm not saying they're not real... not saying they are. If you
>>>send the kid home in a box, what's the harm in adding a medal in there
>>>with him? Kinna like a toy in a ceral box, I guess? I'd be willing to
>>>wager that somebody at DOA probably awarded the Lts a medal as their
>>>coffins came through graves registration.
>>>
>>>Back in the '90s, we had a guy posting here who worked graves
>>>registration... what was that turkey's name? from Escalante, UT, as I
>>>recall... Robert Brown??? Anyway, he said 'bout the same thing.
>>>
>>>Jones
>>>
>>>
>> Of course Nephew. They would all receive the Purple Heart. And I
>> agree with
>> you, there were probably sometimes other medals added, mostly for the
>> families
>> and I really have no problem with that. But I doubt these added medals
>> routinely included the Silver Star. They were more likely in the form
>> of
>> commendation medals and Bronze Stars with and without the V device. I
>> remember the fellow that worked in graves registration (the coolers as
>> the
>> troops called it) but not his name.
>> Bill Clarke
>
> Those that went home in a big green box deserved a medal in my opinion.
> They gave up everything they had and everything they ever will have for
> their country. But any officer that received a medal who helped to
> write or wrote up his own after action report should give it back in my
> opinion.
> Doug Grant (Tm)
-------------- ----------------
Talk about some very desperate shucking-and-jiving...!!!
I'm sure that this critter, Doug Reiman, must go around asking people if
they believe Reality or his "stories".
What a maroon!
-Mac, the Medic
> WINTER SOLDIER FACTS
>
> Doug Says: I believe America should be above all that happened in Viet
> Nam war. No doubt War is hell, but still, it has rules. Humanity and
> morality dictates those rules.
>
> Are we to emulate the Roman Legions and massacre all enemies, man woman
> and child simply because we can? Or should we answer to a higher voice
> and a higher morality?
>
> War crime charges imposed on lower ranks for crimes they were ordered to
> perpetrate by the higher "untouchable" ranks is not a foundation in
> which to build an effective, efficient and honorable military.
>
> Yet Abu Ghrab comes to mind, and I must wonder if all this ordering to
> commit crimes then finding scapegoats to stand trial for those crimes is
> still going on? From what we read below, it certainly was going on
> during the Viet Nam war.
>
>
> Fraud, in any respect, lying about after action reports, or lying about
> war crimes, needs to be exposed and thereby stopped from happening
> again.
>
> I know we hamstring our military when it comes to forcing them to fight
> wars honorably while our enemies fight them dishonorably. Nevertheless,
> we have the best trained and most honorable military in the world - and
> of course we should hold them to a higher standard than our enemies.
>
> As a case in point I remember when I was assigned to Can Tho (which
> housed one of the largest POW camps in Viet Nam) how I often read in
> interrogation transcripts of POW's (we were VERY interested in POW
> interrogations in the Headquarters I was assigned to at the time) how
> the NVA and Cong prisoners were amazed at the excellent medical
> treatment they received from American doctors and nurses. The POW's
> were treated no different that wounded GI's - which was something they
> never expected.
>
>
> That kind of humane treatment was not what Ho Chi Minh had told them
> they would receive.
>
> It didn't take the POW's long to realize they had been fed a truck
> load of propaganda about the American Army. (I know - I know - our
> resident con man has claimed I was never in Can Tho, and I never ever
> never was involved with POW interrogations - but then my military
> records prove that con man is the serial liar I know him to be, and I
> will be glad to prove every word I said about this issue if anyone is
> interested).
>
> We need to strive to be better than our enemies. Period. End of story.
>
> More facts about the Winter Soldier testimony is listed below:
>
>
> http://tinyurl.com/54skf Winter Soldier Investigation:
>
> Key Excerpts from the link above:
>
> Credibility of the veterans and their testimony "Since the first day of
> the WSI event and for more than thirty years since, individuals and
> organizations have sought to discredit or at least minimize the painful
> revelations brought forth at that event. Critics have claimed that
> participants were frauds; that they were told to not cooperate with
> later investigators; that their testimonies were inaccurate or just
> plain fabricated.[18] To date, no records of fraudulent participants or
> fraudulent testimony have been produced.[10]
>
> "We who have come here to Washington have come here because we feel we
> have to be winter soldiers now. We could come back to this country; we
> could be quiet; we could hold our silence; we could not tell what went
> on in Vietnam, but we feel because of what threatens this country, the
> fact that the crimes threaten it, not reds, and not redcoats but the
> crimes which we are committing that threaten it, that we have to speak
> out.
>
> 1. complete transcript was later entered into the Congressional
> Record by Senator Mark Hatfield, and discussed in the Fulbright Hearings
> in April and May 1971, convened by Senator J. William Fulbright, chair
> of the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.
>
> The program consisted primarily of testimony, with 109 Vietnam veterans
> to appear on panels arranged by unit so they could corroborate each
> other's reports. Grouping these veterans by unit would also help to
> establish that events and practices to which they testified were
> unit-wide policy, and not just random and rare occurrences.
>
> Organizers also investigated the legal implications of veterans publicly
> admitting to criminal acts which they had witnessed or participated in.
> With legal advice from the 1. Center for Constitutional Rights, the
> organizers were assured that the armed forces could not charge or try
> veterans for crimes committed while they were on active duty.[16] The
> veterans giving testimony were also instructed not to reveal the
> specific names of others involved in war crimes. The goal of these
> hearings was not to indict individual soldiers, but instead to expose
> the frequency of criminal behavior and its relationship to U.S. war
> policy.[17]
>
> Verifying the participants
> 1. The organizers of the Winter Soldier Investigation took several steps
> to guarantee the validity of the participants. Each veteran's
> authenticity was checked before the hearings by the investigation event
> organizers, and subsequently by reporters and Pentagon officials. In
> addition, they also gave specific details about their units and the
> locations where the events had occurred. Those who wanted to testify
> were carefully screened by the officers of VVAW, and care was taken to
> verify the service records and testimony of the veterans.
> The identifying military affiliation of each veteran testifying,
> including in almost all cases, the dates of service, appears on the
> roster for each panel that was included with the testimony in the
> Congressional Record.
>
> According to Army reports compiled by the Criminal Investigation Command
> (1. CID) and later reported by the Village Voice following
> declassification, the Army found the allegations made by 46 veterans at
> the hearings to merit further inquiry. As of March 1972, the CID
> reported successfully locating 36 of the people who had testified, 31 of
> whom submitted to interviews.[20]
> One WSI participant, Jamie Henry, had reported the massacre he described
> at the hearings [21] to the Army, which investigated and subsequently
> confirmed his story.
>
> Nixon attempted to discredit the testimony:
>
> Seven years after the hearings, writer 1. Guenter Lewy claimed in his
> book, America in Vietnam, that allegations against Marines were
> investigated by the Naval Investigative Service. Lewy wrote that the
> report stated that some veterans contacted by the NIS said they did not
> attend the WSI hearing in Detroit or had never been to Detroit, and many
> refused to be interviewed. However, government officials have no record
> of the report, and no other historian has seen it.[10] Lewy later said
> that he could not recall if he had actually seen the alleged report or
> simply been told of its contents.[
>
> Fritz Efaw, a Chapter Representative of VVAW, stated: "The claims that
> the WSI hearings contained falsified testimony from men who were not
> veterans is an old one, and it's definitely false.
>
> The testimony was startling even at the time it took place: startling to
> the general public, startling to the military and the Nixon
> administration, and startling to those who participated because each of
> them knew a piece of the story, but the hearings brought a great many of
> them together for the first time and provided a venue in which they
> could be heard for the first time. It's hardly surprising that those on
> the other side would set out almost immediately to discredit them."
>
>
> The U.S. participation in the Vietnam War was the source of much deeply
> divided sentiment among Americans. The Winter Soldier Investigation
> produced a conglomerate of testimony resulting in the implication and
> indictment of American leadership in criminal conduct, and thereby
> further drove a wedge between proponents and opponents of the war."
>
> End excerpts:
>
> Doug Says:
> "Indictment of American leadership in criminal conduct. . ." I know I
> witnessed some of it, and I doubt if any real combat Vet would say
> otherwise. I grow weary of all the BS claims that officers did not
> pander for medals, nor helped to write up their own after action reports
> that gained them those medals based upon their fraudulent reports, of
> course they did - we all KNOW they did!
>
> Doug Grant (Tm)
> news:jfepe...@drn.newsguy.com...
>> In article <18ilh7dd87icqmhq0...@4ax.com>, !Jones says...
>>>
>>>On 18 Jan 2012 21:20:58 -0800, in alt.war.vietnam Bill Clarke
>>>kind... their Moms, did, anyway. My brother received the Silver
>>>Star... if you strap on an F4 or amtrac, that's pretty heroic... but,
>>>all he did in addition to *that* was to take a direct hit from the AAA
>>>and game over. He even has a street on Shepard AFB named after him.
>>>
>>>And I'm not saying they're not real... not saying they are. If you
>>>send the kid home in a box, what's the harm in adding a medal in there
>>>with him? Kinna like a toy in a ceral box, I guess? I'd be willing to
>>>wager that somebody at DOA probably awarded the Lts a medal as their
>>>coffins came through graves registration.
>>>
>>>Back in the '90s, we had a guy posting here who worked graves
>>>registration... what was that turkey's name? from Escalante, UT, as I
>>>recall... Robert Brown??? Anyway, he said 'bout the same thing.
>>>
>>>Jones
>>>
>>>
>> Of course Nephew. They would all receive the Purple Heart. And I
>> agree with
>> you, there were probably sometimes other medals added, mostly for the
>> families
>> and I really have no problem with that. But I doubt these added medals
>> routinely included the Silver Star. They were more likely in the form
>> of
>> commendation medals and Bronze Stars with and without the V device. I
>> remember the fellow that worked in graves registration (the coolers as
>> the
>> troops called it) but not his name.
>> Bill Clarke
>
> Those that went home in a big green box deserved a medal in my opinion.
> They gave up everything they had and everything they ever will have for
> their country. But any officer that received a medal who helped to
> write or wrote up his own after action report should give it back in my
> opinion.
> Doug Grant (Tm)
-------------- ----------------
Talk about some very desperate shucking-and-jiving...!!!
I'm sure that this critter, Doug Reiman, must go around asking people if
they believe Reality or his "stories".
What a maroon!
-Mac, the Medic
Mac
Jan 29, 2012, 1:22:56 AM1/29/12
to
On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 15:35:04 -0800, DGVREIMAN wrote:
> I see I am going to be required to publish what I retrieved from the
> record.
>> [quoted text muted]
> I do not remember charging for them - but I will produce the
> Congressional record. Moreover, considering ALL of the information
> officers that testified confirmed they were ordered to lie in the After
> Action reports, most people would consider that "corroboration."
===========================================================
Still waiting for you to PUBLISH what you "...retrieved from the
record".
Still waiting for you to produce the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD.
Let's see the date you posted this was 20th January.
This evening is 28th JANUARY.
Eight days already...
Still waiting.
-Mac,the Medic
> I see I am going to be required to publish what I retrieved from the
> record.
>> [quoted text muted]
> I do not remember charging for them - but I will produce the
> Congressional record. Moreover, considering ALL of the information
> officers that testified confirmed they were ordered to lie in the After
> Action reports, most people would consider that "corroboration."
===========================================================
Still waiting for you to PUBLISH what you "...retrieved from the
record".
Still waiting for you to produce the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD.
Let's see the date you posted this was 20th January.
This evening is 28th JANUARY.
Eight days already...
Still waiting.
-Mac,the Medic
Mac
Jan 29, 2012, 1:28:32 AM1/29/12
to
On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 15:11:39 -0800, DGVREIMAN wrote:
> I have amassed quite a bit of information on the Winter Soldier
> testimony which was sworn by Viet Nam vets in front of Congress. I
> will publish some of it later.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> I have amassed quite a bit of information on the Winter Soldier
> testimony which was sworn by Viet Nam vets in front of Congress. I
> will publish some of it later.
You claim that the alleged "VietNam Vets" gave testimony after being
sworn in front of Congress.
O.K.
You made that claim on 18th January.
It is now 28th January.
Ten days -------- and counting.
So when are you going to "publish" their "sworn testimony" that you
claim they gave to Congress after being sworn.... ??
You have apparently quite often over the years made claims, made
statements and, when challenged, desperately "shucked-and-jived" and then
claim you never made such comments...
Is this yet another time ??
OR, will you PUBLISH the testimony you claim they gave after being sworn
before Congress?
-Mac, the Medic
!Jones
Jan 29, 2012, 10:02:46 PM1/29/12
to
On 24 Jan 2012 15:00:24 -0800, in alt.war.vietnam Bill Clarke
<Bill_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>So that leaves us with a tour of duty in Vietnam before OCS and an unexplained
>connection to the Finance section where I would imagine Silver Stars are rather
>rare and bravery not necessary. Mind explaining that for me?
Be careful what you wish for, Uncle!
Jones
<Bill_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>So that leaves us with a tour of duty in Vietnam before OCS and an unexplained
>connection to the Finance section where I would imagine Silver Stars are rather
>rare and bravery not necessary. Mind explaining that for me?
Be careful what you wish for, Uncle!
Jones
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages