SwiftVets.com

[3rd gen Navy]

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041018/ap_en_mo/kerry_film_1

By DAVID B. CARUSO, Associated Press Writer

PHILADELPHIA - A Vietnam veteran shown in a documentary criticizing Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites)'s anti-war activities filed a libel lawsuit against the movie's director Monday, saying the film falsely calls him a fraud and a liar.

Kenneth J. Campbell, now a professor at the University of Delaware, said in the suit that "Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal" combines footage of him appearing at a 1971 war protest with narration that claims that many of the supposed veterans who took part in the event were later "discovered as frauds" who "never set foot on the battlefield, or left the comfort of the States, or even served in uniform."


The suit said viewers would be left with the perception that Campbell had lied about his military service.


Campbell attached copies of his military records to the suit, showing that he received the Purple Heart medal and eight other medals, ribbons and decorations for his service as an artillery forward observer in Vietnam in 1968 and 1969.


The suit names the film's producer, Carlton Sherwood, and his company, Red White and Blue Productions, as defendants.


"The defendants' malicious, reckless and scandalous misrepresentations and falselight presentations of Dr. Campbell were done with the specific intent to defame Dr. Campbell and place him in a false light, and with a reckless and outrageous disregard for the truth," Campbell's attorney wrote in the lawsuit.


Campbell's lawyer also threatened legal action against the Sinclair Broadcast Group, an owner of 62 television stations that has announced that it intends to pre-empt regular program to broadcast "Stolen Honor" two weeks before the election.
_________________
Warm Regards,
Sean G. Smith,
RN, BSN, EMT-B, U.S. Navy, 1994 - 2003.
BS Biology, Business Administration, Nursing
The Deal with Life: Make decisions based on what you might gain, not on what you may lose.
!!!!!! LET THE WILD RUMPUS BEGIN !!!!!!

[rb325th]

Lay down with Dogs, you are bound to get Fleas.

His image may have been in the film, among others but that does not change the facts stated in the Film. I am not an attorney, but I do not see him having any case here. They did not specificly name him as a fraud and I am sure he was not alone in the footage used.
While he may be pissed off that he was shown in the film, it is no different than say JFnKerry using images of Swift Boat veterans that did not support him in a Political Ad, or other groups who have used images of Soldiers, 9/11 footage etc... Public Domain gives the Film Maker the right to use the footage, and where he is not mentioned as phoney himself he hasn't much of a case.
Though it could actually be a good thing for the Truth. If he wants to file a Law Suit so be it, just one more venue to debunk the VVAW and Winter Soldier in!
By the way I will be moving this to the Brand New Forum set up for the sole purpose of discussing this film shortly.
_________________
U.S. Army 1983-1995, 11C1P/11H2P NBTDT

[3rd gen Navy]

http://www.udel.edu/poscir/kjcamp.htm

Here's contact info, should you wish to contact Mr. Campbell regarding his libel charges.
_________________
Warm Regards,
Sean G. Smith,
RN, BSN, EMT-B, U.S. Navy, 1994 - 2003.
BS Biology, Business Administration, Nursing
The Deal with Life: Make decisions based on what you might gain, not on what you may lose.
!!!!!! LET THE WILD RUMPUS BEGIN !!!!!!

[Geano]

Kenneth J. Campbell testified before Congress on the vietnam war. Along with his buddy Larry Rottman, et al.
_________________
MSM Lead Nov 3 2004 "Kerry Oval Office Hopes killed by 10,000 Mice..."
Candidate had declared mice "only a nuisance".
States they "moved too Swiftly"....

[Geano]

Here it is: National Veterans Inquiry on U.S. War Crimes in Vietnam Kenneth Campbell testimony
(Washington D.C., December 1-3 1970)


Kenneth Campbell

Moderator. The next witness will be Kenneth Campbell.

Campbell. Good morning. My name is Kenneth Campbell. I was a lance corporal with the First Marine Division in Vietnam. I was a forward observer, an artillery scout observer for Bravo Company, First Battalion, First Marine Regiment, First Marine Division. ¶

As a forward observer my job was to support the infantry company that I was attached to with artillery fire. ¶

As a Marine fighting in Vietnam, well prior to going to Vietnam, I went through the usual basic training in the special school for FOs. ¶

The things that I was taught were such things as, “the Vietnamese are inferior”; they were constantly referred to as slant-eyes, gooks, zips; and that there was little distinction between VC and suspected VC. ¶

And I was also taught in FO School that artillery was the greatest killer on the battlefield, and I was to use this whenever possible, and use it as much as possible. ¶

In mid-August of 1968 my company was at a place called Con Thien, which I believe is familiar to quite a few people. In Con Thien there is an observation post called OP 1. ¶

From this observation post I observed two villages north of the demilitarized zone. These were not in the DMZ; they were north of it, actually in the southern part of North Vietnam. ¶

I observed these villages through a pair of ship’s binoculars, which are quite a bit more powerful than regular binoculars; they are 20 by 120 power. And these villages were approximately ten miles away, but through these binoculars I could see them clearly.

Upon observing these vills, I went back to the FSCC bunker, which is the Fire Support Coordination Center. I went to a lieutenant there, who was at the time the officer in {4267} charge of the bunker. He was a personal friend of mine because he served as the FO team’s lieutenant when I first arrived in Vietnam, and then he was switched to the FSCC post after I was there for about three or four months. ¶

I mentioned the fact that I saw these vills and asked to fire on them. He gave me permission to fire on them, and I told him that they were — that there didn’t seem to be any kind of enemy activity there. But being as they were in a free fire zone I thought maybe I could fire on them. And he said yes, I could fire on them, and a good reason for firing on them is because they supply the NVA with food and support and that they were indeed the enemy also. ¶

So I went back to the observation post and I called in — directed — heavy artillery on these two villages. I directed 8-inch high explosive rounds, 175 millimeter high-explosive rounds and with mixed fuse. That is, a variable time and quick fuse. The variable time fuse would set the round off approximately twenty meters above the ground and would send shrapnel down and out, and the quick fuse would go off on the ground on impact. ¶

I fired both these missions, and observed the firing and I would make the approximation of about twenty-five, maybe even more, hootches destroyed, and I could actually see farmers, women and children, running from the exploding rounds, and some of them not making it. ¶

I believe that approximately twenty people didn’t make it to safety.

Moderator. Approximately when was this?

Campbell. This was in mid-August of 1968.

Moderator. And what did you see when you were looking through those binoculars?

Campbell. Before I called-in the strike?

Moderator. Yes.

Campbell. I saw two individual villages, several thousand meters apart, and I saw people walking through the rice paddies. It looked like they were working. There were water buffalo walking through just like any normal Vietnamese village.

Moderator. Did you see any arms or ammunition?

Campbell. No, I didn’t.

Moderator. How many rounds did you call in on the two villages?

Campbell. That’s hard to say. I called in quite a bit. A Marine battery of 175s consists of four guns, and I think maybe including the adjustment rounds, maybe twenty rounds of 175 and maybe about the same number of 8-inch. That’s including both missions.

Moderator. Would anybody from the press like to ask Mr. Campbell a question?

Floor. Yes. He called in this artillery fire in August of 1968. Here it is 1970, and you’re reporting it now as something that was wrong to do. What happened to you between then and now that changed your attitude toward, this?

Campbell. Well, one thing that changed my attitude toward it was immediately after firing I — my radio man was with me at the time, he didn’t seem to take to the incident too well, to the actual firing. He didn’t say much but he didn’t look like he agreed very much with the idea, which gave me second thoughts. ¶

And after that, I thought quite a bit about it and I never fired any more missions on unarmed vills for no other reason than that they were supplying the enemy with rice. ¶

And after I got back from Vietnam I really started thinking heavily about it. I just came to the conclusion it was all wrong and that I must have been temporarily insane to be doing something like that. ¶

But the more I thought about it the more the whole thing was insane; the whole war was insane and this was common procedure and for an FO to wipe out a vill was one of the biggest things he could do over there. ¶

One of the, you know — it was like an honor to be able to really wipe out a vill with artillery and to show how great destruction is with artillery. {4267c2}

Floor. Do you consider this an atrocity, Mr. Campbell?

Campbell. Yes, I do.

Floor. You said that you were told in FO school about the omnipotence of artillery. Can you think of other ways in which this kind of doctrine, this mystique was directed at the people using it?

Campbell. I’m not sure I understand the question — other than the artillery schools?

Floor. Yes. Did they indoctrinate you in the artillery school with the idea that artillery is the weapon in Vietnam, that artillery and air support are principal weapons?

Campbell. This didn’t cease in FO school. I worked with officers in artillery at different times when I was in Vietnam, and this kind of indoctrination continued there. It was done — this type of indoctrination was pushed because they wanted us to have pride in the unit we were in and the type of unit we were in. So I guess that’s why they did it.

Floor. The other thing is, who got the body count in this particular incident. Did anyone get the kill credit for it?

Campbell. The artillery battery that fired it got the credit.

Floor. For killing thirty people, right?

Campbell. Well, it was approximately — I couldn’t say thirty, I’d approximately say twenty.

Floor. How far away was this village from your observation post?

Campbell. Approximately ten miles.

Floor. Ten miles away.

Campbell. Yes.

Floor. So you counted approximately twenty body count from—

Campbell. Ten miles away, that’s correct. The reason why I could count so accurately was like I said, these binoculars were very powerful. They were 20 by 120 ship’s binoculars. They were not something you could handle with your hands. It was built on a stand, and they were heavy — they must have weighed about thirty pounds. If you can picture a gigantic pair of binoculars weighing thirty pounds, they were like a telescope only with two lenses instead of one.

Floor. Con Thien, in August of 1968, was a relatively peaceful place, is that correct?

Campbell. Well, compared to what? In 1967 there was quite a bit of activity going on in Con Thien; it was being shelled daily. In 1966 it wasn’t being shelled daily, it might have been being shelled every other day instead.

Floor. Given that situation what do you think the proper posture would have been for the artillery batteries in Con Thien?

Campbell. The artillery batteries at Con Thien should have been firing at artillery batteries firing at Con Thien, not firing at villages.

Floor. Did you always know exactly where they were?

Campbell. No, we didn’t but we had — I don’t know exactly how strong the intelligence, our intelligence, was, but there was always need to be firing at either suspected NVA batteries or else known NVA battery positions. ¶

Even when we knew where the NVA battery positions were, we still couldn’t get them with artillery most of the time because they draw all these guns back into their positions in the hills. ¶

You could fire as much artillery as you wanted. Most of the time it wouldn’t get to them.

Floor. Mr. Campbell, I’d be interested in your thoughts about the nature of the war?

Campbell. My personal thoughts are that there’s actually two types of people in the U.S. Forces in Vietnam. ¶

Those who actively participate in atrocities and those who are also taught this indoctrination but don’t actually carry it out. But they don’t act against committing atrocities when they see them, because they are convinced that this is a necessity of war and that it happens in every war, so why should they come out and say something against it — that’s the rea- {4267c3} son these things continue to go on. ¶

Yes, I’m definitely against these atrocities being committed; I wish they would be stopped. ¶

And I hope that through my testimony and the testimony of the other people here at this commission, maybe the American people will wake up and realize these things are actually being committed and that this isn’t some fantasy story being concocted just to get people like Lieutenant Calley off the hook. ¶

These things are being committed.

Moderator. In the interests of time we’re going to move on to the next witness. Will you save your questions for Mr. Campbell until the end?
_________________
MSM Lead Nov 3 2004 "Kerry Oval Office Hopes killed by 10,000 Mice..."
Candidate had declared mice "only a nuisance".
States they "moved too Swiftly"....

[rb325th]

Moderator Note:

Please copy and paste your comments to this already ongoing topic...

http://www2.swiftvets.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=13412

so that we may close this one.

Duplicate topics take up space and displace other topics, which is why we try to hard to eliminate duplication.


Thanks in advance for your assistance in this regard.
_________________
U.S. Army 1983-1995, 11C1P/11H2P NBTDT