SwiftVets.com Forum Index SwiftVets.com
Service to Country
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Kerry's confession as a war criminal.
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
 
Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    SwiftVets.com Forum Index -> Swift Vets and POWs for Truth
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
95 bxl
Seaman


Joined: 07 May 2004
Posts: 179

PostPosted: Mon May 10, 2004 3:36 am    Post subject: Kerry's confession as a war criminal. Reply with quote

What Corporate Media don't want you to Remember...

What Kerry dosen't want you to Know/Remember...
Portion of John Kerry remarks on NBC's "Meet the Press" May 6, 2001:


MR. RUSSERT: You mentioned you're a military guy. There's been a lot of
discussion about Bob Kerrey, your former Democratic colleague in the
Senate, about his talking about his anguish about what happened in Vietnam. You were on this program 30 years ago as a leader of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War. And we went back and have an audiotape of that and some still photos. And your comments are particularly timely in this overall discussion of Bob Kerrey. And I'd like for you to listen to those with our audience and then try to put that war into some context:


(Audiotape, April 18, 1971):


MR. CROSBY NOYES (Washington Evening Star): Mr. Kerry, you said at one time or another that you think our policies in Vietnam are tantamount to genocide and that the responsibility lies at all chains of command over there. Do you consider that you personally as a Naval officer committed atrocities in Vietnam or crimes punishable by law in this country?


KERRY: There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare, all of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this is ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down. And I believe that the men who designed these, the men who designed the free fire zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed off the air raid strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law, the same letter of the law that tried Lieutenant Calley, are war criminals.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sparky
Former Member


Joined: 06 May 2004
Posts: 546

PostPosted: Mon May 10, 2004 3:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have to say I admire his candor. It was virtually impossible to survive in a free-fire zone without committing some kind of moral wrong.

He did the honorable thing, however, in coming back to oppose the war. Those men who committed similar wrongs who remained silent and obedient probably have a great deal of pent-up unreleased and unhealthy emotion not dealt with.

And considering the kinds of brutality committed by Tiger Force, Kerry had a duty to come back and report the crimes they committed.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
scotty61
LCDR


Joined: 07 May 2004
Posts: 419
Location: Glyndon MN

PostPosted: Mon May 10, 2004 3:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Says alot about a man who doesn't seem to care that his words were used to try to break the moral of US POWs in Hanoi, but then he hasn't shown any concern about Osama repeating his and Ted Kennedy's statements either.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
JasonBinPNW
Ensign


Joined: 06 May 2004
Posts: 58
Location: Vancouver (not BC), Washington (Not DC)

PostPosted: Mon May 10, 2004 4:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

sparky wrote:
I have to say I admire his candor. It was virtually impossible to survive in a free-fire zone without committing some kind of moral wrong.

He did the honorable thing, however, in coming back to oppose the war. Those men who committed similar wrongs who remained silent and obedient probably have a great deal of pent-up unreleased and unhealthy emotion not dealt with.

And considering the kinds of brutality committed by Tiger Force, Kerry had a duty to come back and report the crimes they committed.


Kerrys duty was to STOP THOSE CRIMES FROM HAPPENING WHEN HE OBSERVED THEM OCCURING.

What would YOU know about "Surviving a free fire zone?" What would you know about anything having to do with war?

You keep talking about this "Tiger Force" thing as if every unit in the military had one. WAKE UP, THEY DIDN'T.

If "Tiger Force" (sounds like a movie title) even existed, they were an abomination.

EDIT
_________________
Semper Fi!

Jason

Proud member of "The Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sparky
Former Member


Joined: 06 May 2004
Posts: 546

PostPosted: Mon May 10, 2004 4:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I spent as much time in Vietnam as all of the following conservative leaders and pundits combined:

Dick Cheney Karl Rove Elliott Abrams Paul Wolfowitz Richard Perle John Ashcroft Newt Gingrich Bill Bennett Sean Hannity Katherine Harris Lynne Cheney Ann Coulter Rush Limbaugh Bill O'Reilly Brit Hume Roger Ailes Ari Fleischer Phil Gramm Ted Olson Tom DeLay Bob Barr Jeb Bush Bob Dornan Trent Lott Kenn Starr Ken Adelman Saxby Chambliss John Bolton Andrew Card Don Evans Michael Ledeen Roy Blunt Antonin Scalia Steve Forbes Dennis Hastert Tim Hutchinson Mitch McConnell Don Nickles Tony Snow Mark Souder Pat Robertson P.J. O'Rourke George Will Clarence Thomas Gary Bauer Ted Nugent Michael Weiner Dan Quayle Bob Ney & Walter Jones Alan Keyes Jerry Falwell Matt Drudge

And, actually, Kerry DID stop one crime. By the only critic who served on the boat WITH Kerry. From the Boston Globe about Steven Michael Gardner:

As Gardner recalls it, he was in the "tub" above the pilot house with the twin machine guns, and Kerry was in command, when the Navy swift boat came upon a sampan in the darkness. Gardner flashed a searchlight and ordered the craft to stop. Then, he said, he saw a figure rise up over the gunwale with a semiautomatic weapon. Spotting tracers in the sky and fearing an attack, Gardner said, he laced the sampan with bullets, and other crew members fired as well. Gardner recalls a man in the sampan falling overboard, presumably dead.

After the shooting had stopped and Kerry had ordered a cease-fire, Gardner said, the crew found a woman in the sampan who was alive. There was also the boy, dead in the bottom of the boat. Gardner said there is no way to know which crewmate fired the shots that killed the boy, but he said Kerry was in the pilot house and did not fire. Kerry was livid when he emerged, Gardner said.

"Kerry threatened me with a court-martial, screaming at the top of his lungs: `What the hell do you think you're doing? I ought to have you court-martialed,' " Gardner recalled. "Thankfully, the whole crew was there in the middle of it . . . they verified there were weapons being shot at us. That was the end of it."

---- snip ----

Frankly, I'm surprised that Gardner didn't frag Kerry. He sounds like he was blood-thirsty.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sparky
Former Member


Joined: 06 May 2004
Posts: 546

PostPosted: Mon May 10, 2004 4:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I forgot the most important name on that list above, George Bush.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
95 bxl
Seaman


Joined: 07 May 2004
Posts: 179

PostPosted: Mon May 10, 2004 4:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

All of which is completely besides the point, except for one thing: Kerry is a self-admitted war criminal, and you people support him. Really isn't that much different then supporting any other war criminal.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
eecee
Ensign


Joined: 09 May 2004
Posts: 52

PostPosted: Mon May 10, 2004 4:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

95 bxl wrote:
All of which is completely besides the point, except for one thing: Kerry is a self-admitted war criminal, and you people support him. Really isn't that much different then supporting any other war criminal.



Did Kerry have any information at the time that the military policy he was ordered to follow may have been against the laws of warfare?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
JasonBinPNW
Ensign


Joined: 06 May 2004
Posts: 58
Location: Vancouver (not BC), Washington (Not DC)

PostPosted: Mon May 10, 2004 4:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

eecee wrote:
95 bxl wrote:
All of which is completely besides the point, except for one thing: Kerry is a self-admitted war criminal, and you people support him. Really isn't that much different then supporting any other war criminal.



Did Kerry have any information at the time that the military policy he was ordered to follow may have been against the laws of warfare?


Yes, the laws of warfare are made painfully clear to anyone who serves.

They are instructed as to what constitutes a lawfull order, and what order would be illegal. Any order that is unlawfull is one which may be disobeyed. You WILL be taken to task for it, but it you can demonstrate WHY it is illegal in relation to the laws of war, then you are fine.

CLEAR and UNAMBIGUOUS violations of the laws of war include: Killing civilians deliberately. Destroying innocent villages, disfiguring or mutilating a corpse, torturing prisoners (yes, very relevant in the news today, not purely the issue to this question though) among many others.

Again, these are CLEAR violations, not "technical" ones. Kerry KNEW what the laws of war entailed, which were lawfull orders, and which were not before he ever stepped foot in country.
_________________
Semper Fi!

Jason

Proud member of "The Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Me#1You#10
Site Admin


Joined: 06 May 2004
Posts: 6503

PostPosted: Mon May 10, 2004 4:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

eecee wrote:

Did Kerry have any information at the time that the military policy he was ordered to follow may have been against the laws of warfare?


Hard to say, although it is alleged by Kerry that his ad hoc committee of unnamed and unnumbered Swift Boat captains arranged a meeting with Zumwalt and Abrams ostensibly to protest the Navy's free fire zone policy.

How does a Ltjg with approximately 2 months of service in-country wrangle an interview with the Navy CNO?...and the MACV commander? (that's a supposition on my part...not sure of their actual Command assignments at that time...please correct if you know)

Who were the other Swift captains who allegedly joined Kerry in his in-country activism? Are they named? Have they come forward?

How did that activity sit with his peer group in the Swifts? And his immediate Commander?

Questions and more questions....

Only thing we can be pretty sure of about what was in Kerry's head at the time is his knowledge of Public Law 104-106....

Quote:
While clearly an individual decoration, the Purple Heart differs from all other decorations in that an individual is not "recommended" for the decoration; rather he or she is entitled to it upon meeting specific criteria.

<snip>

2) A wound is defined as an injury to any part of the body from an outside force or agent sustained under one or more of the conditions listed above. A physical lesion is not required, however, the wound for which the award is made must have required treatment by a medical officer and records of medical treatment for wounds or injuries received in action must have been made a matter of official record.

http://www.purpleheart.org/Awd_of_PH.htm


Last edited by Me#1You#10 on Mon May 10, 2004 5:11 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sparky
Former Member


Joined: 06 May 2004
Posts: 546

PostPosted: Mon May 10, 2004 4:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

But in addition to Kerry never calling himself a "war criminal" (like any war criminal ever calls themselves that<gr>), Kerry never said he did any of the above things (Killing civilians deliberately. Destroying innocent villages, disfiguring or mutilating a corpse, torturing prisoners)

Unfortunately, there are times when things are ambiguous and you're not sure whether you were dealing with combatants or civilians, which particular group fired upon you, whether you can be certain that the village you're treating as supportive of the enemy actually is with 100% certainty. There are a million other similar ambiguities.

In light of that ambiguity, Kerry was honest enough to publicly question whether he'd committed wrongs. I don't believe he did, but I appreciate his soul-searching.

But he never called himself a "war criminal." You guys are SOOOO dramatic!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
95 bxl
Seaman


Joined: 07 May 2004
Posts: 179

PostPosted: Mon May 10, 2004 5:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

sparky wrote:
But in addition to Kerry never calling himself a "war criminal" (like any war criminal ever calls themselves that<gr>), Kerry never said he did any of the above things (Killing civilians deliberately. Destroying innocent villages, disfiguring or mutilating a corpse, torturing prisoners)

Unfortunately, there are times when things are ambiguous and you're not sure whether you were dealing with combatants or civilians, which particular group fired upon you, whether you can be certain that the village you're treating as supportive of the enemy actually is with 100% certainty. There are a million other similar ambiguities.

In light of that ambiguity, Kerry was honest enough to publicly question whether he'd committed wrongs. I don't believe he did, but I appreciate his soul-searching.

But he never called himself a "war criminal." You guys are SOOOO dramatic!


Bill Clinton never called himself a draft-dodger, either... did he?

That Kerry did not call HIMSELF a "war criminal" doesn't mean squat.

Someone who confesses to having committed a bank robbery is, by definition, a criminal... even if he never says he is.

Someone who admits to committing atrocities, to knowingly violating the Geneva Convention is, by definition, a war criminal... even if he never says he is.

And someone who knows this and refuses to reassess his position of support in light of these facts is unethical and immoral... even if he never says he is.

And there is nothing dramatic here: Kerry is a self-admitted war criminal. Facts don't have to be "dramatic," except, perhaps, in the mind of someone who refuses to accept reality when it suits there own purposes.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sparky
Former Member


Joined: 06 May 2004
Posts: 546

PostPosted: Mon May 10, 2004 5:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
That Kerry did not call HIMSELF a "war criminal" doesn't mean squat.


WRONG! It means that those saying he did call himself a "war criminal" are full of it

And frankly, what Kerry claims he did were things he was SUPPOSED to do. Are you guys saying that he was ordered to be a 'war criminal'?

o Shootings in free fire zones.

o Harassment and interdiction fire.

o Using 50 calibre machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people.

o Search and destroy missions

o Burning of villages.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
eecee
Ensign


Joined: 09 May 2004
Posts: 52

PostPosted: Mon May 10, 2004 5:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Me#1You#10 wrote:
eecee wrote:

Did Kerry have any information at the time that the military policy he was ordered to follow may have been against the laws of warfare?


Hard to say, although it is alleged by Kerry that his ad hoc committee of unnamed and unnumbered Swift Boat captains arranged a meeting with Zumwalt and Abrams ostensibly to protest the Navy's free fire zone policy.

How does a Ltjg with approximately 2 months of service in-country wrangle an interview with the Navy CNO?...and the MACV commander? (that's a supposition on my part...not sure of their actual Command assignments at that time...please correct if you know)

Who were the other Swift captains who allegedly joined Kerry in his in-country activism? Are they named? Have they come forward?

How did that activity sit with his peer group in the Swifts? And his immediate Commander?

Questions and more questions....

Only thing we can be pretty sure of about what was in Kerry's head at the time is his knowledge of Public Law 104-106....

Quote:
While clearly an individual decoration, the Purple Heart differs from all other decorations in that an individual is not "recommended" for the decoration; rather he or she is entitled to it upon meeting specific criteria.

<snip>

2) A wound is defined as an injury to any part of the body from an outside force or agent sustained under one or more of the conditions listed above. A physical lesion is not required, however, the wound for which the award is made must have required treatment by a medical officer and records of medical treatment for wounds or injuries received in action must have been made a matter of official record.

http://www.purpleheart.org/Awd_of_PH.htm






I'm not sure how anyone can be "pretty sure" of what someone else knew about something with no objective evidence to support it.


As to the meeting with Zumwalt and Abrams, here is how Douglas Brinkley described it:



>>Like many of the junior U.S. Navy officers who applied for Swift-boat duty, John Kerry had assumed that he would be assigned mostly to relatively safe coastal patrols off South Vietnam. A month before he arrived back in-country to begin his second tour of duty, however, the Swift-boat mission had changed into far more dangerous riverine assualts on the Vietcong in the Mekong Delta. The new Southeast Asia Lake, Ocean, River, and Delta Strategy—Operation SEALORDS—launched in November of 1968, just after then Vice Admiral Elmo R. Zumwalt Jr. took over the U.S.-South Vietnamese "brown-water navy." On January 22, 1969, some twenty Swift-boat officers from Coastal Divisions Eleven and Thirteen got a chance to air their views about the new policy at a very high level. They were flown to Saigon for a most unusual meeting with Admiral Zumwalt and U.S. Army General Creighton W. Abrams Jr., the overall commander of the U.S. Military Assistance Command, Vietnam (MACV).

Upon arriving at the air base at Tan Son Nhut, MACV's headquarters on the outskirts of Saigon, the officers were driven to Vice Admiral Zumwalt's residence. To a history-minded junior officer like John Kerry, Zumwalt was already a legend at age forty-eight. He had graduated seventh in his class (1942) after just three years at the U.S. Naval Academy. Rushed into World War II service, he was assigned to the USS Robinson, a destroyer that saw action in the Battle of Leyte Gulf. He was awarded the Bronze Star for meritorious service during a torpedo attack. He displayed similar valor while serving aboard the USS Wisconsin during the Korean War. Fiercely intelligent, hardworking, and exceptionally open-minded, Zumwalt was to become the youngest four-star admiral in American history. In September of 1968, just two months before Kerry returned to South Vietnam to command a Swift boat, Zumwalt had been given responsibility for the soon-to-be-launched riverine strategy. The aim was to strangle the Vietcong by choking off their waterborne supply network from North Vietnam and Cambodia.

That day at his residence Zumwalt faced a score of young officers who were in awe of him—but some of whom were angry, too. Kerry's war notes captured the moment.

The admiral took the stand and introduced General Abrams after we had been given permission to sit down and we listened with open ears for whatever special word the "man" himself could give us. For several weeks there had been conjecture that a major change in strategy was due and that we were going to be cut in on it here. But no. The general, in his portly manner, talked to us about the conduct of the war and told us how what we were doing was terribly important to the war effort. He congratulated us and expressed his admiration and then exhorted us to carry on and continue in our present vein. The talk lasted about twenty minutes and about the only impressive thing was the fact that we had been flown to Saigon to be exhorted by a four star general and the commanding officer himself. I turned with a questioning look to the officer next to me when it was over and we wondered together without saying anything what it was that we were meant to garner from this exhibition.


Kerry was hardly the only skeptic at the so-called Saigon summit. "They tried to pump us up," recalled his fellow lieutenant (junior grade) Bill Shumadine, who had been skippering Swifts in-country since June of 1968. "They didn't ask for our advice." Reflecting back on the event decades later, another lieutenant (junior grade) recalled the snowballing of dissent that had led to the meeting in the first place. "Our division commanders had grown tired of hearing their officers express concern about our mission," he explained. "Collectively, at least most of us felt that running rivers, showing the flag, and shooting things up was too imprecise. We were creating negative feeling among the good guys, the Vietnamese who farmed and fished and tried to raise a family. We wanted to win the people over, not have them hate us for destroying everything in sight."

What Kerry, Shumadine, and the other junior officers could not have known was that General Abrams—who had served as a tank commander under General George S. Patton in World War II—himself harbored deep-seated worries about the progress of the war. It troubled Abrams that every day, it seemed, the deadlines for what would become known as Vietnamization were being moved up as the U.S. government became more and more anxious to get out of Vietnam.

The Saigon summit did not leave the contingent of junior officers either less peeved or very impressed with Abrams; they were, however, glad to be informed that they might be getting Army helicopter support for their river runs. Kerry wrote,

Once the general had left we were shown over to the main part of the Naval Forces Vietnam Headquarters and there we were given an intelligence briefing. Again, we met with nothing that we didn't know and I suspect that any member of the officer corps in the division could have stood up and given a better presentation with no preparation at all. At the end of it, the admiral came back in and made a few more remarks—to the effect that the general had been very impressed with the cut ... of the men he had spoken to. The admiral [said he had] replied that he felt that in that room was a future Chief of Naval Operations which seemed strange to me because almost everyone that I knew was planning to get out. Perhaps the admiral was referring to himself?


After completing his remarks, Zumwalt opened the floor to questions. One officer asked the vice-admiral about Marine Lieutenant Colonel William Corson's book The Betrayal (1968), which argued that the United States would lose the war if it continued to prop up what Corson considered an utterly corrupt Saigon regime. "The people smell the decay of [the government's] corruption," Corson wrote, "which permeates all of South Vietnam and makes a joke out of activities urged by the United States in the name of promoting a democratic society." Zumwalt somewhat obliquely claimed that he had not read Corson's book, and then snapped, "First off, you've got to consider the source." He leveled a glare that said, "You'd better not have a follow-up question, buddy." Then John Kerry had a question. As he wrote in his war notes,

I asked how, if our job was ostensibly interdiction of the movement of supplies, they could justify offensive actions such as we had been sent on—attempts to draw the enemy into ambush and then destroy his ambush capability. He said that the purpose was to show the American flag—an answer that seemed very strange to me when I consider that it was the Vietnamese flag that we were supposed to be fighting for. Why didn't we show their flag or better yet, let them run up the rivers and show their own flag? Many friends of mine in the Marines told me about their operational orders and necessity for artillery wherever they go. The admiral went on to say that he knew Navy men found it hard to go out and find the enemy but that the army did it all the time and that we should get used to it. I wanted to point out that the army was equipped and trained differently than us and that they had some form of support beyond that which we had but then I thought better of it and silence was the better part of virtue.

After some more grilling the vice-admiral was finally rescued by an aide, who made a few remarks about the unavoidability of killing innocent people in Southeast Asia. Zumwalt declared this normal—the fortunes of war, as it were—and to be expected. Then he went on to laud the actions of a boat driver in Danang who had stumbled on some Vietcong near the coast of the Batangan Peninsula and killed them all. This was the aggressive kind of officer the riverine war needed. The aide "started quoting Winston Churchill, telling us Coastal Division Eleven was doing the most important work in the U.S. Navy," one of Kerry's fellow officers, Larry Thurlow, later recalled. "We all looked at each other and thought, 'What is this crap?'"

Kerry wrote in his war notes,

I left this whole Saigon operation just a little bit sicker and a little bit more depressed than when I came. Even the intelligence officer there told us he thought that what we were doing was a mistake but he couldn't control his boss and that was that. The unfortunate thing about advisors is that they tend to tell the advised what they want or need to hear—particularly if they want to move up.<<




http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2003/12/brinkley.htm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
eecee
Ensign


Joined: 09 May 2004
Posts: 52

PostPosted: Mon May 10, 2004 5:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

JasonBinPNW wrote:
eecee wrote:
95 bxl wrote:
All of which is completely besides the point, except for one thing: Kerry is a self-admitted war criminal, and you people support him. Really isn't that much different then supporting any other war criminal.



Did Kerry have any information at the time that the military policy he was ordered to follow may have been against the laws of warfare?


Yes, the laws of warfare are made painfully clear to anyone who serves.

They are instructed as to what constitutes a lawfull order, and what order would be illegal. Any order that is unlawfull is one which may be disobeyed. You WILL be taken to task for it, but it you can demonstrate WHY it is illegal in relation to the laws of war, then you are fine.

CLEAR and UNAMBIGUOUS violations of the laws of war include: Killing civilians deliberately. Destroying innocent villages, disfiguring or mutilating a corpse, torturing prisoners (yes, very relevant in the news today, not purely the issue to this question though) among many others.

Again, these are CLEAR violations, not "technical" ones. Kerry KNEW what the laws of war entailed, which were lawfull orders, and which were not before he ever stepped foot in country.




I don't believe Kerry ever said he received what would be recognized as an unlawful order as you define it. He said he followed orders which he later came to believe were in violation of the Geneva and Hague conventions, specifically with regard to free fire zones and the burning of villages.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    SwiftVets.com Forum Index -> Swift Vets and POWs for Truth All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Page 1 of 10

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group