As someone involve in internal investigations into law enforcement misconduct I can tell you that no agency wants to either acknowledge or stop internal misconduct. Most agencies when confronted by internal misconduct that is not high profile ignore it, excuse it, or hide it. There is just not any concern for right or wrong in most government agencies. Just concern for bad publicity. Even better if the person who brings bad publicity does not have a protector or is not white.

If he (Gard) wasn’t the commander, no he wouldn’t have had court-martial authority. But it would be interesting to see what recommendations he made. Did he recommend further investigation? Pursuing court-martial for those allegations substantiated? Did he make a recommendation that no good could come from “picking at the scab” that was just forming over the wound of Vietnam?

Curiously, he says the report went out “over his signature”. It’s either his report, or it ain’t.

The mind reels at the hypocrisy and opportunism being displayed here.

Let me try to explain. When John Kerry's Winter Soldiers first spoke out about the issue of U.S. war crimes in Vietnam in 1971, they were dragged through the mud by the right-wing (from the Nixon Whitehouse on down to editorial writers, and, eventually, author Guenter Lewy) as a pack of liars and frauds who hadn't even served in the military, let alone in Vietnam.

When Kerry ran for president in 2004, the whole liars-and-frauds meme regarding the Winter Soldiers was reanimated by the right-wing in order to tar the Democratic candidate. The Swift Vets for "Truth" were most active in this smear campaign, followed closely by Scott Swett, Jugs Burkett, and Sean Hannity over at Fox News.

The Confederate Yankee himself recently took umbrage at Brian DePalma's factually-based movie (Casualties of War) about a rape-murder committed by members of the 1st Cavalry Division in 1966, arguing that the movie was actually fiction and an insult to the troops.

Even more recently, in the messages following a recent CY article about Colonel Bud Day, the Confederate Yankee's readers renewed the old right-wing smear that Kerry and the Winter Soldiers were liars in speaking out about U.S. war crimes in Vietnam.

But, now, in order to cast aspersions on a retired general linked to the Obama campaign, the Confederate Yankee is quite willing to discuss the hundreds of war crimes committed by U.S. Army troops in Vietnam, confirmed by the army's own CID, and subsequently covered up by the powers that be during the 1970s.

Doesn't that mean that John Kerry and the Winter Soldiers are owed a HUGE apology?

And, please, the cover-up described in this post did not originate with that retired general. The White House and the Department of Defense wanted the whole issue of war crimes to go away after the public-relations debacle that was the Lieutenant Calley court-martial of 1970-71.

Remember the Calley case? Two infantry companies from the 11th Light Infantry Brigade, Americal Division, supervised from above by the task-force commander, the brigade commander, and the division commander, burned down three hamlets (including, most infamously, My Lai 4) on March 16, 1968, in Quang Ngai Province, Republic of Vietnam. In the process, some 500 unarmed Vietnamese were killed by U.S. infantryman, their platoon leaders, and one of their company commanders. (Yes, officers were pulling triggers on women, children, and old people along with their stressed-out nineteen-year-old grunts.)

The army could have court-martialled dozens of officers and men for their role in the My Lai massacre. Death sentences would not have been out of bounds for what happened that day in March of '68. Instead of seeing justice done, however, the army pinned the whole mess on one incompetent lieutenant named Calley (who certainly did his share of killing, no doubt), while letting everyone above and below that hapless platoon leader off the hook.

Remember that the American public rallied behind Calley, bombarding the White House with telegrams decrying the lieutenant's conviction. As a result, President Nixon intervened in Calley's behalf; in the end, the convincted murderer did a couple years of house arrest, never seeing the inside of the U.S. Disciplinary Barracks at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.

When the Commander in Chief personally intervenes on behalf of a war criminal found guilty by the army's own judicial system it's pretty obvious which way the wind's blowing.

Thus, the entire military establishment allowed the hundreds of other cases that could have been prosecuted to disappear down a black hole.

You want to blame this now on one general?

Crazy, just crazy. And, like I said, doesn't this mean that the years of right-wing smears against Kerry and the Winter Soldiers were pure B.S.?

Keith Nolan

Keith,

I asked for your opinion (as a Vietnam War historian) on the milblog post that was the basis for this article, before/em> I wrote this post. While I understand why you did not respond, the time to air these concerns was over the weekend, before the article went to my editors.

Now?

Just a little late.

Keith, if Kerry really DID witness war crimes (insted of just making stuff up...) didn't HE have a responsibility to report them? And by report, I mean to actually inform his chain of command and request charges of the JAG's office, and not just to babble on to Congress and the unwashed brigades of the antiwar movement?

Kerry did not in fact speak to the JAG; he did not go up his chain of command to report war crimes and request charges. Instead he waited until he was out of country and had 'self-seperated' from the Navy to make claims that he did not at that time and never did at any subsequent time support with facts.

If the Winter Soldier claims were truthful, and Kerry was truly a conscientious officer and good American (instead of a self-serving and ambitious lout), why didn't he report and give evidence so there could be prosecutions? If the claims were true and accurate, didn't his reticence mean that murderers and criminals were allowed to remain in the military and continue their acts- putting civilians in danger?

Either Kerry was telling the truth- and his failure to exercise due diligence as an officer and a gentleman resulted in failures to investigate and prosecute war crimes... or he was a publicity-seeking scut who lied to Congress in pursuit of headlines and political prominence. Which one was it? And which Kerry do YOU stand by?

Crossposted from Pajamas Media piece:

Interesting that you would cite to Greyhawk’s piece at Mudville Gazette but ignore the comment thread at that piece.

If you had read it (I assume you’re not intentionally “covering it up”), you would know that the military most certainly did NOT have “the legal option to pursue all 203 suspects even after they were discharged.” As Greyhawk himself pointed out, the military may only prosecute “ex-soldiers” who are retired and drawing pay (I include certain reservists per UCMJ). And those “ex-soldiers” could not have been prosecuted by a civilian court under any circumstances.

I look forward to seeing the correction in your piece.

I enjoyed my conversation with Greyhawk, a blogger who seems genuinely interested in the facts.

I invite anyone who’s interested to read that comment thread:

http://www.mudvillegazette.com/archives/030528.html

DaveP:

Kerry did not testify at WSI. He never said he personally witnessed the crimes and abuses WSI participants testified to.

And yet he brought them up, time and again, as if he had. Who was he trying to convince? Why the insistance on repeating hearsay? Are these the actions of an officer and a gentleman?

Interesting that you would cite to Greyhawk's piece at Mudville Gazette but ignore the comment thread at that piece.

I wrote my post on July 11. You began commenting on July 12, after I'd read the post at Mudville and composed my own. It's more than a stretch to claim that I "ignored" something that didn't exist when my article was composed.

(Crossposted at Pajamas Media)

To Bob Owens:

Well, it would be a “stretch” if you had posted your piece on the 11th or even the 12th. The fact that you posted it on the 14th makes it more of a reasonable assumption.

But thanks for clearing that up. We both agree that you did not intentionally ignore the thread.

I look forward to seeing your corrections, now that you do have more information.

(Let me know if you’d like more links for your research.)

(Crossposted at Pajamas Media)

Empowering a military prosecutor to investigate why senior military officials of their era refused to prosecute substantiated war crimes charges for almost four decades should provide both men with precisely what they desire.

Well, empowering any sort of investigation might prove embarrassing for a few folks, that’s for sure.

Like maybe the 1973-1975 Secretary of Defense who declined to push for prosecution of substantiated war crimes charges, and who sat on the information for all these years.

Yes indeed, Bush homeland security advisor and McCAIN CAMPAIGN ENERGY AND NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR James Schlesinger sure has some ’splainin’ to do.

WaPo

Not to mention his successor as secretary, Donald Rumsfeld.

Not to mention the Secretary of the Army who declined to press charges, Howard Callaway. Possibly he didn’t want to jinx his chances at his next job, as campaign manager for Gerald Ford. Of course Ford knew all about the report anyway, as it also went straight to the White House.
Jul 15, 2008 - 6:28 pm

DaveP wrote:

And yet he brought them up, time and again, as if he had.

Could you give some examples, please?

Mr. Owens, sorry about any communication screw-ups, but when you wrote me, I tried to explain that I'm currently checking out with terminal lung cancer, and don't have loads of time on my hands to answer correspondence. (I'm too busy cryin' for myself!) Sorry that I didn't respond BEFORE you wrote your piece.... but I would have basically written to you personally what I posted at your blog, anyway.

In any event, as new information comes in, it's easy to update, rewrite, etc.

To the rest of y'all, it is beyond amusing (or disgusting) that you keep calling Kerry and the Winter Soldiers liars when the evidence from the government's own archives is overwhelming that U.S. atrocities in Vietnam were a major problem, and, further, that they were covered up by just about everyone in the chain of command.

More later.....

Best,
Keith Nolan

(Crossposted at PM)

Bob Owens wrote:

While I understand why you did not respond, the time to air these concerns and have an impact on shaping this article was over the weekend, before the article went to my editors.

And exactly what would you have changed, knowing his opinion?

I'm currently checking out with terminal lung cancer

My prayers are with you, sir.

And exactly what would you have changed, knowing his opinion?

Having read both your material and Mr. Nolan's opinions?

Truthfully? Not much.

Like it or not, De Palma's war films were both fictionalized accounts presented by a director with a clear perspective and publicly-admitted political agenda. That they use the description "based on real events" is your big clue that much of what is contained is poetic license--fiction--even if parts or even large portions are true in the broad details. You're welcome to read that post, and tell me where I was wrong.

I don't know much about the Winter Soldiers and haven't commented on them much as a result, and would not presume to answer for others.

I do know that the overwhelming majority of men who served with John Kerry denounced him for his war related record, and indeed, I've even seen strong, possibly ironclad evidence that he did lie about some of his record, such his claim of sailing into Cambodia on a river than never crosses out of Vietnam. And there is the sticky detail that he has never released his records.

Frankly, I find the "everybody else did it, too," defense of Gard to be pathetic; if his superiors (including Schlesinger, Rummy, white House officials, or anyone else) were behind letting these crimes go unpunished, then those still surviving should "hang" as well.

Gard, in my mind, is something of a hypocrite for calling for McCain to be held accountable for everything he's ever said or done, when Gard may have followed the laws of that time and his chain of commands wishes, but proved to be a moral failure for participating in a whitewash of war crimes.

If there truly was no mechanism to try any of those 203 men--and that would depend on them being all draftees, and as I understand it, none of them career soldiers who retired or who are drawing disability or other military benefits--then a correction may be in order. I find it rather doubtful, however, that all 203 men, and 300+ incidents, were committed only by draftees and other men that could not be touched by the laws of that time.

Well, thank you, CCG.

Best,
Keith Nolan

Quick response, Mr. Owens:

1.) I'll give you this: Casualties of War was indeed a melodramatic mess of a movie, with a wholly invented fragging scene near the end. The crux of the story was absolutely true, however, to include the fact that no one in a leadership position gave a damn about the rape and murder committed by the squad leader and three of his men.

The non-fiction book was much better, but included even more U.S. war crimes than shown in the movie: the rape-murder wasn't the first time that unit had gotten out of hand. Of course, the book also pointed out the abuse metted out to those hapless villagers by the Viet Cong, too.

2.) I'll give you that I think Kerry's tales of crossing into Cambodia could easily be exaggerations.... but I've hardly met a veteran (including retired generals and holders of the Medal of Honor) who don't exaggerate a bit when talkin' about The Nam.

Anyway, that Cambodian stuff is small potatos. The Swiftees for the "Truth" hammered a guy with a rock-solid Silver Star (see Bill Rood, Doug Reese, etc), who was held in high esteem by all but one of his crew, as a coward, an incompetent, a war criminal with a dishonorable discharge.

All those charges fall apart upon close examination.

As do the Swiftee's tales of the Winter Soldiers all being fakes and liars.

3.) What would you have had Brigadier General Gard do? Steal all those war-crimes files and hand them over to The New York Times a la Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers?

Had he done so back in the '70s, the right-wing would have slaughtered him as a traitor smearing the names of brave soldiers who had not technically been convicted of anything.

Best,
Keith Nolan

To Bob Owens:

And exactly what would you have changed, knowing his opinion?

Having read both your material and Mr. Nolan's opinions?

Truthfully? Not much.

In which case your snarky "too late" note to Keith Nolan was pointless.

Frankly, I find the "everybody else did it, too," defense of Gard to be pathetic; if his superiors (including Schlesinger, Rummy, white House officials, or anyone else) were behind letting these crimes go unpunished, then those still surviving should "hang" as well.

Except that of all of those, Gard was the only one NOT in a position to "let these crimes go unpunished."

Gard, in my mind, is something of a hypocrite for calling for McCain to be held accountable for everything he's ever said or done, when Gard may have followed the laws of that time and his chain of commands wishes, but proved to be a moral failure for participating in a whitewash of war crimes.

Possibly it is in your mind, because I don't see anywhere that Gard has called on McCain to be held accountable "for everything he's ever said or done." Unless you know of another instance where he did that, this is exactly what he said:

Is what Wesley Clark said true? Let's check some other facts: John McCain made claims about progress in security by walking through the streets of Baghdad. But as I recall, he was protected by at least a platoon of American soldiers and helicopters lying overhead. In matters of national security, as General Clark pointed out, "it's a matter of understanding risk," and it's "gauging your opponents;" and it's also a "matter of being held accountable."

So I too honor John McCain. And, like General Clark, I acknowledge his sacrifice for his country. But being a prisoner of the Vietnamese and serving on the Senate Armed Services Committee does not automatically qualify one for the position of Commander-in-Chief -- understanding risks, gauging your opponents and being held accountable does. We must end this glib obeisance to sacrifice and ask deeper questions: is a man who sings "bomb, bomb, bomb ... bomb, bomb Iran" a man who understands risks? Is a man who says that we must keep our troops in Iraq until we achieve an ill-defined "victory" really know how to gauge America's opponents. If we want to hold people accountable, then let's stand behind my friend Wes Clark -- and hold John McCain accountable for what he's said.

Gard article

If there truly was no mechanism to try any of those 203 men--and that would depend on them being all draftees, and as I understand it, none of them career soldiers who retired or who are drawing disability or other military benefits--then a correction may be in order. I find it rather doubtful, however, that all 203 men, and 300+ incidents, were committed only by draftees and other men that could not be touched by the laws of that time.

I never said there was "no mechanism to try any of those 203 men." I said the only way those who were discharged could be tried in a military court would be if they were retired or in limited cases, reservists.

And of course it wouldn't depend on them being draftees. Enlistees can be discharged without taking retirement as well. Being a recipient of disability benefits does not make you subject to the UCMJ.

Persons subject to UCMJ

In any event, none of them could be prosecuted in a civilian court, which I believe was one of your main points.

I look forward to seeing your corrections.

To Bob Owens:

I do know that the overwhelming majority of men who served with John Kerry denounced him for his war related record

Demonstrably false.

Crew directory

and indeed, I've even seen strong, possibly ironclad evidence that he did lie about some of his record, such his claim of sailing into Cambodia on a river than never crosses out of Vietnam.

Also demonstrably false.

December 1968

February 1969

And there is the sticky detail that he has never released his records.

He has. Just not to your satisfaction.

What exactly is missing from the records he's published or made available for inspection?

Be specific, please.

"The overwhelming number of men who served with John Kerry denounced him for his war related record."

Sorry, but that is blatantly, and demonstrably, false.

For example, just try to find any of the 25 guys who were present at the incident for Which Kerry received the Silver Star who "denounced him for his war related record". In fact, there are none.

If one is trying to make that statment due to the Swift Boat Veterans for "truth" being "against Kerry", well, that just doesn't wash. Most of those guys never saw Kerry in Vietnam, much less serve with him.

Doug Reese