Makes you wonder about Senators Bob and John Kerry, no?

Report: Unit Killed Hundreds in Vietnam

Report: Elite U.S. Soldiers Killed Hundreds of Vietnamese Villagers Over Seven Months

The Associated Press

TOLEDO, Ohio Oct. 19 — An elite unit of American soldiers mutilated and killed hundreds of unarmed villagers over seven months in 1967 during the Vietnam War, and an Army investigation was closed with no charges filed, The Blade reported Sunday.

Soldiers of the Tiger Force unit of the Army's 101st Airborne Division dropped grenades into bunkers where villagers including women and children hid, and shot farmers without warning, the newspaper reported. Soldiers told The Blade that they severed ears from the dead and strung them on shoelaces to wear around their necks.

The Army's 4 1/2-year investigation, never before made public, was initiated by a soldier outraged at the killings. The probe substantiated 20 war crimes by 18 soldiers and reached the Pentagon and White House before it was closed in 1975, The Blade said.

William Doyle, a former Tiger Force sergeant now living in Willow Springs, Mo., said he killed so many civilians in 1967 he lost count.

"We didn't expect to live. Nobody out there with any brains expected to live," he told the newspaper. "The way to live is to kill because you don't have to worry about anybody who's dead."

In an eight-month investigation, The Blade reviewed thousands of classified Army documents, National Archive records and radio logs and interviewed former members of the unit and relatives of those who died.

Tiger Force, a unit of 45 volunteers, was created to spy on forces of North Vietnam in South Vietnam's central highlands.

The Blade said it is not known how many Vietnamese civilians were killed.

Records show at least 78 were shot or stabbed, the newspaper said. Based on interviews with former Tiger Force soldiers and Vietnamese civilians, it is estimated the unit killed hundreds of unarmed people, The Blade said.

Army spokesman Joe Burlas told the newspaper last week that it might have been difficult to press charges in some of the cases because the statute of limitations expired by the time the final investigative report was filed in 1975.

He also cited a lack of evidence and access to the crime scene, since a number of years had passed. He would not comment on why the military did not seek out the evidence sooner.

According to The Blade, the rampage began in May 1967. No one knows what set it off. Less than a week after setting up camp in the central highlands, soldiers began torturing and killing prisoners in violation of American military law and the 1949 Geneva Conventions, the newspaper said.

Sgt. Forrest Miller told Army investigators the killing of prisoners was "an unwritten law."

Other soldiers said they sought revenge in the villages after unit members were killed and injured during sniper and grenade attacks.

"Everybody was bloodthirsty at the time, saying, 'We're going to get them back,'" former medic Rion Causey of Livermore, Calif., told The Blade.

Soldiers often cited conflicting views of commanders as a reason they killed unarmed people. Some commanders told investigators that civilians could be targeted in certain circumstances; others said they could never be attacked.

During the Army's investigation, 27 soldiers said severing ears from dead Vietnamese became routine.

"There was a period when just about everyone had a necklace of ears," former platoon medic Larry Cottingham told investigators.

The atrocities carried out by the unit came just months before the killing of about 500 Vietnamese civilians by an Army unit in 1968 at My Lai.

In the years after that, top military officials promised to take war crime accusations seriously. But records from the Tiger Force case show that didn't happen, The Blade said.

The newspaper found that commanders knew about the platoon's atrocities and in some cases encouraged the soldiers to continue the violence. Two soldiers who tried to stop the attacks were warned by their commanders to remain quiet before transferring to other units, according to military records.

The newspaper also said Army investigators learned about the atrocities in 1971 but took a year to interview witnesses. Two investigators pretended to look into the allegations while encouraging soldiers to keep quiet, soldiers told The Blade.

Four military legal experts who reviewed the Army's final report for the newspaper questioned the case's abrupt end.

"There should have been a (military grand jury) investigation of some kind done on this," said H. Wayne Elliott, a retired Army officer who teaches military law at the University of Virginia. "I just can't believe this wasn't a pretty high-profile thing in the Pentagon."

Former platoon members still could be prosecuted or sanctioned by the Army, but legal experts say that's unlikely because of the time that has elapsed.

Part of the unit's mission was to force villagers to move to refugee centers so they couldn't grow rice to feed the enemy. Many refused to go to the centers, which resembled prisons and lacked food.

"They wanted to stay on their land. They took no side in the war," recalled Lu Thuan, 67, a farmer, sitting in his home in the Song Ve Valley.

The soldiers began burning villages to force the people to leave, The Blade said.

One night, an elderly carpenter was beaten with a rifle before the unit's field commander, Lt. James Hawkins, shot and killed him as he pleaded for his life.

Hawkins denied the allegations when questioned by Army investigators in 1973. But he told The Blade he killed the man because his voice was loud enough to draw enemy attention.

"I eliminated that right there," said Hawkins, who retired from the Army in 1978 and now lives in Orlando, Fla.

It didn't stop there.

Two partially blind men found wandering in the valley were shot to death, records show. While approaching a rice paddy on July 28, 1967, platoon members opened fire on 10 elderly farmers. Four were killed.

Kieu Trac, now 72, recalled watching helplessly as his father fell.

"All they were doing was working in the fields," he said, pointing to the spot where his father and the others were killed. "They thought the soldiers would leave them alone."

William Carpenter, who lives just outside the town of Rayland near the Ohio-West Virginia border, told the newspaper he didn't fire his weapon.

"It was wrong," he said. "Those people weren't bothering anybody."

Villagers said they dug dozens of mass graves after the soldiers moved through the valley.

"We wouldn't even have meals because of the smell," said rice farmer Nguyen Dam, 66, interviewed in his home. "I couldn't breathe the air sometimes. There were so many villagers who died, we couldn't bury them one by one."

Of the 43 former platoon members interviewed by The Blade, a dozen expressed remorse for either committing or failing to stop the atrocities, and 10 have been diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.

uhhhh no

RE: Makes you wonder about Senators Bob and John Kerry,...

I have to agree with taylorky, as I really don't get the point of your post. I'm not saying that is your fault in anyway, just mine, so could you please elucidate your point to those of us who don't get it? Thanks.

RE: Makes you wonder about Senators Bob and John Kerry,...

>I have to agree with taylorky, as I really don't get the

>point of your post. I'm not saying that is your fault in

>anyway, just mine, so could you please elucidate your point to

>those of us who don't get it? Thanks.

Am I the only one here who recalls the allegations about the war crimes committed by Senator Bob Kerry's group in Vietnam. His fellow members admitted it, but Kerry had crocodile tears, amd a somewhat contorted explanation of his conduct. It's the reason he ain't runing for Prez this time.

What does it have to do with John Kerry...?

I'm not too familiar with Bob Kerry, but what does this have to do with presidential candidate John Kerry, who commanded basically a PT boat in the Navy during the war?

I've yet to hear anybody that's enthusiastic about him, and we're a pretty diverse group here, hell, there's even someone enthusiastic for Lieberman! I think it's great that for the first time I can remember the people are taking part, Dean and Clark's ascendancy over Kerry, Gephardt and Lieberman show (for me, at least) we're tired of pre-packaged, bought and paid for candidates. I'd prefer either of them (or Edwards or Kucinich) to the 3 party-line candidates by far. And I think Dean/Clark 2004 would have the best chance of resonating with the public at large, Dean's cry of take back our country is a powerful one, and he's fiscally conservative, but there's still quite a bit of disagreement about that. I just find it funny that in all our debate on the subject in here, nobody's advocating Kerry recently that I can recall!

But does John Kerry have any weakness in his record in Vietnam? From what I've heard it's not as impressive as Clark's, but I don't recall any negative connotations associated with it. I personally don't think service in Vietnam is important for a presidential candidate, hell, look at our flight-suit-in-chief, voters have shown twice that using influence and power to avoid the war is OK by them, this last time even running away from your duty is apparently OK (god it makes me sick to see Shrub throw a salute, as if he was entitled, even if he was properly dressed). Hopefully though, war crimes could not be countenanced...

RE: What does it have to do with John Kerry...?

Were you similarly sickened by Clinton's saluting? He did not even place himself at risk by being a member of the National Guard. Rather, he used fraud to avoid service. He told the draft board that he had joined the reserves when he had made no such commitment, and backed out when his draft number placed him out of risk. As in so many things, Clinton's low character lowered the standard for future candidates.

RE: What does it have to do with John Kerry...?

>Were you similarly sickened by Clinton's saluting?

Nice alliteration!

RE: What does it have to do with John Kerry...?

I agree with you Merlin. It did lower the bar. Look at George W bush. He was a member of the National Guard but he went AWOL in 1972-1973 to work on a political campaign and was never held accountable for it. To see him in a flight suit and land on an aircraft carrier is even more sickening than seeing Bill Clinton salute. Clinton may never have served, but at least he didn't go AWOL and get his daddy to take care of it for him.

RE: What does it have to do with John Kerry...?

>But does John Kerry have any weakness in his record in

>Vietnam? From what I've heard it's not as impressive as

>Clark's, but I don't recall any negative connotations

>associated with it.

I have not heard it either about Johm Kerry as opposed to Bob, but then again I never heard it about Bob Kerry until I heard it about Bob Kerry. What I can say is thatwhen Bob Kerry's war crmes were revealed, John Kerry stood by his side. That has to make you wonder what he was up to over there too.

RE: What does it have to do with John Kerry...?

The President is automatically the Commander in Chief. It has nothing to do with a military career – illustrious or otherwise. The fact that everyone in the military, from a four-star general on down, must initiate the salute is a healthy thing. It routinely acknowledges and reinforces the CIVILLIAN control of the military.

It has nothing to do with entitlement. It is a courtesy. Not returning a salute is worse than not shaking someone’s hand once it has been extended. I don’t care whether it’s Bush or Clinton, do you “purests” think the President should go around snubbing the military?

RE: What does it have to do with John Kerry...?

1st, I'm not sure I ever saw Clinton return a salute, I truly doubt he did it nearly as often as Shrub, if at all...

2nd, I mentioned the fact that Clinton got out of his service. As pointed out, Shrub's took it farther. Especially in that he now plays his service up every chance he gets, like he contributed a damn thing.

3rd, a salute is to the rank/office. It is appropriate for a properly uniformed (only) soldier of any level to salute the CnC. It is not appropriate, to my understanding, to initiate or return a salute if you are not in full uniform. It is not a snub, it's the way things are.

Is there special dispensation in the regulations for a President? I'm asking, let me know. I doubt it, and my point is that I think it's shameful for a president with no military record (I'd include Shrub and Clinton here) to throw a salute regardless, it insults the gesture and the person on the other side, IMHO. Yet Shrub does it continuously, to remind us to thank GOD he's in command, we'd all probably be dead due to terrorists and Saddam if he wasn't president... And it'll bite him in the ass if either Kerry or Clark are on the ticket in 2004, especially if he bothers to face them in debates. He'll probably pull an Arnold though, do the minimum his handlers think he can get away with under the most tightly controlled setup possible.

RE: What does it have to do with John Kerry...?

http://cagle.slate.msn.com/news/Clark/Clark/morin.gif

RE: What does it have to do with John Kerry...?

>It is not appropriate, to my understanding, to initiate

>or return a salute if you are not in full uniform. It is not

>a snub, it's the way things are.

And the presidential uniform would be? Whatever he happens to have on.

>Is there special dispensation in the regulations for a

>President? I'm asking, let me know.

As a civilian, the President is not subject to the UCMJ or any of the voluminous military regulations, so I doubt very seriously that there are any that pertain to his conduct. However, all administrations have a host of protocol professionals and it’s hard to believe that it would be considered inappropriate -- except by those who are looking for things with which to find fault.

You can hate him for whatever you want. I can’t stand the guy, and hope like hell that he gets run out of office, but there are plenty of legitimate things to criticize him for and this one seems petty. (Also IMHO.)

RE: What does it have to do with John Kerry...?

>You can hate him for whatever you want. I can’t stand the

>guy, and hope like hell that he gets run out of office, but

>there are plenty of legitimate things to criticize him for and

>this one seems petty. (Also IMHO.)

You're right. I just see it as a symptom of the right-wing we're more patriotic then you thing. It's not nearly as bad as implying he landed even the Navy's tamest jet on an aircraft carrier, or many other infuriating things he does... Like being 'the best man to lead the military', 'its greatest supporter' as he slashes veterans benefits and other benefits for enlisted people who make squat already.

I really would be interested to read the etiquette for a President's dealings with the military, if anybody can link one.

I just know that as a civilian it would in fact be rude for me to salute a soldier, and since the President's by definition a civilian... But you're quite possibly right, though I still don't remember having seen any previous president (even Sr., who actually served with distinction) do it. That may be because everything Shrub does pisses me off, I admit.

RE: What does it have to do with John Kerry...?

As the Constitutional Commander in Chief, the President makes the rules. If he chooses to salute or not, no one can say that he is wrong, because he is entitled to define what is right or wrong. Since the soldiers and marines are obligated to salute, it seems rude for the President not to acknowledge their salute in some way. If a soldier saluted you, would you just ignore it and just leave him standing there feeling like a fool for having to do it? Returning the salute seems like common curtesy to me. He certainly does not deserve to be demonized for it.

RE: What does it have to do with John Kerry...?

It is nothing compared to one of his senior advisors making someone’s involvement with the CIA public purely for personal retribution, I fully admit.

I don't feel I'm smart enough to be President, but Shrub proves anybody can do it... well, anybody swimming in money and influence anyway... Would I salute if I were? If protocol absolutely demanded it, but I'm not sure it does. Otherwise, maybe nod, say thank you, extend my hand for a handshake even... I would be too self conscious of not having served and it being something for real soldiers. That Shrub doesn't feel that way is one of the thousand reasons he's evil, IMHO.

Then I'd do something to actually improve the soldier's lot in life, instead of implying it's what I've done while doing the exact opposite. Specifically I'd make it something the middle class would reasonably consider again, with decent pay and great benefits. Maybe with an expanded Peace Corps as a civilian alternative move towards providing the majority of college financial aid through service commitment. Probably have to cut a couple weapons systems designed during the cold war, but at the same time I'd work on reasonable replacements for badly dated equipment such as the workhorse aircraft. Not with ridiculously expensive and fussy things like the F117, B22 and F22 though, and without all the aerospace financing of my campaign to make me beholden to such costly boondoggles.

RE: What does it have to do with John Kerry...?

>If a soldier saluted you, would you just

>ignore it and just leave him standing there

No, I'd drop to my knees and blow him. :9

RE: What does it have to do with John Kerry...?

Yes, as Merlin points out, it's only okay for Repiglicans to demonize Democrats, Bill Clinton in particular.

RE: Makes you wonder about Senators Bob and John Kerry,...

g_d shoot me... i actually agree with axe!

run for the hills, boys; something bad's about to happen!

RE: What does it have to do with John Kerry...?

i hope you'll continue to keep your criticisms based on important things, such as a man's last name. when do the demo(n)crats get to have their names ridiculed as opposed to their policies scrutinised?

RE: What does it have to do with John Kerry...?

>i hope you'll continue to keep your criticisms based on

>important things, such as a man's last name. when do the

>demo(n)crats get to have their names ridiculed as opposed to

>their policies scrutinised?

I've written Looserman or Lierman before too, when somebody’s actions and policies are generally indefensible (i.e. most of President Shrub's), and his entire administration seems adverse to logic/reason, what's left but ridicule and contempt? Especially when the party he represents seems to stand for hypocrisy, big business and the rich.

This is a President who lied to a joint session of congress as he performed one of the only duties constitutionally required of him. He and his administration did everything they could to insinuate a link between Saddam and 9-11, all while turning a blind eye to the government most obviously implicated, Saudi Arabia, the Bush families' longtime friend. Let there be no serious talk of impeachment though, perjury in response to a question that shouldn't have been asked is grounds, failing the Constitution of the United States of America, after having taken an oath to uphold and protect it on his precious bible isn't grounds at all!

While telling us every time their polls dip they're the only choice for security, the only ones doing anything about terrorism, Ashcroft's FBI makes things like selling fucking bongs on the Internet a priority! States and doctors say medical MJ has benefits? Too fucking bad, Halliburton needs the money from their paramilitary operations in central America!

Rumsfeld is an ass, his military experience would seem to consist of hit and run with no thought to the aftermath. But remember, if you said you didn't think there would be rose petals and a quick clean exit from Iraq 6-9 months ago you were a fucking Traitor!

Meanwhile, some actual traitor (a word so weakened by the "right's" use of it--it is a crime punishable by death after all) in the administration decided to leak a person's involvement with the CIA to discredit her husband. It's OK because she may have just been consulting, and wasn't in-country when outed? Bullshit! Two people told that CNN sleezeball about her, and they contacted 6 other news outlets too last I heard... But Ashcroft's too busy saving us from the menace of bong water stains and pornography to see the flashing neon sign pointing to his old campaign advisor Rove. There's absolutely no need for a independent investigator though... save that for investigations into the first lady and (consensual, though tasteless) Presidential cigar storage!

They have this great method of appointing people to head important commissions such as the FCC or various environmental protection bureaucracies that don't believe whatever they've been appointed to head has any right to exist. FCC says FOX can own anything they want, FAUX News says detractors of the administration are the antichrist, when they acknowledge they exist at all. Any link there, you think?

You're for smaller, more economically responsible government? This one's more then half a trillion in the red this year!.

I could go on and on, this administration is worthy of nothing but contempt, but is so expertly duplicitous that people who should be rioting the streets don't realize anything's wrong.

...

http://images.ucomics.com/comics/db/2003/db031019.gif

RE: What does it have to do with John Kerry...?

>But Ashcroft's too busy saving us

>from the menace of bong water stains and pornography to see

>the flashing neon sign pointing to his old campaign advisor

>Rove.

Actually, about 90% of Aschroft's time appears to be devoted to protecting the country against further terrorist attacks, and not to the issues you claim he is focused on.

On September 12, 2001, everyone I knew or heard was absolutely certain that more terrorist attacks were imminent and were likely to be numerous. The obsession for months afterwards was whether speculatnig about whether the next one would be chemical bombs unleashed in the subways or a dirty bomb detonated in Midtown Manhattan.

Now, more than two years later, there has not been a single terrorist attack on U.S. soil. If you had said on September 12 that there would not be another terrorist attack in this country for the next two years, people would have thought you were insane.

People care most about their security. There have been no more attacks under this Administration, and Ashcroft is the person who has spearheaded that effort.

Do you think the Administration deserves credit for that - or do you think that the Islamic terrorists who want to destroy the U.S. figured that we had enough suffering on 9/11 and so they stopped trying to attack for the last couple years?

You are so blind with hatred for this Administration that the legitimate criticisms you make get lost and obscured in the cloud of contempt-filled poison you spew whenever you speak about any topic.

RE: What does it have to do with John Kerry...?

>Do you think the Administration deserves credit for that - or

>do you think that the Islamic terrorists who want to destroy

>the U.S. figured that we had enough suffering on 9/11 and so

>they stopped trying to attack for the last couple years?

I honestly think that 9-11 was a master stroke, and involved a lot of luck (bad from our point of view) for them to be able to pull off. They don't have the resources at the moment (not especially talking money here) to pull something of that level off again. Especially with what we did to Afghanistan taking away a major source of support and frightening others (a war I supported, though not the way we're walking away so it can develop back into exactly the same thing *again*).

Was it Bill Clinton or Janet Reno that kept somebody from blowing up LAX? It was routine security and good luck. And we all heard about the foiling of it too. What huge plots have been foiled by Ashcroft? You honestly don't think this administration would go after any political gain it could get?

Look at the shoe bomber, a perfect example of them not even coming close to doing everything they can! There are two reasons we are not still wondering exactly what happened to that flight. The terrorist assumed we wouldn't be stupid enough to let lighters aboard, and an alert flight attendant wanted to know why she smelt a match. The FAA banned lighters. A day of tobacco lobbyists visits to Washington later we're taking off our shoes instead, to have them x-rayed, but can keep the $0.75 easily purchasable on the other side lighter we have no reason to need on board in the first place.

Yet another example of big business coming first (far before security, that's very evident) in this White House, a republican member of the house got a bill passed to require cargo aboard passenger flights to be screened, the administration put a stop to it, it's too expensive for the poor airlines... God help us if a terrorist wants to make a point but not die with his bomb!

>You are so blind with hatred for this Administration that the

>legitimate criticisms you make get lost and obscured in the

>cloud of contempt-filled poison you spew whenever you speak

>about any topic.

You have a point, I try to be less raving at the mouth but really got going on that post. It's kind of hard to talk about this administration and not be contempt filled...

For those wanting to read more on such subjects then just my wonderful writing ( )

http://www.bushlies.com/

RE: What does it have to do with John Kerry...?

>I honestly think that 9-11 was a master stroke, and involved a

>lot of luck (bad from our point of view) for them to be able

>to pull off. They don't have the resources at the moment (not

>especially talking money here) to pull something of that level

>off again.

If you are right that we have sufficiently disrupted the operations of Islamic terrorists so much that we have prevented them from pulling off something on the level of 9/11 (by doing much more than merely deposing the Taliban), then this is an accomplishment which even Bush-haters must acknowledge as being a very important and impressive achievement by this Administration. Do you acknowledge that?

Also, since 9/11, Islamic terrorists have engaged in multiple, serious, and successful terrorist attacks - they have orchestrated bombings in Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Bali, and very likely throughout Iraq. These attacks have killed hundreds and hundreds of people.

So clearly, they are capable of pulling off terrorist attacks, and although none has been on the scale of 9/11, some of them have been quite serious and deadly.

The fact that not a single attack has occurred on U.S. soil since 9/11 is unquestionably due, at least partially, to the steps taken by this Administration, led by Ashcroft's Justice Department, to heighten security measures and prevent such attacks.

One can certainly believe that Ashcroft has gone too far periodically by encoraching on civil liberties, and one can belive that Ashcroft and his political views generally are vile - both of which I believe - but one cannot dispute that this Administration has been highly successful, at least thus far, in preventing post-9/11 terrorist attacks in the United States. That is definitely a signfiicant feather in Bush's cap, and no matter how much one disagrees with his actions and beliefs, I think this has to be acknowledged.

>>You are so blind with hatred for this Administration that

>the

>>legitimate criticisms you make get lost and obscured in the

>>cloud of contempt-filled poison you spew whenever you speak

>>about any topic.

>

>You have a point, I try to be less raving at the mouth but

>really got going on that post. It's kind of hard to talk

>about this administration and not be contempt filled...

But I think this is a serious concern for anyone who wants to see Bush defeated. Only a small portion of the electorate sees things as black-and-white as you do or as the most ardent Bush-lover does. Most people who are concerned about Bush's policies don't see him as Satan, like you and highly partisian Democrats do.

If all they hear coming from the Democrats is this "Bush-is-the-root-of-all-evil" rhetoric, and if they see Democrats trying to deny Bush credit for ANTYHING, including things they KNOW he deserves credit for (such as being aggressive against terrorism), then the real reasons why Bush deserves to be defeated will not be heard by those who need to hear it.