Kerry on HIS war crimes

Kerry in his own words and on the record stated that he had committed war crimes and violated the Geneva convention during his service in Vietnam.

So many are making a huge issues out of the so-called torture issues in Iraq. So many want to see all of the soldiers involved prosecuted for their crimes.

Yet no one seems to want to prosecute John Kerry for War Crime despite his own confession.

Is this not a double standard? Are we not giving Senator John Kerry free pass when it comes to burning down villages in Vietnam, while crucifying American MPs for using humiliation as an interrogation tactic?

Personally, I don't think prosecuting Kerry is necessary. It was war, a VERY difficult war with a non-conventional enemy. However, I think it is quite hypocritical for those who support a confessed war criminal for President to be so bent of the persecution of those MPs in Iraq.

I don't know too many folks who want to blame the MPs for the "war crimes" of torture, since it turns out to have been sanctioned policy. Just the same way: do you blame one boat captain when it became policy to burn Vietnam to the ground and let God sort them out? Or do you blame the ones in charge of this policy?

Maybe if John Kerry hadn't risen to this position, we wouldn't be mentioning his own crimes from 30 years ago, but we'd still be talking about the ones that just happened that were sanctioned government policy.

Overlandsailor, this is an interesting point, but even if Kerry stated that he committed war crimes, it would still need to be proven. If you wish to read a story about war crimes in Vietnam and how they remain unpunished, you should read up on the My Lai Massacre.

I'm not sure what to think of Kerry's war crime admission. I know some folks who believe that the entire war in Vietnam was a war crime. Was Kerry just being provocative at the time? Or did he really commit war crimes? And if he did commit war crimes, why has he remained unpunished? Indeed, how has he gotten to the presidential candidacy position he is currently in if this were the case? Were war crimes so common that you'd have to prosecute (or at least investigate) nearly everyone who served in Vietnam? Hero status? Blue blood? Who knows....

Personally, I would want folks like Kissenger brought up on war crime charges before folks like Kerry. I think those creating/permitting/encouraging a policy are much more poisonous than those actually carrying out the policy. Having served in/survived/medaled from Vietnam are not necessarily good criteria for elected office in my opinion. I'll give Dubya some credit here for using whatever leverage he had to avoid serving in Vietnam and thereby avoid the taint of war crimes by association.

It's pretty questionable whether any actions carried out by the US military in Iraq raise to the level of torture or war crimes. It's also pretty questionable (to say the least) to claim that the humiliation of some prisoners was "sanctioned policy". But thats for another thread. And of course it's questionable whether this effort to shift the topic away from Kerry is justifiable.

The question raised by OS is an interesting one. Kerry did claim that he participated in "war crimes". Nothing in his revealed military history (that I'm aware of) seems to corroborate this claim. I know that the other Sen Kerry, who was a member of the 9/11 commission, seems to have been involved in some atrocities during his time in Vietnam.

Overlandsailor, do you know of specific war crimes that John Kerry has admitted to?

I am not aware of him ever admitting to any one ( or many) specific war crime. The link in the first post is from his anti-Vietnam protesting days. It is the audio of him claiming to have participated in numerous events he called war crimes, including the burning of villages.

My point here is not that he should be prosecuted. Putting aside the fact that he was a river rat and that it is somewhat unlikely that he burned villages the fact remains that those that raided villages and the like did so under orders.

Just as the MPs that used humiliation as an tactic to break the prisoners for the interrogators was likely done under orders.

In both cases, the acts were somewhat justifiable. In the case of Vietnam, the enemy was unconventional all and willing to use villages as hiding places and locations for caches. The only way to beat them was to show that we were willing to take those villages to get to them.

In the case of the use of humiliation in Iraq, we need information. We need to know where the road side bombers are for example. Other countries might have beat the men half to death or started cutting off their fingers one knuckle at a time. We chose to apply psychological warfare, thus avoiding the physical tortures.

Right or wrong, these acts did not rise to the level of spitting on military personal as the come home, or accusing every person that served in this war of "torturing" the prisoners.

My problem here is the double standard. Why is no one questioning Senator John Kerry about his war crimes? Why does no one seem to want the specifics.

He claims to have burned villages. If you knew what villages and you knew that children burned alive as a result would you still choose to vote for him?

If you found out that he made it up, showing he is willing to lie about anything to advance his agenda would that concern you?

It bothers me that all of the media is focused on the issue of "torture" in Iraq, but not one reporter seems to be willing to fully investigate all of Kerry's claims about his role in the Vietnam war. Not just the war crimes, but why he only served 4 months in country, what he actually got his medals for, etc.

His can't make one campaign stop without mentioning his service in Vietnam. He uses a picture of his unit all over the place. What's interesting, is that almost everyone in that photo that is still alive is opposed to Kerry, yet no one carries the story.

For those that think it isn't relevant, it is relevant because it shows that even all the way back then he was willing to say anything to advance his agenda. That suggest he is untrustworthy. And I think trust is an important requirement of a President.

Lastly, for the record, I am no Bush-Booster by any stretch.

I think this is precisely the point… most people were initially extremely disgusted at the soldiers who committed the abuse, until they discovered that the abuse was officially sanctioned. Then the outrage shifted to those who gave the orders. The questions an investigation into this matter could resolve include determining exactly who issued the orders. It seems as though they were based on pentagon policy, not on decisions made by low ranking officers in the field.



I don’t think either is justifiable. That is why we are so repulsed by them. Not only were the burning of villages and the torturing of Iraqi prisoners morally and ethically reprehensible acts, they were probably illegal under international law (targeting civilians and torture are both prohibited by treaty - see below) and are at the very least strategically incompetent. It was said that during the Vietnam war, before the American soldiers came to town there were no Viet Cong there. After seeing the viciousness of the American searches and experiencing the degradation of being victimized by their so called defenders, all of the remaining young men in the town would immediately enlist in the Viet Cong. In Iraq, there are more and more roadside bombings as our occupation becomes an intolerable nuisance in the lives and minds of Iraqis. Just as I suspect Americans would take to the streets en mass if a foreign power were torturing our citizens in captivity, these dubious policies are causing more problems than they solve.



Much like the interrogators at Abu Ghraib, Kerry was likely ordered to participate in the burning of the villages. Personally I would very much like to see Rumsfeld and Kissinger defend themselves from war crimes charges.



Well, I guess many of us feel that the first thing we need to do is halt the ongoing harm. Then we can sort out all the criminals in court, and mete out punishments based on the level of their involvement and the severity of their crimes.



I heard about Kerry’s claim on NPR. Even the so called liberal media played it.



I wholeheartedly agree that trustworthy-ness is an important requirement in a president. But has Kerry lied? No. You don’t present any evidence that he has at all. You assume that because he claimed he participated in war crimes that he is willing to say ‘anything.’ Admission of war crime guilt does not seem like a flippant campaign slogan. It seems like he was aware of his actions and searching for both personal redemption and working to stop the same war crimes - which were ongoing in the early seventies.

TREATY CONCERNS - (http://www.genevaconventions.org/)

torture

Torture is forbidden by the Geneva Conventions, both in cases of internal conflicts (Convention I, Art. 3, Sec. 1A), wounded combatants (Convention I, Art. 12), civilians in occupied territories (Convention IV, Art. 32), civilians in international conflicts (Protocol I, Art. 75, Sec. 2Ai) and civilians in internal conflicts (Protocol II, Art. 4, Sec. 2A).

in protocol I, Art. 75, Sec 2Ai, torture is defined as -

outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment, enforced prostitution and any form or indecent assault

civilian population

The civilian population comprises all persons who are civilians. (Protocol I, Art. 50, Sec. 2)

The civilian population is protected under the Geneva Conventions and these protections are not affected by the presence of combatants in the population. (Protocol I, Art. 50, Sec. 3)

These protections include the right to be free from attacks, reprisals, acts meant to instill terror, and indiscriminate attacks. Civilian populations must not be used as civilian shields. (Protocol I, Art. 51)

Kerry wasn't self-confessing as much as he was stating that the orders that he and other soldiers received, were against international laws and procedures, very big difference.

Here's Kerry's statement:

[/QUOTE]"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-caliber 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 ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down." [QUOTE]

To leave out the underlined portion is to give an understanding that is less than complete. If we call Kerry a war-criminal, then thousands of othes are too. Is that the point of all this?

Overland was looking for some reason that Kerry was untrustworthy or that a double standard was being enforced with respect to Kerry and the prison guards in Iraq. What Kerry was doing was drawing attention to the hideous nature of the war in Vietnam.

The status of the private soldier or junior officer as a war criminal is useless to the point of being counter productive. While ultimately individuals must be held responsible for their actions, soldiers who follow orders to commit war crimes should be punished on basis of rank. The higher the rank, the higher the punishment. If the order actually issued from a particular person, then that person should be dealt with extremely.

Soldiers are capable of great evil. A small but significant minority of soldiers often make bad decisions in stressful situations. Not based on any orders, these acts should be treated in a criminal fashion.

War itself is of only the most marginal ethical character - part of the motivation for the Geneva convention was to foster a spirit of goodwill between warring factions that might lead to peace. If they trust and honor each other enough to not torture each others soldiers for whatever reason, and not to target each others civilian populations, god willing the war will not last long.

Listen: Don't include me in the "Are we not giving" part. I say let the MPs go and crucify those who put them up to the dastardly deeds. I and most of US don't want the MPs to pay for someone else's mess up.

And besides, if Kerry should be prosecuted for 30-year-old crimes, so should President Bush. He did certain illegal drugs and could very well be a deserter.

But, nice try at defacing Kerry with pondering old news vs. new news. It just doesn't work for the logical disconnects.

I think the Bush admin is directly responsible for the POW abuse in Iraq. And just as Kerry was responding to orders given, so were the current MPs. Neither should be prosecuted -- but then, this administration expects its soldiers to fall on their swords to defend this administration. Protecting the Bush admin trumps everything else.

Heh, I also got a chuckle over the spinning in the debate question. I guess burning down grass hut villages (during which time you could get shot) is a lot worse than abusing helpless POWs in the safety of your own prison.

I like my spin much better

"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-caliber 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 ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down."

QUOTE

Exactly. Right on the money.

In one instance, a soldier, John Kerry, spoke out against the things that his country was making him do. He was coming forward. He was "Blowing the Whistle".

In the other instance, we had specific events hidden from the public, and the fingers were all pointing DOWN THE RANKS, not UP THE RANKS were they needed to be.

One of those mentioned above, I WANT ON MY TEAM. (The other, I do not have the time or patience left to pay attention to.)

Mr. John Kerry was informing us of our leader's mistakes.

Today, we have our leaders informing us of the mistakes of a few "good men".

I would like to see the prosecution of the MP's simply to divulge the truth of who gave the orders.

Actually I think I can answer this but thanks for the attempt.

The point I was trying to make is that there is a double standard here. In retrospect, I didn't do such a good job of it. I apologize for that. I should have approached it from a different angle. I wrote the original post after a discussion with several people who suggested those MPs should be crucified that was followed by someone accusing my of torturing prisoners myself (though a rarely had anyone in my custody, and when I did if was for a matter of minutes). I definitely should have waited to write a topic till after I cooled down a bit.

hears another way to look at the double standard issue. This probably should be another topic, if anyone is interested in replying, it might be best to do so as a new topic.

The major media outlets ran with the story of President Bush supposedly being AWOL from the national guard for weeks and weeks, looking high and low and digging up everything they could find. The story only died when the President's Military Records were released, showing he was never AWOL. He did miss a few drills here and there, but as a Reservist I can tell you, that is completely acceptable so long as you inform the command in advance of whatever conflict is preventing you from making that Drill. Failure to notify in advance would lead to AWOL status. Furthermore, a Reservist is allowed to miss one drill a year without issue and up to 6 drills a year without effecting the years status (towards time in grade,retirement, etc.). Units generally prefer you make up the Drill on another date but it is not mandatory.

Now the issue is made that Senator Kerry, who's only consistent campaign issue seems to be his vietnam service. Issues that have been alleged concerning that:

He only served 4 months, far shorter then a normal tour. The reason for this is that he used an obscure military regulation that is rarely enacted that allows anyone who received 3 purple hearts to go home if they request it. Good for him, work the system, but... Some that served with and over him question the validity of the injuries that the purple hearts were awarded for.

He claims to have participated in war crimes. No one is interested in the specifics, even though one of his claims is having burned villages.

He made a grand gesture of throwing his medals on the white house lawn when he returned from the war. Very strong gesture, and it would be an admirable one if they had actually been his medals.


Just three of the issues concerning his service in Vietnam which appears to be THE Premier campaign issue Senator Kerry uses.

Does the media invest any investigative resources into this? Not that I have seen. Do they come anywhere near the amount of time they devoted to the supposed AWOL status of President Bush? Hardly.

So the double standard is clear.

I was not seeking to paint Senator Kerry as untrustworthy with this issue. You don't need this issue for that, he has lots of things he has done to call his trustworthiness into account. Not in a criminal way mind you.

The media should be all over these issues. They are news, the public has a right to know, part of their job in the grand scheme of things is to inform the electorate. Not to mention the fact that it would likely be good for ratings so they could make money from it too.

However, it would appear that for most media outlets, these types of stories only warrant investigative resources and major coverage if they are associated to a Republican (Or perhaps Mr. Nadar).

When you are ready to make some serious claim about Kerry's untrustoworthyness I am ready to listen. But this is nothing more than baseless slander.

Kerry went to Vietnam, was wounded three times, and had the courage to tell the American public that they were wrong about sending our soldiers there and that the war was being fought in a heinous, illegal manner.



This seemed to be the central issue of your post, and the fact of the matter is that in Vietnam, there were at least as many soldiers who did burn villages (of those on 'search and destroy' duty) as those who did not. 85% of standing structures in Vietnam's central region were destroyed by Americans. Kerry's admitting to helping is not an issue because it was so common.

Overland, as far as your deeper allegations of the media being liberal, you truly are mistaken on that note. But that is topic for another discussion.

Exactly right. The guy who charges the machine gun nest or who lacked complete disregard for incoming artillary fire in order to rescue a buddy are heros. But so is John Kerry, not only for being in the heat of combat, but for having the guts to come forward and criticize those up the chain for giving orders that had horrible effects on those people down the chain of command. How many others are out there silent about shooting civilians?? :flag: