1 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.

2 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

3 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.

4 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?

5 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

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

7 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?

8 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.

9 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

10 (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?

11 I'm currently checking out with terminal lung cancer My prayers are with you, sir.

12 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.

13 Well, thank you, CCG. Best, Keith Nolan

14 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

15 "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

16 货架、货架

1 Unless they change that law to say any semiautomatic then pistols that fire fewer than 12 rounds without a reload would legally be legal. Now if they do that they would be banning an entire class of firearm. That obviously would be contradictory to the SCOTU's ruling. What I find funny is how they are dragging their feet everywhere and screaming the whole way. If one of their citizens were to do that after a ruling by their courts there would be hell to pay. Additionally I find this interesting. http://www.wtop.com/?nid=695&sid=1437663 Additionally. DC specifically says loaded with a clip. As clip is not the correct nomenclature for the type of loading devise I wonder if you could get around it? Yeah not so much.

2 I have a situation I want some feed back on. Some jerk dumped a dog and 4 puppes in my yard last night. I called the pound and told them but it being Sunday, they did not feel they could do anything. I called the sheriffÂ’s office and told them about the situation and that the female mother was not happy and was threatening. She said that I could do nothing. The dogs did not have collars and looked bad. I asked if it was ok to shoot the dog. The female deputy freaked out and said that I would be committing cruelity to a dog and they would come out and arrest me. Now I am a physician and know the problems with rabbies and shots that they donÂ’t tell everyone. The only way anyone would take action was if I was bitten, if they could then find the dog. Does this make sense? Does it mean that when I hunt deer that I am breaking a law? I can shoot a person in my yard in Louisiana without problem if they are threatening but not a dog! Go to http://www.lsu-unofficial.com for more stupidity.

3 David, what state do you live in? Some states actually require you to shoot a mad dog, and it is actually a crime to knowingly let a mad dog live. Check your local laws for such a statute. NC State law, chapter 67, Article 1, 67‑4. Failing to kill mad dog. If the owner of any dog shall know, or have good reason to believe, that his dog, or any dog belonging to any person under his control, has been bitten by a mad dog, and shall neglect or refuse immediately to kill the same, he shall forfeit and pay the sum of fifty dollars ($50.00) to him who will sue therefor; and the offender shall be liable to pay all damages which may be sustained by anyone, in his property or person, by the bite of any such dog, and shall be guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanor. (R.C., c. 67; Code, s. 2499; Rev., s. 3305; C.S., s. 1672; 1993, c. 539, s. 531; 1994, Ex. Sess., c. 24, s. 14(c).) Article 2 67‑14. Mad dogs, dogs killing sheep, etc., may be killed. Any person may kill any mad dog, and also any dog if he is killing sheep, cattle, hogs, goats, or poultry. (1919, c. 116, s. 8; C.S., s. 1682.) There is nothing in any of our statutes that says you can not kill a dangerous dog, as it does not say you can not, by default you can. Check your laws, then call the cops back and tell them what you read, and if you are bitten because they did not do their job, they will be liable. That should get their butts in gear.

4 Additionally check other statutes such as discharging a firearm in limits of town or other citizens.

5 Ok I guess I should have read your entire post before responding. Here ya go. Straight from your state laws. § 2773. Dogs as personal property; seizure of dogs running at large or on property fenced as a fox pen; notice to owner; dangerous or vicious dogs D. Any citizen or officer may kill any dangerous or vicious dog, and no citizen or officer shall be liable for damages or to prosecution by reason of killing any dangerous or vicious dog.

6 Thanks for the feed. I live in Louisiana and outside of city limits so I actually have freedom, to an extent. But I have asked several people and it seems there is a law against shooting a dog. Very strange but then strange is the normal situation in this world now.

7 That sounds odd, cause my above post gives the letter of the law to a T. The only thing I can think of is maybe your specific county preempted that law in favor of a more restricted one. Check it out, if there is no law in your county saying no, then you can kill it if you fear it is dangerous or vicious.

8 货架、 货架

1 Wow just frigging wow.

2 Should manufacturers be held liable for illegal use of their products? Lawyers will say: Yes. HELL yes! It's yet another back-door attempt at reducing or eliminating our Second Amendment Rights and, as far as I know, such attempts have been spectacularly unsuccessful. I dunno, I almost WANT them to concentrate on stupid liberal tactics that have failed repeatedly. The harder they push, the more we are energized to push back.