[$tinkle]

records released today make him look like dolph lundgren ("i come in peace")

how fitting to find this at the smoking gun

with this, and the most recent admission sunday on meet the press that he committed war crimes, why isn't he standing tall before the man at the Hague?

meet the press quote w/ russert:

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. 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.

 

[Serial Midget]

Committed war crimes by following the direct orders of his superiors... I think you are trying to stretch this one into something it is not. Had we lost the war in a more traditional sense you can bet the North Vietnamese would have tried our leaders for war crimes, the problem with that is they are such a small country they could never muster the resources or allies needed conduct such a trial. Our economic power renders us immune from such prosecution - our "enemies" cannot afford to engage us without the support of many other nations - the bulk of whom are our economic allies, these allies cannot afford to lose our economic support.

Everything turns in a circle...

As someone who has never fired a weapon as an act of war, I simply cannot pass judgement on his actions while he was a member of the armed services. In todays world we would never get away with the tactics we employed in Vietnam.

 

[derekbob]

If this was being said about GWB, youd be saying he was a war hero, placed in a screwed up spot like everyone who went to Vietnam. But instead you chastise the man who went to war and served his country, and support the man who drank like a fish and put all the blow he could get his hands on up his nose.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by derekbob
If this was being said about GWB, youd be saying he was a war hero, placed in a screwed up spot like everyone who went to Vietnam. But instead you chastise the man who went to war and served his country, and support the man who drank like a fish and put all the blow he could get his hands on up his nose.

...and the libs would be saying Bush was a criminal. Repeat after me "Bi-partisan politics is all bullsh**"

But hey, if it keeps a conservative minded pres in the white mansion, AOK by me.

 

[derekbob]

well I dont think Bush is going to play the military record card too extensively in this coming election. And I know its a fukked up cycle.

I just found it interesting that Stinkle would critisize anyone who was in Vietnam. We all know that was one screwed up war, and everyone except for the remf's (and even some of them), had to do everything they could to stay alive. The same thing is happening in Iraq right now. Im sure some of our boys are commiting "war crimes," but if so, they do it to save their own (and their buddys) lives. If you havent been in that situation, youre in no position to judge, imo.

 

[BostonBullit]

in a war I'm sure you do whatever you need to in order to stay alive, regardless of what "the rules" are. I'd do the same, and so would you because if you didn't you'd get popped...it's that simple....

From a lot of other recent reports it sounds a lot more like Kerry wasn't all that interested in staying in the combat zone as long as he probably should have during "contacts". The only reason he enlisted was because he knew he was getting drafted and wanted to be an officer instead of a grunt, and the only reason he chose swift boats was because he thought that would keep him out on the coastline safely away from the enemy...then he pushed through purple heart citations for wounds that 99% of soldiers wouldn't even have looked at by a medic in order to get out on the '3 times wounded you're sent home' program; so let's not try and make him out to be some patriotic hero mmmKay?

 

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by derekbob
If this was being said about GWB, youd be saying he was a war hero, placed in a screwed up spot like everyone who went to Vietnam. But instead you chastise the man who went to war and served his country, and support the man who drank like a fish and put all the blow he could get his hands on up his nose.

you're reading into my post something which simply wasn't there.

i was not critical of his service in my post, i was posing the question "why isn't he subject to a tribunal in the Hague" a-la slobedan milosevic. He straight up said "i committed atrocities". That's plain english, dude.

he's not the candidate for me, but for other reasons. The fact that he did this - believe it or not - has no bearing for my choice. I"m not even bringing up his less than stellar evals nor the fact that these records are incomplete. I'll get to that later, possibly in another thread (care to start?).

back on topic, why do you think an officer (giving orders to his subs) committing war crimes - and implied orders to those below him to follow suit - should not be put on trial?

 

[Westy]

Originally posted by $tinkle
back on topic, why do you think an officer (giving orders to his subs) committing war crimes - and implied orders to those below him to follow suit - should not be put on trial?

You are realling trolling on this one.

 

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by Westy
You are realling trolling on this one.

not necessarily.

i'm trying to understand why slobedan milosevic is on trial, but not kerry. AND YES, i know there is a chasm of difference between engaging the enemy in a legal war, but in an illegal manner & genocide/ethnic cleansing.

i don't think for an instant trying kerry would be productive, nor do i fully expect kerry to put mark geragos on retainer, but rather why doesn't he have to answer to admitted war crimes? Is this (as SM hinted) in the category of "to the victor goes the spoils". And i don't necessarily see a 30:1 kill ratio as losing the war outright, but perhaps in a PR sense.

 

[Westy]

Originally posted by $tinkle
not necessarily.

i'm trying to understand why slobedan milosevic is on trial, but not kerry. AND YES, i know there is a chasm of difference between engaging the enemy in a legal war, but in an illegal manner & genocide/ethnic cleansing.

i don't think for an instant trying kerry would be productive, nor do i fully expect kerry to put mark geragos on retainer, but rather why doesn't he have to answer to admitted war crimes? Is this (as SM hinted) in the category of "to the victor goes the spoils". And i don't necessarily see a 30:1 kill ratio as losing the war outright, but perhaps in a PR sense.

Last time I checked killing someone was also illegal except under self defence. Seems like every military action that the US had been involved in outside US borders has been illegal. Seems like most of the military and almost every commander in cheif should be tried. Now I am making as much sense as you are today.

 

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by Westy
Last time I checked killing someone was also illegal except under self defence. Seems like every military action that the US had been involved in outside US borders has been illegal. Seems like most of the military and almost every commander in cheif should be tried. Now I am making as much sense as you are today.

in order to say "last time i checked", you imply you've checked. But, i refute that. Look into international law, geneva conventions, and their application WRT enemy combatants.

i know this: kerry won't be tried, nor will anyone make a sound argument for it. This won't stop the extreme right from trying, no less; nor will it stop talk show shock jocks from trolling for listenership.

i'm simply asking, "why won't kerry be tried?" Recall that for a trial, there must be sufficient evidence to indict. Further recall he admitted to committing war crimes & other detailed atrocities. To me, this seems sufficient.

Is it not?

 

[Westy]

Originally posted by $tinkle
in order to say "last time i checked", you imply you've checked. But, i refute that. Look into international law, geneva conventions, and their application WRT enemy combatants.

i know this: kerry won't be tried, nor will anyone make a sound argument for it. This won't stop the extreme right from trying, no less; nor will it stop talk show shock jocks from trolling for listenership.

i'm simply asking, "why won't kerry be tried?" Recall that for a trial, there must be sufficient evidence to indict. Further recall he admitted to committing war crimes & other detailed atrocities. To me, this seems sufficient.

Is it not?

Are you auditioning for your own radio talk show?

 

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by Westy
Are you auditioning for your own radio talk show?

if i could read your mind, your point of view seems to be that time is the great healer, & there is no story here. Tim Russert seems to disagree, & so do i.

 

[Tenchiro]

It's about time we get a bad ass Rambo MFer in the Whitehouse. Someone that is gonna go to out with a 50cal in each hand and take care of business.

Besides Dubya & Co lied to us to get their chance to kill some Iraqis, is that any worse?

 

[Westy]

Originally posted by $tinkle
if i could read your mind, your point of view seems to be that time is the great healer, & there is no story here. Tim Russert seems to disagree, & so do i.

I could care less about time. If you hand a neibor admit this to you would you think he should be tried for war crimes? What Kerry did was not unknown or uncommon. I have seen newsclips of Vietnamese villages being burnt and of .50's being used against people. I am sure that during 50 cal weapons training drill instructors chuckle when they say it is an anti-equipment weapon only. The kind of behavior that Kerry admitted to was publicly known to happen when it happend and it was never brought up as a major issue for the international courts take care of. The only thing new is that a presidential candidate has now admitted to such things.

 

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by Westy
If you hand a neibor admit this to you would you think he should be tried for war crimes?

this is the heart of the issue. Is there a litmus test for trying someone for war crimes? If so, is what kerry did qualify?

Originally posted by Westy
What Kerry did was not unknown or uncommon.

so, you're saying most of the in-country soldiers engaged in war crimes? I'm taking this from "not...uncommon"

 

[Serial Midget]

Originally posted by $tinkle
i'm simply asking, "why won't kerry be tried?" Recall that for a trial, there must be sufficient evidence to indict. Further recall he admitted to committing war crimes & other detailed atrocities. To me, this seems sufficient.

Is it not?

I am astounded by your lack of comprehension, Kerry was one of thousands and did not act alone – he fought in the war with the weapons he was given. I suppose you chose to ignore my post which clearly lays out why the United States and our economic allies will never (for the foreseeable future anyway) be effectively prosecuted for war crimes.

What’s the point of masking your Kerry bashing? What you're doing is trolling and pandering in a way that detracts from your already limited credibility. Why not just say you can’t stand him? I personally can’t stand Bush & Co but need no faulty justification to vote against them. I base my opinion and reaction on the HERE AND NOW. Coke snorting and excessive drinking are far less dangerous to our nations future than what W has gotten us into now. Bring back the booze!

 

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by Serial Midget
I am astounded by your lack of comprehension, Kerry was one of thousands and did not act alone – he fought in the war with the weapons he was given.

i see.
so b/c he fought w/ the weapons he was given, he is above reproach? That is: he cannot commit war crimes (to which he has admitted before congress in 1971 & again this past sunday on MTP). The issue is not did he commit war crimes, but rather, "why won't he be tried"? And you seriously think by saying kerry was one of thousands, this could excuse him from anything? If i were to do anything afoul which has been done by thousands, i would not be above reproach. Agreed?

Originally posted by Serial Midget
I suppose you chose to ignore my post which clearly lays out why the United States and our economic allies will never (for the foreseeable future anyway) be effectively prosecuted for war crimes..

If you believe you were so clear, why is it that you chose to paraphrase & not offer unambiguous references?

Originally posted by Serial Midget
What’s the point of masking your Kerry bashing?

a little thin-skinned & defensive, i see. Take "kerry" & replace it with whatever repub president ever was at the helm. Start w/ nixon.

Originally posted by Serial Midget
What you're doing is trolling and pandering in a way that detracts from your already limited credibility. Why not just say you can’t stand him? I personally can’t stand Bush & Co but need no faulty justification to vote against them. I base my opinion and reaction on the HERE AND NOW. Coke snorting and excessive drinking are far less dangerous to our nations future than what W has gotten us into now. Bring back the booze!

pandering, eh? by asking pointed questions based upon cited references? In order to pander, there needs to be 2 sides of an issue. Again, take kerry out & focus on my curiosity for qualification(s) for being tried for (admitted) war crimes. Kerry's name keeps coming up. This might be the "here & now" to which you refer. Or is this past sunday just too bleedin far in the past? (ok, now i'm trolling)

 

[Serial Midget]

If you believe you were so clear, why is it that you chose to paraphrase & not offer unambiguous references?

Nuremberg Defense style legal arguements pretty much cover the bases, sorry it's not as quickly read (or copied and pasted) as FOX News.

Start on Page 21 Section 3 Defense of War Crimes Allegations

This will explain why Kerry and other Vietman vets where not tried for war crimes - the proposed defenses are pretty sound.

 

[Serial Midget]

Here is another interesting essay on the subject - note the date of 1967 - these issues are not new and mostly resolved during their time.

While this essay deals with the Nuremburg defense of draft dodgers it serves equally well for those who "chose" to serve.

The Link

EDIT: Originally published in the American University Law Review.

 

[sshappy]

This is wierd, $tinkle you seem to be attacking Kerry for either:

a) committing war crimes as did thousands of other Vietnam GIs

b) being honest enough to admit it

Which one is it?

If you think he should be tried for war crimes, so should many other Vietnam vets.

 

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by sshappy
This is wierd, $tinkle you seem to be attacking Kerry for either:

a) committing war crimes as did thousands of other Vietnam GIs

b) being honest enough to admit it

Which one is it?

If you think he should be tried for war crimes, so should many other Vietnam vets.

the fact that i named kerry is a distraction from my root query: "what qualifies someone for a war-crime trial?"

i'm 1/4 of the way through SM's first posted doc, and it's helping me get closure.

 

[Serial Midget]

Originally posted by $tinkle
i'm 1/4 of the way through SM's first posted doc, and it's helping me get closure.

It's not a test - you could have started on page 21...

Interesting how the issue of draft dodging brings up legal principles that apply to war crimes as well.

 

[derekbob]

If were gonna try any Vietnam vet for war crimes, we would have to take dam near every Vietnam vet to trial. How about we just declare Kennedy and the French guilty of war crimes??? How about that, we blame it on one of the most liberal presidents ever and every republicans favorite scapegoat. If we blame every Vietnam vet of war crimes, theres bound to be afew republicans in there.

 

[MikeD]

There is nothing that makes a .50 round illegal to use against personnel. It's an old wive's tale.

Excerpted from NWPCH9:

----9.1.1 Unnecessary Suffering. Antipersonnel weapons are designed to kill or disable enemy combatants and are lawful notwithstanding the death, pain, and suffering they inflict. Weapons that are designed to cause unnecessary suffering or superfluous injury are, however, prohibited because the degree of pain or injury, or the certainty of death they produce is needlessly or clearly disproportionate to the military advantage to be gained by their use. Poisoned projectiles and small arms ammunition intended to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering fall into this category. Similarly, using materials that are difficult to detect or undetectable by field x-ray equipment, such as glass or clear plastic, as the injuring mechanism in military ammunition is prohibited, since they unnecessarily inhibit the treatment of wounds. Use of such materials as incidental components in ammunition, e.g., as wadding or packing, is not prohibited. Use of .50 caliber weapons against individual enemy combatants does not constitute a violation of this proscription against unnecessary suffering or superfluous injury.
----------------

Back to your regularly scheduled debate...