Why Americans are not putting on trial their own Vietnam war criminals?

Shrek · 4th July 2011, 06:56 AM

I would like to ask everybody to discuss about why usually (always?) people of one nation do not ask for war criminals to be put on trial as war criminals if such war criminals are their own soldiers and the victims citizens of another (poor) country.
A country may put their own war criminals on trial if they lose a war (ex. Germany was forced to put their own Nazi commanders on trial as they were occupied/defeated).
But in case country A (whose soldiers are the one accused of committing crimes) is not really invaded, and the crimes are done to people of other countries (much poorer and less powerful) B and C, people of country A above usually do not ask for their soldiers to be put on trial and government of country A maybe even less willing to do so.
With some few exceptions to this rule.

I will give you an example.

Let` s take the (alleged?) war crimes American soldiers did in Vietnam.

The (alleged?) crimes have been documented here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell...f_the_Tribunal
and here:
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jksonc/...-19701201.html

Despite the claims about alleged war crimes done by US soldiers in Vietnam being made public already about 40 years ago, I do not remember having heard much about American people flooding the streets asking for those US troops being brought on trial, condemned and be shot for their crimes.
There has been a large opposition to Vietnam War when US troops were killed in Vietnam and I suspect this was because American people wanted their boys not to get killed there, but how many Americans stood up and asked to have a comprehensive inquiry on war crimes committed by US troops and, if any US soldiers and commander were to be found guilty of having ordered/committed crimes, to have that soldier or commander put on trial and punished?
(the only exception I know about US soldiers being tried for war crimes is about the My Lai massacre, but this is just one of the episodes that have been discussed in the links above, so I would like to talk about the others)

So, my question is this one:
Why US people did not ask and do not ask for soldiers of their Army for being investigated for possible war crimes and, if found guilty, be imprisoned and/or executed?

I am not sure I know how to post a poll, so I will try to give some possible answers that may be deemed as appropriate for a part of the people of this forum.

DC · 4th July 2011, 07:13 AM

Quote:

I do not remember having heard much about American people flooding the streets asking for those US troops being brought on trial, condemned and be shot for their crimes.

have you heard that about any other country? not even in Israel i think.

and you want them to be shot?

Shrek · 4th July 2011, 07:15 AM

Originally Posted by DC

have you heard that about any other country? not even in Israel i think.

and you want them to be shot?

I wrote shot as I think that is the common punishment for war crimes.
You can change that to "in prison for 20 years" if you like.

fess · 4th July 2011, 08:19 AM

Originally Posted by Shrek

Despite the claims about alleged war crimes done by US soldiers in Vietnam being made public already about 40 years ago, I do not remember having heard much about American people flooding the streets asking for those US troops being brought on trial, condemned and be shot for their crimes.

How old were you during the Vietnam conflict?

Kay · 4th July 2011, 10:25 AM

Quote:

Despite the claims about alleged war crimes done by US soldiers in Vietnam being made public already about 40 years ago, I do not remember having heard much about American people flooding the streets asking for those US troops being brought on trial, condemned and be shot for their

..............huh?

I mean, it's been well-known that a lot of US soldiers were treated like crap when they returned home to the United States and were viewed as bad people or something like that. Now, you didn't have people screaming that they wanted them to be shot, but that doesn't really happen. And if you want to tell the guy who's been serving in a foreign country for three years that he should be thrown in jail, I'm not paying your future hospital bills.

angrysoba · 4th July 2011, 10:30 AM

Originally Posted by Shrek

I wrote shot as I think that is the common punishment for war crimes.
You can change that to "in prison for 20 years" if you like.

Not only is it not common I don't recall ever hearing of anyone being shot for war crimes. You might be thinking of deserters.

At Nuremburg war criminals were either imprisoned or hanged.

At the Hague no one will be sentenced to a firing squad or killed in any manner at all except for old age in the case of Milosevic.

Tricky · 4th July 2011, 11:07 AM

Possibly one of the biggest reasons not mentioned (as far as I can tell) in the wordy voting choices above, is that Viet Nam itself is not campaigning for the arrest of "war criminals". Indeed, the US and Viet Nam are now, if not allies, at least good trading partners.

I wonder if it is an Eastern Asian thing, because I also don't see Japan being bitterly hateful for centuries because of being atom-bombed. They seem to be able to say "that was war" and move on. It is a pity that this attitude cannot seem to be transplanted into the Mideast.

Shrek · 4th July 2011, 04:35 PM

Originally Posted by Tricky

Possibly one of the biggest reasons not mentioned (as far as I can tell) in the wordy voting choices above, is that Viet Nam itself is not campaigning for the arrest of "war criminals". Indeed, the US and Viet Nam are now, if not allies, at least good trading partners.

I wonder if it is an Eastern Asian thing, because I also don't see Japan being bitterly hateful for centuries because of being atom-bombed. They seem to be able to say "that was war" and move on. It is a pity that this attitude cannot seem to be transplanted into the Mideast.

The main reason for which Japanese and Vietnamese did not protest so much (or, if they did, I am not aware of) about US war crimes against their population may be because of difference in culture.
As far as I know, Japanese people rarely if ever go out in mass to protest about anything, different culture from the West, I guess.
Or the main reason could be that both Vietnamese and Japanese troops were also guilty of egregious war crimes and protesting about war crimes of US troops would require them to condemn the war crimes their troops also did.
Something Japanese and Vietnamese people were maybe not much keen on.

But I find the argument rather spurious.
A War crime against Vietnamese people does not become a lesser crime only because other Vietnamese people do not protest it.
Does it?

Shrek · 4th July 2011, 04:38 PM

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Not only is it not common I don't recall ever hearing of anyone being shot for war crimes. You might be thinking of deserters.

Please, do not stop at ciriticizing the single word.
I wrote about "shooting" the criminals as that was the first form of punishment that came to my mind.
YUou can change that in hanging them, putting them in jail for life, imprisoning them for 20 years or forcing them to listen the whole compilation of Madonna` s albums 2000 times over.
Any punishment you may find appropriate.

Shrek · 4th July 2011, 04:41 PM

Originally Posted by Kay

Now, you didn't have people screaming that they wanted them to be shot, but that doesn't really happen. And if you want to tell the guy who's been serving in a foreign country for three years that he should be thrown in jail, I'm not paying your future hospital bills.

Some people may argue that "serving the country" may have little to do with bombing civilians in foreign nations.
So, I guess you will go for the fourth answer of the poll?

joobie · 4th July 2011, 05:30 PM

Originally Posted by Shrek

(ex. Germany was forced to put their own Nazi commanders on trial as they were occupied/defeated).

no, the nuremberg trials were military tribunals held by the allies.

BStrong · 4th July 2011, 05:41 PM

Shrek why do you believe that a kangaroo court has any standing?

Tricky · 4th July 2011, 06:37 PM

Originally Posted by Shrek

The main reason for which Japanese and Vietnamese did not protest so much (or, if they did, I am not aware of) about US war crimes against their population may be because of difference in culture.
As far as I know, Japanese people rarely if ever go out in mass to protest about anything, different culture from the West, I guess.

Possibly. I'm not an expert on Asian cultures. Too bad Wolfman is no longer here.

Originally Posted by Shrek

Or the main reason could be that both Vietnamese and Japanese troops were also guilty of egregious war crimes and protesting about war crimes of US troops would require them to condemn the war crimes their troops also did.

I kind of doubt it. While they did have some questionable interrogation techniques, I don't think anything can compare with the things the US did, like carpet bombing and using napalm and Agent Orange. Indeed the whole premise of this thread is that the US is not being hounded about their war crimes, not that "many countries" are not being penalized for war crimes.

Originally Posted by Shrek

But I find the argument rather spurious.
A War crime against Vietnamese people does not become a lesser crime only because other Vietnamese people do not protest it.
Does it?

No, of course not, but your question is about why it's not being pursued, and I'm giving you a really reasonable answer as to why not. In order for people to be charged with crimes committed years ago, you have to have a number of people who have remained outraged enough to continue to pursue this for years. For whatever reasons, cultural, economic philosophical etc., Viet Nam doesn't seem to want to do that.

The reason the Nazi's got punished for their WWII crimes is because people like Simon Wiesenthal pursued them across the years and miles. While many people (like myself) are revolted and ashamed by the things the US did during the Viet Nam war, there doesn't seem to be anyone with the monomaniacal bent for revenge or "justice", as some would label it.

Is this good or bad? Does justice give people closure or does it just keep the old wounds open so that they can be angry and hateful for years, or in the case of the Middle East, millenia? I think I prefer the attitude that allows people to remember, but move on. Apparently, the Vietnamese seem to take this approach too, and I respect them greatly for it. It doesn't mean that I don't still regard carpet bombing, napalm and Agent Orange as war crimes. It's just that there should be a statute of limitations.

angrysoba · 4th July 2011, 06:44 PM

There have been a number of people in the US who have tried to have, say, Henry Kissinger prosecuted for war crimes.

fuelair · 4th July 2011, 06:45 PM

Originally Posted by DC

have you heard that about any other country? not even in Israel i think.

and you want them to be shot?

What he said. Not happening. Though I would love to have seen the My Lai and any equiv. got big time......... But, then, I want the chief War Crime Boss in the US got also (G.Bush the Shrubbery).

MG1962 · 4th July 2011, 06:50 PM

Originally Posted by Tricky

No, of course not, but your question is about why it's not being pursued, and I'm giving you a really reasonable answer as to why not. In order for people to be charged with crimes committed years ago, you have to have a number of people who have remained outraged enough to continue to pursue this for years. For whatever reasons, cultural, economic philosophical etc., Viet Nam doesn't seem to want to do that.

Vietnam may also be looking at the issue of not puting someone on trial for a tactic your own side was using. The Vietnam war was a dirty fight no matter what side you were on.

An added complication is the US not recognising the International War Crime Tribunal anyway, so even if Vietnam tried to go after US citizens. The US is under no treaty obligation to comply

fuelair · 4th July 2011, 06:52 PM

Originally Posted by Shrek

The main reason for which Japanese and Vietnamese did not protest so much (or, if they did, I am not aware of) about US war crimes against their population may be because of difference in culture.
As far as I know, Japanese people rarely if ever go out in mass to protest about anything, different culture from the West, I guess.
Or the main reason could be that both Vietnamese and Japanese troops were also guilty of egregious war crimes and protesting about war crimes of US troops would require them to condemn the war crimes their troops also did.
Something Japanese and Vietnamese people were maybe not much keen on.

But I find the argument rather spurious.
A War crime against Vietnamese people does not become a lesser crime only because other Vietnamese people do not protest it.
Does it?

As to Japan, which War Crime do you speak of? Nagasaki and Hiroshima both contained centers involved in war materiel/transportation. That removed both from the civilian area protection thing. People keep wanting to forget the parts of rules of war that cover civilian areas only if they are only civilian. That is why Israel is not committing war crimes when it hits places where Hamass/Hizbulsht are routinely hiding in/firing from/storing war materiel in even though they are loaded with civilians - who do nothing to prevent same..

fuelair · 4th July 2011, 06:59 PM

Also, we did not go after very legitimate long lists of Japanese troops who were involved in absolutely impossible to be legitimate war crimes against allied troops, Chinese citizens and others that were beyond the Nazi's inventiveness - and we even removed the possibility of our people harmed suing them over it. Feel free to check on that - compared to a rather large portion of the world our misdeeds are mostly pretty minor. Though I would prefer we had done none.

Toontown · 4th July 2011, 07:05 PM

Originally Posted by Shrek

Some people may argue that "serving the country" may have little to do with bombing civilians in foreign nations.
So, I guess you will go for the fourth answer of the poll?

Some people will argue anything. Just to be turds. Because they like being turds. And that's why none of the turds deserve the satisfaction of seeing any American soldier shot for war crimes.

I served a year in Vietnam, in a combat role. I didn't see any war crimes except those committed by Vietnamese. As a member of the Combined Action Program, my responsibility was to defend one village. The patrols and ambushes I led typically consisted of myself, a Marine radioman, and 6 South Vietnamese. Additionally, the local scuttlebutt had it that the local VC were offering bounties on the Marines. Under the circumstances, it shouldn't take a genius to figure out that my life expectancy as a baby-stabbing war criminal would have been rather short.

Decades later, I read an account on the internet to the effect that the North Vietnamese Army attacked my village during their invasion after we pulled out. According to the account @250 villagers were killed in the attack.

That's why I find your pathetic little propaganda play so odious. Like most of your disinformed but self-righeous and arrogant generation, you have no idea what you're talking about, and even less of a clue what you should be talking about - which isn't this. You can rub salt in old wounds until the cock crows thrice, and it won't buy you one more minute.

Travis · 5th July 2011, 04:41 AM

Considering the scope of the war and its duration I find the Vietnam War to have been quite lacking in war crimes. I mean unless you want to just be stupid and declare all the bombing missions to be war crimes or something.

Spindrift · 5th July 2011, 06:32 AM

Why would citizens of any country want to actively pursue war crime charges against their own soldiers 40 years after the war? Please name a country where citizens of a country have risen up and demanded that war crimes from a war decades in the past be pursued. Why do you think the USA would be any different than any other country?

I know one would like to think that people would always want justice, but after 40 years memories fade and there's not a lot of immediacy to the issue. The alleged victims of the alleged war crimes aren't exactly kicking up a storm either, so why should the USA?

sarge · 5th July 2011, 08:00 AM

Originally Posted by Kay

..............huh?

I mean, it's been well-known that a lot of US soldiers were treated like crap when they returned home to the United States and were viewed as bad people or something like that.

Do you have a way to document this assertion that returning servicemen were treated like crap?

Quote:

Now, you didn't have people screaming that they wanted them to be shot, but that doesn't really happen. And if you want to tell the guy who's been serving in a foreign country for three years that he should be thrown in jail, I'm not paying your future hospital bills.

The overwhelming majority of Vietnam Vets served 1 year in-country, not three.

Mark6 · 5th July 2011, 08:26 AM

Originally Posted by Shrek

So, my question is this one:
Why US people did not ask and do not ask for soldiers of their Army for being investigated for possible war crimes and, if found guilty, be imprisoned and/or executed?

Short answer: because that's not something people do ANYWHERE.

Putting your own country's soldiers on trial for war crimes is not a popular cause anywhere, ever. You do not see Russians demonstrating on the streets to put on trial soldiers who might have committed war crimes in Chechnya. British people did not demonstrate to investigate British war crimes (if any) in Argentina -- or vice versa. Why do you single out US?

[Edited] Your poll actually has that as one of the choices -- choice 4. That's what I voted.

BStrong · 5th July 2011, 08:29 AM

Originally Posted by sarge

Do you have a way to document this assertion that returning servicemen were treated like crap?

The overwhelming majority of Vietnam Vets served 1 year in-country, not three.

No documentation, but guys ETS'ing through the Oakland Army Base in the early 70's were advised to get into civvies asap when they exited due to the reactions from some locals, and I myself was told by a guy that "anyone stupid enough" to have served in Vietnam "got what they deserved."

rwguinn · 5th July 2011, 02:25 PM

Originally Posted by sarge

Do you have a way to document this assertion that returning servicemen were treated like crap?

The overwhelming majority of Vietnam Vets served 1 year in-country, not three.

Take your pick...

Tricky · 5th July 2011, 03:23 PM

Originally Posted by rwguinn

Take your pick...

To which one of those articles do you refer? There are lots of them and they say many different and contradictory things. A lot of the things people say about how the Viet Nam vets were treated is apocraphyl.

And frankly, saying "why don't you Google it" is no kind of answer.

rwguinn · 5th July 2011, 03:52 PM

Originally Posted by Tricky

To which one of those articles do you refer? There are lots of them and they say many different and contradictory things. A lot of the things people say about how the Viet Nam vets were treated is apocraphyl.

And frankly, saying "why don't you Google it" is no kind of answer.

There are more than enough articles and videos showing how the returning vietnam vets were treated, as well as numerous books. The question has been asked (but the same person) many times.
The link I gave allows you to pick whichever article supports your pre-conceived beliefs.
I was there, and of draft age. I saw it. The ridicule and hate towards our returning veterans was on the news on a weekly, if not nightly, basis.
If you don't want to believe it, its your *********** privilege, but non the less--"It still moves"

Tricky · 5th July 2011, 04:07 PM

Originally Posted by rwguinn

There are more than enough articles and videos showing how the returning vietnam vets were treated, as well as numerous books. The question has been asked (but the same person) many times.
The link I gave allows you to pick whichever article supports your pre-conceived beliefs.

Then asking you to provide a link to one you find convincing shouldn't be such an onerous task that requires a sneering reply.

Originally Posted by rwguinn

I was there, and of draft age. I saw it. The ridicule and hate towards our returning veterans was on the news on a weekly, if not nightly, basis.
If you don't want to believe it, its your *********** privilege, but non the less--"It still moves"

I was there too, also of draft age, and I never saw any such thing. True, there were many people against the war, but I never saw them take it out on individuals. Even the anti-war protestors mostly regarded the guys who came back from Viet Nam as people who had been victimized by our government.

Dancing David · 5th July 2011, 04:28 PM

Originally Posted by Toontown

.

I served a year in Vietnam, in a combat role.

Thank you for your service, two of my role models served as well.

Dancing David · 5th July 2011, 04:33 PM

Originally Posted by Tricky

I was there too, also of draft age, and I never saw any such thing. True, there were many people against the war, but I never saw them take it out on individuals. Even the anti-war protestors mostly regarded the guys who came back from Viet Nam as people who had been victimized by our government.

None of my generation who almost served (I was born in 58), ever ever ever trashed a veteran. I worked with many and knew two who were admirable men that I wanted to emulate. We all kind of looked at them as the peopel who had been through hell and survived. I met mebers of teh air cav and teh navy.

I believe that there is a popular myth of the wide spread abuse of the returning vets, I never saw it and even heard of it.

The local American Legion also sponsered a Xmas party for the shelter I worked at, and they had the families to their Xmas party at the hall, they were cool.

Dancing David · 5th July 2011, 04:34 PM

Originally Posted by rwguinn

There are more than enough articles and videos showing how the returning vietnam vets were treated, as well as numerous books. The question has been asked (but the same person) many times.
The link I gave allows you to pick whichever article supports your pre-conceived beliefs.
I was there, and of draft age. I saw it. The ridicule and hate towards our returning veterans was on the news on a weekly, if not nightly, basis.
If you don't want to believe it, its your *********** privilege, but non the less--"It still moves"

Epic fail.

Your inability to provide data to discuss is noted.

Dancing David · 5th July 2011, 04:36 PM

Originally Posted by BStrong

No documentation, but guys ETS'ing through the Oakland Army Base in the early 70's were advised to get into civvies asap when they exited due to the reactions from some locals, and I myself was told by a guy that "anyone stupid enough" to have served in Vietnam "got what they deserved."

I am sorry, guys like that would have been beat up where I live, the draft was real and frightening.

Thanks for your service.

theprestige · 5th July 2011, 05:41 PM

Originally Posted by Shrek

Some people may argue that "serving the country" may have little to do with bombing civilians in foreign nations.

Shrek, what war crimes do you think were committed in Vietnam?

BStrong · 5th July 2011, 06:09 PM

Originally Posted by Dancing David

I am sorry, guys like that would have been beat up where I live, the draft was real and frightening.

Thanks for your service.

You're welcome, but I served 6 years post-VN.

Travis · 5th July 2011, 06:15 PM

I know one woman that was a Hippy who now regrets calling vets "baby killers". But she is the only one I've encountered.

jiggeryqua · 5th July 2011, 07:18 PM

"To hint that this harassment never happened, is an insult to the veterans who suffered through the experience. There are too many genuine first hand accounts shared by veterans suggesting that the incidents indeed happened. This was Chicago Tribune columnist Bob Greene's motivation when he wrote his book titled Homecoming, sharing the firsthand accounts of Vietnam veterans, both good and bad. Greene has "no doubt that many returning veterans truly were spat upon-literally-as a part of their welcome home. There were simply too many letters, going into too fine a detail, to deny the fact. {He} was profoundly moved by how, all these years later, so many men remembered exactly where and when they were spat-upon, and how the pain has stayed with them"(Greene, 11). "

Welcome Home Boys

Tricky · 5th July 2011, 07:35 PM

I don't doubt that there were instances of people, especially war protesters, engaging in hateful acts against veterans. Some of them probably made the news. Remember, though, that the news is not a "slice of America". The news is, almost by definition, newsmaking. Westboro Baptist Church makes the news regularly, but that doesn't mean that such protests are commonplace.

And it would be interesting to know these stories of those veterans who report that they were abused. What were the circumstances? I know that there were quite a few clashes between pro-war veterans and anti-war protesters. Tempers run high at these things. Anti-war people were probably abused too, being called "cowards" and "traitors". Confrontations like these don't count as a national zeitgeist.

When a soldier returned to my hometown, it might have been quiet. There might have been no parades. But there was never resentment toward him for serving. But then, I never met one who came home with a chip on his shoulder about war protesters. I think those guys, like protesters, appeared more often on the news than actually reflects their real numbers.

Tricky · 5th July 2011, 07:40 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

Shrek, what war crimes do you think were committed in Vietnam?

I'm not answering for Shrek, but let me ask you. Do you think chemical warfare should be considered a war crime? I think a reasonable case can be made that it is, or should be. After all, that's one of the things we were horrified by Saddam Hussein doing.

angrysoba · 5th July 2011, 07:47 PM

I think the use of a chemical for the specific purpose of killing off the agricultural production of food for the civilian population in rural areas in a pre-emptive war should be considered a war crime. If not then the concept of "war crime" is pretty much without meaning.

jiggeryqua · 5th July 2011, 08:28 PM

Originally Posted by Tricky

I was there too, also of draft age, and I never saw any such thing. True, there were many people against the war, but I never saw them take it out on individuals.

Originally Posted by Tricky

I don't doubt that there were instances of people, especially war protesters, engaging in hateful acts against veterans. Some of them probably made the news. Remember, though, that the news is not a "slice of America".

Remember too that "I didn't see it" is not the same as "it didn't happen"

Originally Posted by Tricky

I know that there were quite a few clashes between pro-war veterans and anti-war protesters. Tempers run high at these things. Anti-war people were probably abused too, being called "cowards" and "traitors". Confrontations like these don't count as a national zeitgeist.

Not at all? Is it the nature of the confrontations that precludes them counting as a national zeitgeist? Or is it your selective memory of it 'never' happening in your home town?

Originally Posted by Tricky

I think those guys, like protesters, appeared more often on the news than actually reflects their real numbers.

I'm confused - you think there were less of them than were shown on the news? The news made some of them up? I suppose if the same clip were shown on the morning, noon and nightly news, then yes - there were less of them than you would have seen on the news.

But the news isn't the issue - my link referenced a book collating the stories of returning veterans. Nobody mentioned the news (though there is a mention in the article of Hollywood's focus on particular aspects of the veterans' experience). Significant numbers of veterans record being spat on, literally spat on, for having participated in the Vietnam war (police action?). Were they lieing?

As US troops did not commit war crimes in Vietnam, with one or few exceptions. The verdicts of the two alleged "tribunals" there prove nothing as they are kangaroo tribunals.	6	18.18%
As US troops were not really "guilty", despite what is written in the "verdicts" may be true. When you confront an enemy who commits war crimes, sometimes you have to commit them too.	0	0%
As most US people do not really know about war crimes committed by US troops. If most Americans knew about this, they would definitely do manifestations to bring their soldiers to justice	3	9.09%
As all people do not care much about war crimes if their country is not affected and even less if their country is the alleged perpetrator. Americans are no exception to the rule	15	45.45%
Other / a combination of the above	9	27.27%
Voters: 33. You may not vote on this poll

4th July 2011, 06:56 AM	#1
Shrek Banned Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 51	Why Americans are not putting on trial their own Vietnam war criminals? I would like to ask everybody to discuss about why usually (always?) people of one nation do not ask for war criminals to be put on trial as war criminals if such war criminals are their own soldiers and the victims citizens of another (poor) country. A country may put their own war criminals on trial if they lose a war (ex. Germany was forced to put their own Nazi commanders on trial as they were occupied/defeated). But in case country A (whose soldiers are the one accused of committing crimes) is not really invaded, and the crimes are done to people of other countries (much poorer and less powerful) B and C, people of country A above usually do not ask for their soldiers to be put on trial and government of country A maybe even less willing to do so. With some few exceptions to this rule. I will give you an example. Let` s take the (alleged?) war crimes American soldiers did in Vietnam. The (alleged?) crimes have been documented here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell...f_the_Tribunal and here: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jksonc/...-19701201.html Despite the claims about alleged war crimes done by US soldiers in Vietnam being made public already about 40 years ago, I do not remember having heard much about American people flooding the streets asking for those US troops being brought on trial, condemned and be shot for their crimes. There has been a large opposition to Vietnam War when US troops were killed in Vietnam and I suspect this was because American people wanted their boys not to get killed there, but how many Americans stood up and asked to have a comprehensive inquiry on war crimes committed by US troops and, if any US soldiers and commander were to be found guilty of having ordered/committed crimes, to have that soldier or commander put on trial and punished? (the only exception I know about US soldiers being tried for war crimes is about the My Lai massacre, but this is just one of the episodes that have been discussed in the links above, so I would like to talk about the others) So, my question is this one: Why US people did not ask and do not ask for soldiers of their Army for being investigated for possible war crimes and, if found guilty, be imprisoned and/or executed? I am not sure I know how to post a poll, so I will try to give some possible answers that may be deemed as appropriate for a part of the people of this forum.
Shrek Banned Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 51

4th July 2011, 07:13 AM	#2
DC dedicated aphilatelist Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Switzerland Posts: 21,646	Quote: I do not remember having heard much about American people flooding the streets asking for those US troops being brought on trial, condemned and be shot for their crimes. have you heard that about any other country? not even in Israel i think. and you want them to be shot?
	__________________ AGW is a fact, including the A, face it

4th July 2011, 07:15 AM	#3
Shrek Banned Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 51	Originally Posted by DC have you heard that about any other country? not even in Israel i think. and you want them to be shot? I wrote shot as I think that is the common punishment for war crimes. You can change that to "in prison for 20 years" if you like.
Shrek Banned Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 51

4th July 2011, 08:19 AM	#4
fess Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Hiding in the sticks. Posts: 1,038	Originally Posted by Shrek Despite the claims about alleged war crimes done by US soldiers in Vietnam being made public already about 40 years ago, I do not remember having heard much about American people flooding the streets asking for those US troops being brought on trial, condemned and be shot for their crimes. How old were you during the Vietnam conflict?
	__________________ My boss told me to stop procrastinating. I think I will… tomorrow.

4th July 2011, 10:25 AM	#5
Kay Scholar Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 118	Quote: Despite the claims about alleged war crimes done by US soldiers in Vietnam being made public already about 40 years ago, I do not remember having heard much about American people flooding the streets asking for those US troops being brought on trial, condemned and be shot for their ..............huh? I mean, it's been well-known that a lot of US soldiers were treated like crap when they returned home to the United States and were viewed as bad people or something like that. Now, you didn't have people screaming that they wanted them to be shot, but that doesn't really happen. And if you want to tell the guy who's been serving in a foreign country for three years that he should be thrown in jail, I'm not paying your future hospital bills.
Kay Scholar Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 118

4th July 2011, 10:30 AM	#6
angrysoba Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Osaka, Japan Posts: 8,507	Originally Posted by Shrek I wrote shot as I think that is the common punishment for war crimes. You can change that to "in prison for 20 years" if you like. Not only is it not common I don't recall ever hearing of anyone being shot for war crimes. You might be thinking of deserters. At Nuremburg war criminals were either imprisoned or hanged. At the Hague no one will be sentenced to a firing squad or killed in any manner at all except for old age in the case of Milosevic.

4th July 2011, 11:07 AM	#7
Tricky Briefly immortal Moderator Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: The Group W bench Posts: 42,345	Possibly one of the biggest reasons not mentioned (as far as I can tell) in the wordy voting choices above, is that Viet Nam itself is not campaigning for the arrest of "war criminals". Indeed, the US and Viet Nam are now, if not allies, at least good trading partners. I wonder if it is an Eastern Asian thing, because I also don't see Japan being bitterly hateful for centuries because of being atom-bombed. They seem to be able to say "that was war" and move on. It is a pity that this attitude cannot seem to be transplanted into the Mideast.

4th July 2011, 04:35 PM	#8
Shrek Banned Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 51	Originally Posted by Tricky Possibly one of the biggest reasons not mentioned (as far as I can tell) in the wordy voting choices above, is that Viet Nam itself is not campaigning for the arrest of "war criminals". Indeed, the US and Viet Nam are now, if not allies, at least good trading partners. I wonder if it is an Eastern Asian thing, because I also don't see Japan being bitterly hateful for centuries because of being atom-bombed. They seem to be able to say "that was war" and move on. It is a pity that this attitude cannot seem to be transplanted into the Mideast. The main reason for which Japanese and Vietnamese did not protest so much (or, if they did, I am not aware of) about US war crimes against their population may be because of difference in culture. As far as I know, Japanese people rarely if ever go out in mass to protest about anything, different culture from the West, I guess. Or the main reason could be that both Vietnamese and Japanese troops were also guilty of egregious war crimes and protesting about war crimes of US troops would require them to condemn the war crimes their troops also did. Something Japanese and Vietnamese people were maybe not much keen on. But I find the argument rather spurious. A War crime against Vietnamese people does not become a lesser crime only because other Vietnamese people do not protest it. Does it?
Shrek Banned Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 51

4th July 2011, 04:38 PM	#9
Shrek Banned Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 51	Originally Posted by angrysoba Not only is it not common I don't recall ever hearing of anyone being shot for war crimes. You might be thinking of deserters. Please, do not stop at ciriticizing the single word. I wrote about "shooting" the criminals as that was the first form of punishment that came to my mind. YUou can change that in hanging them, putting them in jail for life, imprisoning them for 20 years or forcing them to listen the whole compilation of Madonna` s albums 2000 times over. Any punishment you may find appropriate.
Shrek Banned Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 51

4th July 2011, 04:41 PM	#10
Shrek Banned Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 51	Originally Posted by Kay Now, you didn't have people screaming that they wanted them to be shot, but that doesn't really happen. And if you want to tell the guy who's been serving in a foreign country for three years that he should be thrown in jail, I'm not paying your future hospital bills. Some people may argue that "serving the country" may have little to do with bombing civilians in foreign nations. So, I guess you will go for the fourth answer of the poll?
Shrek Banned Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 51

4th July 2011, 05:30 PM	#11
joobie i don't care Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: in my dreams, i am still in perú Posts: 2,517	Originally Posted by Shrek (ex. Germany was forced to put their own Nazi commanders on trial as they were occupied/defeated). no, the nuremberg trials were military tribunals held by the allies.
	__________________ Don't you just hate it when some uppity Black Guys escape from the Liberal Brainwash? - Robert Prey

4th July 2011, 05:41 PM	#12
BStrong Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: California Posts: 3,794	Shrek why do you believe that a kangaroo court has any standing?

4th July 2011, 06:37 PM	#13
Tricky Briefly immortal Moderator Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: The Group W bench Posts: 42,345	Originally Posted by Shrek The main reason for which Japanese and Vietnamese did not protest so much (or, if they did, I am not aware of) about US war crimes against their population may be because of difference in culture. As far as I know, Japanese people rarely if ever go out in mass to protest about anything, different culture from the West, I guess. Possibly. I'm not an expert on Asian cultures. Too bad Wolfman is no longer here. Originally Posted by Shrek Or the main reason could be that both Vietnamese and Japanese troops were also guilty of egregious war crimes and protesting about war crimes of US troops would require them to condemn the war crimes their troops also did. I kind of doubt it. While they did have some questionable interrogation techniques, I don't think anything can compare with the things the US did, like carpet bombing and using napalm and Agent Orange. Indeed the whole premise of this thread is that the US is not being hounded about their war crimes, not that "many countries" are not being penalized for war crimes. Originally Posted by Shrek But I find the argument rather spurious. A War crime against Vietnamese people does not become a lesser crime only because other Vietnamese people do not protest it. Does it? No, of course not, but your question is about why it's not being pursued, and I'm giving you a really reasonable answer as to why not. In order for people to be charged with crimes committed years ago, you have to have a number of people who have remained outraged enough to continue to pursue this for years. For whatever reasons, cultural, economic philosophical etc., Viet Nam doesn't seem to want to do that. The reason the Nazi's got punished for their WWII crimes is because people like Simon Wiesenthal pursued them across the years and miles. While many people (like myself) are revolted and ashamed by the things the US did during the Viet Nam war, there doesn't seem to be anyone with the monomaniacal bent for revenge or "justice", as some would label it. Is this good or bad? Does justice give people closure or does it just keep the old wounds open so that they can be angry and hateful for years, or in the case of the Middle East, millenia? I think I prefer the attitude that allows people to remember, but move on. Apparently, the Vietnamese seem to take this approach too, and I respect them greatly for it. It doesn't mean that I don't still regard carpet bombing, napalm and Agent Orange as war crimes. It's just that there should be a statute of limitations.

4th July 2011, 06:44 PM	#14
angrysoba Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Osaka, Japan Posts: 8,507	There have been a number of people in the US who have tried to have, say, Henry Kissinger prosecuted for war crimes.

4th July 2011, 06:45 PM	#15
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,881	Originally Posted by DC have you heard that about any other country? not even in Israel i think. and you want them to be shot? What he said. Not happening. Though I would love to have seen the My Lai and any equiv. got big time......... But, then, I want the chief War Crime Boss in the US got also (G.Bush the Shrubbery).
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,881	__________________ There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed. Wash this space! We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!

4th July 2011, 06:50 PM	#16
MG1962 Guest Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Kansas (Australia) Posts: 14,750	Originally Posted by Tricky No, of course not, but your question is about why it's not being pursued, and I'm giving you a really reasonable answer as to why not. In order for people to be charged with crimes committed years ago, you have to have a number of people who have remained outraged enough to continue to pursue this for years. For whatever reasons, cultural, economic philosophical etc., Viet Nam doesn't seem to want to do that. Vietnam may also be looking at the issue of not puting someone on trial for a tactic your own side was using. The Vietnam war was a dirty fight no matter what side you were on. An added complication is the US not recognising the International War Crime Tribunal anyway, so even if Vietnam tried to go after US citizens. The US is under no treaty obligation to comply

4th July 2011, 06:52 PM	#17
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,881	Originally Posted by Shrek The main reason for which Japanese and Vietnamese did not protest so much (or, if they did, I am not aware of) about US war crimes against their population may be because of difference in culture. As far as I know, Japanese people rarely if ever go out in mass to protest about anything, different culture from the West, I guess. Or the main reason could be that both Vietnamese and Japanese troops were also guilty of egregious war crimes and protesting about war crimes of US troops would require them to condemn the war crimes their troops also did. Something Japanese and Vietnamese people were maybe not much keen on. But I find the argument rather spurious. A War crime against Vietnamese people does not become a lesser crime only because other Vietnamese people do not protest it. Does it? As to Japan, which War Crime do you speak of? Nagasaki and Hiroshima both contained centers involved in war materiel/transportation. That removed both from the civilian area protection thing. People keep wanting to forget the parts of rules of war that cover civilian areas only if they are only civilian. That is why Israel is not committing war crimes when it hits places where Hamass/Hizbulsht are routinely hiding in/firing from/storing war materiel in even though they are loaded with civilians - who do nothing to prevent same..
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,881	__________________ There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed. Wash this space! We fight for the Lady Babylon!!! Last edited by fuelair; 4th July 2011 at 06:54 PM.

4th July 2011, 06:59 PM	#18
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,881	Also, we did not go after very legitimate long lists of Japanese troops who were involved in absolutely impossible to be legitimate war crimes against allied troops, Chinese citizens and others that were beyond the Nazi's inventiveness - and we even removed the possibility of our people harmed suing them over it. Feel free to check on that - compared to a rather large portion of the world our misdeeds are mostly pretty minor. Though I would prefer we had done none.
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,881	__________________ There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed. Wash this space! We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!

4th July 2011, 07:05 PM	#19
Toontown Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 3,555	Originally Posted by Shrek Some people may argue that "serving the country" may have little to do with bombing civilians in foreign nations. So, I guess you will go for the fourth answer of the poll? Some people will argue anything. Just to be turds. Because they like being turds. And that's why none of the turds deserve the satisfaction of seeing any American soldier shot for war crimes. I served a year in Vietnam, in a combat role. I didn't see any war crimes except those committed by Vietnamese. As a member of the Combined Action Program, my responsibility was to defend one village. The patrols and ambushes I led typically consisted of myself, a Marine radioman, and 6 South Vietnamese. Additionally, the local scuttlebutt had it that the local VC were offering bounties on the Marines. Under the circumstances, it shouldn't take a genius to figure out that my life expectancy as a baby-stabbing war criminal would have been rather short. Decades later, I read an account on the internet to the effect that the North Vietnamese Army attacked my village during their invasion after we pulled out. According to the account @250 villagers were killed in the attack. That's why I find your pathetic little propaganda play so odious. Like most of your disinformed but self-righeous and arrogant generation, you have no idea what you're talking about, and even less of a clue what you should be talking about - which isn't this. You can rub salt in old wounds until the cock crows thrice, and it won't buy you one more minute.
Toontown Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 3,555

5th July 2011, 04:41 AM	#20
Travis Misanthrope of the Mountains Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Tuolumne City, CA Posts: 17,937	Considering the scope of the war and its duration I find the Vietnam War to have been quite lacking in war crimes. I mean unless you want to just be stupid and declare all the bombing missions to be war crimes or something.
	__________________ "Because WE ARE IGNORANT OF 911 FACTS, WE DEMAND PROOF" -- Douglas Herman on Rense.com Zingiber Officinale The Humor blog of some not crazy guy

5th July 2011, 06:32 AM	#21
Spindrift Enturbulator Extraordinaire Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Right here! Posts: 8,445	Why would citizens of any country want to actively pursue war crime charges against their own soldiers 40 years after the war? Please name a country where citizens of a country have risen up and demanded that war crimes from a war decades in the past be pursued. Why do you think the USA would be any different than any other country? I know one would like to think that people would always want justice, but after 40 years memories fade and there's not a lot of immediacy to the issue. The alleged victims of the alleged war crimes aren't exactly kicking up a storm either, so why should the USA?
	__________________ I've always believed that cluelessness evolved as an adaptation to allow the truly appalling to live with themselves. - G. B. Trudeau A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. - Kay, Men in Black.

5th July 2011, 08:00 AM	#22
sarge Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Fayetteville, NC Posts: 2,325	Originally Posted by Kay ..............huh? I mean, it's been well-known that a lot of US soldiers were treated like crap when they returned home to the United States and were viewed as bad people or something like that. Do you have a way to document this assertion that returning servicemen were treated like crap? Quote: Now, you didn't have people screaming that they wanted them to be shot, but that doesn't really happen. And if you want to tell the guy who's been serving in a foreign country for three years that he should be thrown in jail, I'm not paying your future hospital bills. The overwhelming majority of Vietnam Vets served 1 year in-country, not three.
	__________________ I'm a not-so-strict constructionist, fiscally conservative, social liberal. Exactly which party represents me?

5th July 2011, 08:26 AM	#23
Mark6 Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 4,173	Originally Posted by Shrek So, my question is this one: Why US people did not ask and do not ask for soldiers of their Army for being investigated for possible war crimes and, if found guilty, be imprisoned and/or executed? Short answer: because that's not something people do ANYWHERE. Putting your own country's soldiers on trial for war crimes is not a popular cause anywhere, ever. You do not see Russians demonstrating on the streets to put on trial soldiers who might have committed war crimes in Chechnya. British people did not demonstrate to investigate British war crimes (if any) in Argentina -- or vice versa. Why do you single out US? [Edited] Your poll actually has that as one of the choices -- choice 4. That's what I voted.
Mark6 Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 4,173	__________________ Gamemaster: "A horde of rotting zombies is shambling toward you. The sign over the door says 'Accounting'" Last edited by Mark6; 5th July 2011 at 08:31 AM.

5th July 2011, 08:29 AM	#24
BStrong Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: California Posts: 3,794	Originally Posted by sarge Do you have a way to document this assertion that returning servicemen were treated like crap? The overwhelming majority of Vietnam Vets served 1 year in-country, not three. No documentation, but guys ETS'ing through the Oakland Army Base in the early 70's were advised to get into civvies asap when they exited due to the reactions from some locals, and I myself was told by a guy that "anyone stupid enough" to have served in Vietnam "got what they deserved."

5th July 2011, 02:25 PM	#25
rwguinn Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes Posts: 8,416	Originally Posted by sarge Do you have a way to document this assertion that returning servicemen were treated like crap? The overwhelming majority of Vietnam Vets served 1 year in-country, not three. Take your pick...
	__________________ "Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end." "I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275

5th July 2011, 03:23 PM	#26
Tricky Briefly immortal Moderator Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: The Group W bench Posts: 42,345	Originally Posted by rwguinn Take your pick... To which one of those articles do you refer? There are lots of them and they say many different and contradictory things. A lot of the things people say about how the Viet Nam vets were treated is apocraphyl. And frankly, saying "why don't you Google it" is no kind of answer.

5th July 2011, 03:52 PM	#27
rwguinn Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes Posts: 8,416	Originally Posted by Tricky To which one of those articles do you refer? There are lots of them and they say many different and contradictory things. A lot of the things people say about how the Viet Nam vets were treated is apocraphyl. And frankly, saying "why don't you Google it" is no kind of answer. There are more than enough articles and videos showing how the returning vietnam vets were treated, as well as numerous books. The question has been asked (but the same person) many times. The link I gave allows you to pick whichever article supports your pre-conceived beliefs. I was there, and of draft age. I saw it. The ridicule and hate towards our returning veterans was on the news on a weekly, if not nightly, basis. If you don't want to believe it, its your *********** privilege, but non the less--"It still moves"
	__________________ "Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end." "I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275

5th July 2011, 04:07 PM	#28
Tricky Briefly immortal Moderator Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: The Group W bench Posts: 42,345	Originally Posted by rwguinn There are more than enough articles and videos showing how the returning vietnam vets were treated, as well as numerous books. The question has been asked (but the same person) many times. The link I gave allows you to pick whichever article supports your pre-conceived beliefs. Then asking you to provide a link to one you find convincing shouldn't be such an onerous task that requires a sneering reply. Originally Posted by rwguinn I was there, and of draft age. I saw it. The ridicule and hate towards our returning veterans was on the news on a weekly, if not nightly, basis. If you don't want to believe it, its your *********** privilege, but non the less--"It still moves" I was there too, also of draft age, and I never saw any such thing. True, there were many people against the war, but I never saw them take it out on individuals. Even the anti-war protestors mostly regarded the guys who came back from Viet Nam as people who had been victimized by our government.
	Last edited by Tricky; 5th July 2011 at 04:12 PM.

5th July 2011, 04:28 PM	#29
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 34,699	Originally Posted by Toontown . I served a year in Vietnam, in a combat role. Thank you for your service, two of my role models served as well.
	__________________ Hell, dynamiting fish in a barrel is more challenging. - Ladewig I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager Last edited by Dancing David; 5th July 2011 at 04:33 PM.

5th July 2011, 04:33 PM	#30
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 34,699	Originally Posted by Tricky I was there too, also of draft age, and I never saw any such thing. True, there were many people against the war, but I never saw them take it out on individuals. Even the anti-war protestors mostly regarded the guys who came back from Viet Nam as people who had been victimized by our government. None of my generation who almost served (I was born in 58), ever ever ever trashed a veteran. I worked with many and knew two who were admirable men that I wanted to emulate. We all kind of looked at them as the peopel who had been through hell and survived. I met mebers of teh air cav and teh navy. I believe that there is a popular myth of the wide spread abuse of the returning vets, I never saw it and even heard of it. The local American Legion also sponsered a Xmas party for the shelter I worked at, and they had the families to their Xmas party at the hall, they were cool.
	__________________ Hell, dynamiting fish in a barrel is more challenging. - Ladewig I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager

5th July 2011, 04:34 PM	#31
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 34,699	Originally Posted by rwguinn There are more than enough articles and videos showing how the returning vietnam vets were treated, as well as numerous books. The question has been asked (but the same person) many times. The link I gave allows you to pick whichever article supports your pre-conceived beliefs. I was there, and of draft age. I saw it. The ridicule and hate towards our returning veterans was on the news on a weekly, if not nightly, basis. If you don't want to believe it, its your *********** privilege, but non the less--"It still moves" Epic fail. Your inability to provide data to discuss is noted.
	__________________ Hell, dynamiting fish in a barrel is more challenging. - Ladewig I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager

5th July 2011, 04:36 PM	#32
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 34,699	Originally Posted by BStrong No documentation, but guys ETS'ing through the Oakland Army Base in the early 70's were advised to get into civvies asap when they exited due to the reactions from some locals, and I myself was told by a guy that "anyone stupid enough" to have served in Vietnam "got what they deserved." I am sorry, guys like that would have been beat up where I live, the draft was real and frightening. Thanks for your service.
	__________________ Hell, dynamiting fish in a barrel is more challenging. - Ladewig I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager

5th July 2011, 05:41 PM	#33
theprestige Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 8,569	Originally Posted by Shrek Some people may argue that "serving the country" may have little to do with bombing civilians in foreign nations. Shrek, what war crimes do you think were committed in Vietnam?
theprestige Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 8,569

5th July 2011, 06:09 PM	#34
BStrong Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: California Posts: 3,794	Originally Posted by Dancing David I am sorry, guys like that would have been beat up where I live, the draft was real and frightening. Thanks for your service. You're welcome, but I served 6 years post-VN.