PDA

View Full Version : Hanoi Jane : the bits not widely known.



Uyraell
02-13-2009, 09:25 PM
This is likely to be seen as controversial by some.
So be it: I shall make NO Apology for that which is in My Own memory, regarding these events.

What the US media missed noting at the time was that there were French, Australian, and even British media present during Hanoi Jane's visitations.

Despite Snope's page attempting to exonerate the evil, treacherous
Hanoi Jane, I CAN and DO attest to the following:

(Notwithstanding that Snopes says the men named on their page deny the paper-handling incident, Snopes may be right BUT: paper WAS handed over.)

She Was in NVA Uniform, and later VC gear.

She Did spit in the faces of US personnel.
She Did ask them how the felt to be killing babies, non-combatants.
She Did ask why they were variously bombing "Hospitals" (in reality disguised ammo dumps) and murdering VC POWs.

MOST IMPORTANTLY:

She DID, I Repeat DID, hand the pieces of paper to the NVA Officer at the far end of one of the many line-ups of American personnel.

(This was, as far as I know, the ONLY occasion on which the bitch shook hands with American personnel.)

How do I know?

I SAW IT. Filmed by an Australian crew.
THAT was on the Evening News shown here in NZ.

That, is not known in the US media, apparently.

In My Personal View: that action alone condemns Jane Fonda as a Traitor to the USA.

Email or not : the evil treacherous BITCH should NEVER be forgiven : she DID cost good decent Men their Lives.

Message ENDS.
__________________________________________________ _______________

Regards, Uyraell.

Nickdfresh
02-13-2009, 09:52 PM
Um, this is in the wrong forum as we have a Vietnam War section. Secondly, why is this email (and I'm not at all a fan of posting chain emails as they harbor mostly a lot of bullshit really) attempting to usurp Snopes? Most of the Vets involved have forgiven "Hanoi" Jane, and much of the attributed 'evidence' turned out to be utter crap, especially "the list."

tankgeezer
02-14-2009, 01:25 AM
Any additional word on the taped messages she is supposed to have made for the North, urging soldiers to defect, etc. I have heard recordings said to be made by her, and it sounded like her inasmuch as could be told from the not too well done recordings. If these recordings are genuine, she has little defense.

Uyraell
02-14-2009, 03:46 AM
Um, this is in the wrong forum as we have a Vietnam War section. Secondly, why is this email (and I'm not at all a fan of posting chain emails as they harbor mostly a lot of bullshit really) attempting to usurp Snopes? Most of the Vets involved have forgiven "Hanoi" Jane, and much of the attributed 'evidence' turned out to be utter crap, especially "the list."

It was the other way round, Snopes is claiming the email is in effect a falsehood.
That may well be so.
However whether or not the email is demonstrably false (and Snopes attempts to exonerate Jane Fonda on the basis of the email) the fact is she was filmed passing at least 4 strips of paper to the NVA Officer.

Thereon, much hinges, in my view.

As to having set my initial thread re Jane Fonda in the wrong place, my Apologies: I just wasn't certain it went alongside the standard VN thread.

Regards, Uyraell.

forager
02-14-2009, 04:24 PM
Funny, one of the POWs reportedly beaten over the paper incident was on television a while back.

He said simply that it did not happen.

She was a stupid spoiled rich kid actress who made a big mistake.

She was wrong, given the situation.

"Forgive" is just a word.

mkenny
02-14-2009, 09:13 PM
the fact is she was filmed passing at least 4 strips of paper to the NVA Officer.

Thereon, much hinges, in my view.

The well known commie loving and socialist Fox News is in on the conspiracy to deny these 'facts'

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,768,00.html

" she did not, I repeat did not, turn in the names of American POWs to the North Vietnamese military. There was no passing of pieces of crumpled paper from Americans to her."

Funny that someone says he saw a film of this 'event' that never happened..................


I SAW IT. Filmed by an Australian crew.
THAT was on the Evening News shown here in NZ.

That, is not known in the US media, apparently

I believe you, I really do!

tankgeezer
02-15-2009, 02:13 PM
Well, I found on AOL this morning a small piece about Hanoi Jane, Saying that a documentary, or similar type film that was to be released back then was banned after her alleged actions. It goes on to say that this piece of film will be soon released for public exhibition,with the thought that it will expose the skeletons in Fonda's closet.I guess we'll see whats what then. If any of these allegations prove to be true, Its time for her to "leave town" If not, then she can go in peace. This should have been dealt with decades ago.

Nickdfresh
02-15-2009, 04:13 PM
Um, one of my points is that the whole "Fonda the commie-lib traitor" thing is little more than a cottage industry at this point -and a snake oil purveying fraudulent one. She has apologized for her actions like sitting on a ****ing anti-aircraft gun, but beyond that, many of these silly "books" that have come out have written little more than slander and have fabricated testimony that was contradicted by the actual people the book(s) say they quote...

Read the Snopes (http://www.snopes.com/military/fonda.asp) site, and draw your own conclusions. And Snopes is also hardly a "commie lib" site, since they've gone a long way towards debunking the Bush-insidejob-911 crap as well (which is also another slimy cottage industry, but that's a topic for a different thread)!

Edit:

The funny thing is, after re-reading the Snopes link, not only are these money-changing "authors" who pander to a 'supa'-patriotic crowd in the US doing Ms. Fonda, whom I have no great love for and who I think was basically a bimbo sex-toy actress (see "Barbarella" for instance, but god she was hot!) trying to be "taken seriously" with her own political pandering, a disservice by trumping up old wounds and even possibly putting her in danger by misinforming people of her actions and fanning anger in a lunatic fringe. They are also apparently ANNOYING THE **** OUT OF THE ACTUAL ex-POWs who were purported to have met her (most didn't) to the extent that they are being hounded and harassed over it. So, in a sense, these authors are as bad as Jane Fonda ever was and have done at least an equal disservice to men that were tormented enough for one lifetime!

namvet
02-15-2009, 06:09 PM
we spit back. right here in my home town



Police: Man Arrested For Spitting On Jane Fonda
Fonda Declines To Press Charges

POSTED: Wednesday, April 20, 2005
UPDATED: 4:15 pm EDT April 20, 2005
KANSAS CITY, Mo. -- Police said they arrested a man for spitting on two-time Academy Award-winning actress Jane Fonda (pictured, right) during a book-signing stop in Kansas City Tuesday night.
Fonda, 67, spoke at Unity Temple, in The Plaza shopping district, about her new best-selling book, "My Life So Far," and her new movie with Jennifer Lopez called "Monster-In-Law."
At about 9 p.m., police said 54-year-old Michael A. Smith, who had been waiting in line for about 90 minutes, passed a book to Fonda and then spit a large amount of tobacco juice into her face.
They said Smith then ran away and was taken into custody by off-duty officers, who were providing security for the event.

Fonda declined to prosecute Smith.

A Vietnam veteran, Smith was arrested and charged with disorderly conduct, which is a city charge.

In 1972, Fonda was photographed sitting in a North Vietnamese anti-aircraft tank.

About her protest involvement in the Vietnam War, Fonda has apologized for her anti-aircraft tank photo, calling it an incredible lapse in judgment. She has not apologized for opposing the war.

I tried to post his bail but of course someone beat me to it

source (source)

Nickdfresh
02-15-2009, 06:52 PM
And why did he spit in a 67-year old woman's face? Because a "POW" supposedly did in Vietnam even though it turns out no one did?

How heroic...

Would he spit in Kissenger's face for basically saying that although it was almost sure that South Vietnam will fall once the US withdrawal was complete, that US troops should still be vainly sent into combat to die?

I'm sorry, I have a problem when people obsess over a half-wit actress when their political leaders were lying to them the whole time...

namvet
02-15-2009, 07:27 PM
And why did he spit in a 67-year old woman's face? Because a "POW" supposedly did in Vietnam even though it turns out no one did?

How heroic...

Would he spit in Kissenger's face for basically saying that although it was almost sure that South Vietnam will fall once the US withdrawal was complete, that US troops should still be vainly sent into combat to die?

I'm sorry, I have a problem when people obsess over a half-wit actress when their political leaders were lying to them the whole time...

if that's true then why did she publicity apologize for it?????

Cuts
02-15-2009, 08:21 PM
And why did he spit in a 67-year old woman's face? Because a "POW" supposedly did in Vietnam even though it turns out no one did?

How heroic...

Would he spit in Kissenger's face for basically saying that although it was almost sure that South Vietnam will fall once the US withdrawal was complete, that US troops should still be vainly sent into combat to die?

I'm sorry, I have a problem when people obsess over a half-wit actress when their political leaders were lying to them the whole time...

For all his other faults, unlike Fonda, I don't think Kissinger actually committed treason.

Nickdfresh
02-15-2009, 09:27 PM
For all his other faults, unlike Fonda, I don't think Kissinger actually committed treason.

Oh right, please define "treason"...

Nickdfresh
02-15-2009, 09:30 PM
if that's true

If what specifically was true?


then why did she publicity apologize for it?????

Because she was an ignorant ******* and later knew it...

What were everyone else's excuses?


McNamara? LBJ? Nixon? Westmorland? JFK? Ike?

Cuts
02-16-2009, 05:33 AM
Oh right, please define "treason"...

In the case of the United States it'd be something approximating to, waging war against the US or supporting the enemy or giving them aid and comfort.

Rising Sun*
02-16-2009, 06:06 AM
In the case of the United States it'd be something approximating to, waging war against the US or supporting the enemy or giving them aid and comfort.

The 'aid and comfort' provision is a common element of treason, but what about the 'enemy' part?

My recollection is that America, along with Australia, New Zealand, South Korea and others, was in Vietnam to aid the government of South Vietnam (SVN), and that none of them were formally or legally at war with North Vietnam (NVN).

If so, how can NVN be America's enemy for the legal purposes of a treason charge, regardless of the reality that the US was bombing the crap out of NVN at the time and NVN had forces in the field against the US and others aiding SVN?

Nickdfresh
02-16-2009, 07:54 AM
The United States never declared war against North Vietnam, making any case against her highly charged and dubious at best. As stated in the article, while it was theoretically possible to charge her for aiding and comforting, it's also pretty clear that Nixon had no intention of doing so.

The US had also given very light sentences to its War Criminals like Calley. So, what would have been the message? How long should she have been imprisoned for going on the radio when a 1LT got a couple of years for wiping out a village of Vietnamese?

Rising Sun*
02-16-2009, 08:30 AM
The US had also given very light sentences to its War Criminals like Calley. So, what would have been the message? How long should she have been imprisoned for going on the radio when a 1LT got a couple of years for wiping out a village of Vietnamese?

Given that much of the Vietnam war was a media and propaganda war, and given her prominent impact contrasted with Calley and Co's conciliatory 'hearts and minds' efforts being largely denied or submerged for years :rolleyes:, I reckon she'd have been lucky to get off with elebenty leben life sentences.

Anyone who wasn't alive and involved during that crazy time can't begin to understand it.

And those of us who were there are often still rather confused. :confused:

There comes a time in the affairs of all people where it's time to forget the past.

She is highly symbolic of the divisions of the period, but so are Nixon and Kissinger, and others, who were much more invovled and who don't attract the same personal attention.

Cuts
02-16-2009, 09:04 AM
To Nick & R S*

That the United States never formally declared war against North Vietnam has probably a good deal to do with the UN Charter forbidding the use or threat of war in such international relations, nevertheless Congress did authorise it in the Southeast Asia Resolution.
In such circumstances I don't think it is difficult to work out who the meaning of 'the enemy.'
Aid & succour, (with all the propaganda and especially the media hype that brings these unpleasantnesses into the civvies' homes,) is probably not difficult to define either.

I'm sure there were many reasons that the 'lady' concerned wasn't charged, but I think the case against her was pretty strong.

Since the formation of the UN I'm pressed to think of an occasion when war has been formally declared.
The effect of the Charter was brought to my attention in '82 when there was a conflict in the South Atlantic rather than a 'war.'
(Yeah, political semantics make me wince at times too.)

Nickdfresh
02-17-2009, 08:13 PM
To Nick & R S*

That the United States never formally declared war against North Vietnam has probably a good deal to do with the UN Charter forbidding the use or threat of war in such international relations, nevertheless Congress did authorise it in the Southeast Asia Resolution.
In such circumstances I don't think it is difficult to work out who the meaning of 'the enemy.'
Aid & succour, (with all the propaganda and especially the media hype that brings these unpleasantnesses into the civvies' homes,) is probably not difficult to define either.

I'm sure there were many reasons that the 'lady' concerned wasn't charged, but I think the case against her was pretty strong.

Since the formation of the UN I'm pressed to think of an occasion when war has been formally declared.
The effect of the Charter was brought to my attention in '82 when there was a conflict in the South Atlantic rather than a 'war.'
(Yeah, political semantics make me wince at times too.)


The United States never declared War against the North because it would have been political suicide...

And since the US was withdrawing at the time, I doubt there was much case against her at all...no court would ever have convicted her.

tankgeezer
02-17-2009, 11:23 PM
Just give her 5 yrs working in a V.A. hospital,in a non glamorous location, tending to all the patients needs. She must live in the hospital, and eat what they eat, and live as they live.

Cuts
02-18-2009, 05:04 AM
To Nick & R S*

That the United States never formally declared war against North Vietnam has probably a good deal to do with the UN Charter forbidding the use or threat of war in such international relations, nevertheless Congress did authorise it in the Southeast Asia Resolution.
In such circumstances I don't think it is difficult to work out who the meaning of 'the enemy.'
Aid & succour, (with all the propaganda and especially the media hype that brings these unpleasantnesses into the civvies' homes,) is probably not difficult to define either.

I'm sure there were many reasons that the 'lady' concerned wasn't charged, but I think the case against her was pretty strong.

Since the formation of the UN I'm pressed to think of an occasion when war has been formally declared.
The effect of the Charter was brought to my attention in '82 when there was a conflict in the South Atlantic rather than a 'war.'
(Yeah, political semantics make me wince at times too.)


The United States never declared War against the North because it would have been political suicide...

Do you mean political suicide within the US or internationally ?

Internationally I think that Congress would have placed themselved between a rock & a hard place by making a formal declaration of war as the Charter of the UN had been signed by the US in 1945.
I believe the United States have only ever made five of these declarations, (all prior to the ratification,) the War of 1812, the Mexican-US War, the Spanish-US War, and the two World Wars.

Due mainly to this Charter formal declarations of war have fallen by the wayside since '45, and just because one is not made doesn't mean that the military Op is illegal, otherwise many thousands of US politicians and soldiers would be waiting for trial.
That troops of one sovereign nation are engaged in normal Mil Ops against what it has made clear to be an opponent is normally seen as a war, unless very specific boundaries and tight ROE are obviously the case.
As I understand you allude, political considerations may well put the mockers on an 'old fashioned' declaration of war if it could be perceived to hold the entire country responsible for the moves of it's political masters. (Hardy something anyone would wish on their worst enemy ! :D )



And since the US was withdrawing at the time, I doubt there was much case against her at all...no court would ever have convicted her.

I'm not that well up on US law so am ready to be corrected, but should this have gone to trial wouldn't the onus ave been on the prosecuting counsel merely to prove that the defendant had given "aid and comfort" to the enemy* ?
That there my have been a drawdown in progress at the time is neither here nor there as the state of the war is not mentioned in the law.


* 'Enemy' with reference to the Congressional authorisation.

Nickdfresh
02-18-2009, 12:34 PM
Do you mean political suicide within the US or internationally ?

In the US. Although I'm sure you'll recall the anti-War movement was very strong in Europe and Asia as well...


Internationally I think that Congress would have placed themselved between a rock & a hard place by making a formal declaration of war as the Charter of the UN had been signed by the US in 1945.
I believe the United States have only ever made five of these declarations, (all prior to the ratification,) the War of 1812, the Mexican-US War, the Spanish-US War, and the two World Wars.

Maybe. But there is significant evidence that the United States has rarely given a shit about UN Resolutions when they contravened its supposed interests...

For instance, the US canceled elections in Vietnam and wouldn't recognize the North in 1956 (I think?) despite a UN Resolution declaring they should be held and the division was only temporary.


Due mainly to this Charter formal declarations of war have fallen by the wayside since '45, and just because one is not made doesn't mean that the military Op is illegal, otherwise many thousands of US politicians and soldiers would be waiting for trial.

So, US soldiers can't be tried for war crimes, but its civilians can be tried for providing aid and comfort in time of war? Sounds rather like having one's cake and eating it too to me...


That troops of one sovereign nation are engaged in normal Mil Ops against what it has made clear to be an opponent is normally seen as a war, unless very specific boundaries and tight ROE are obviously the case.
As I understand you allude, political considerations may well put the mockers on an 'old fashioned' declaration of war if it could be perceived to hold the entire country responsible for the moves of it's political masters. (Hardy something anyone would wish on their worst enemy ! :D )

Yes, but, I think both the US and Europe has held others accountable for their war crimes in say the Baltics even when the Serbians had not only not officially declared War, but denied direct involvement in the fighting until the end...


I'm not that well up on US law so am ready to be corrected, but should this have gone to trial wouldn't the onus ave been on the prosecuting counsel merely to prove that the defendant had given "aid and comfort" to the enemy* ?
That there my have been a drawdown in progress at the time is neither here nor there as the state of the war is not mentioned in the law.

* 'Enemy' with reference to the Congressional authorisation.

The problem would have then we would have had to put the legality of the US involvement in Vietnam on trial (according to US law) and then proven that Jane had given tangible "aid and comfort." But the point is that you can't have all the benefits of an undeclared War and then try to keep your dissent in line by taking the advantages of a Congressionally declared one

Then we would have asked ourselves if the nature of "aid and comfort" is to include freedom of speech, of which case the gov't could theoretically round up a lot of people who had never bothered to travel to Vietnam...

The trial of 'Hanoi Jane' would have been both legally dubious at best and a political impossibility by and increasingly beleaguered Nixon regime that had failed in its challenge to prevent the "Pentagon Papers" by Daniel Ellsberg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers#Legal_case) and prosecute the newspapers that published them. We could also go on and on how the US gov't was routinely breaking its own laws during that period and ignoring certain instances such as the Chicago Police Dept. "rioting" (their words, not mine) and never putting anyone on trial for that...

royal744
09-05-2013, 08:04 PM
I have been notified before about posting on "old threads". Is it wrong to post on them? If so, why not just close them?

I lived through the Vietnam era and remember a good deal of it vividly. Because of it, LBJ declined to run for a full 2nd term, and Richard Nixon got to tell us that he had a "secret plan" to end the war. He didn't. Nixon turned the phrase 'Peace with honor' into a much maligned slogan.

With the distance of time, it seems abundantly clear that Jane Fonda was right and Eisenhower, Kennedy, LBJ and Nixon were about as wrong as they could be. Most of the troops (as opposed to the officers and non-coms) we sent over there were drafted (conscripts) who had no choice in the matter. They fought bravely in spite of the horrendous conditions they found themselves in. I would agree with those who say that Fonda should never have visited North Vietnam - at best it was in extremely poor taste and at worst it was very stupid, but she was hardly the only American who vigorously and loudly opposed the war. If she was guilty of 'giving aid and comfort to the enemy', then there were - literally - millions who were and are guilty of the same thing, instead of just expressing their right to express their opinions and viewpoints. This unfortunate and poorly-thought-through war was brought to an end thanks to those demonstrators.

tankgeezer
09-06-2013, 08:36 AM
I would disagree that she was right in her actions while in North Viet Nam. Many U.S. Citizens were against that War, but unlike Hanoi Jane, they did not produce audio tapes urging U.S. troops to throw down their arms, and turn against their N.C.O.'s and Officers whom she had deemed to be criminals, or at least acting in a criminal way. nor did they upon being given messages from U.S. prisoners, hand these messages over to the Prison authorities. The photographs of her at an A.A. gun site were nothing in comparison to those other actions.
It would be a different matter had she been told by the North Vietnamese Authorities that unless she did these things, the Prisoners would suffer even more heinous treatment, but this has never been stated as being the case. By making the tapes, and handing over the messages, she did (In my mind at least.) physically give aid, and comfort to the Enemy.
You may hold whatever opinion you wish, but you will if you open the subject of Hanoi Jane, certainly hear mine.

Rising Sun*
09-06-2013, 08:57 AM
I have been notified before about posting on "old threads". Is it wrong to post on them? If so, why not just close them?

I don't have a problem with it, personally or as a mod, if it's advancing a discussion, although some boards regard it as poor form to do it. This is, after all, a historical discussion site. It seems a bit contradictory to deny the right to revive a bit of history.


I lived through the Vietnam era and remember a good deal of it vividly. Because of it, LBJ declined to run for a full 2nd term, and Richard Nixon got to tell us that he had a "secret plan" to end the war. He didn't. Nixon turned the phrase 'Peace with honor' into a much maligned slogan.

I attended a live performance of Hair around 1970 which included actors as protesters running up the aisles with placards. The most memorable one was "Pull out Nixon, like your father should have", which deserved wider publication at the time. (I also missed the nanosecond nude scene, which was a major disappointment.)


With the distance of time, it seems abundantly clear that Jane Fonda was right and Eisenhower, Kennedy, LBJ and Nixon were about as wrong as they could be.

There is a huge difference between aligning oneself with and supporting the enemy, as Fonda did, and opposing the involvement or actions of one's government in Vietnam or anywhere else.

I was at university in the last few years of the Vietnam war and, while by then like most Australians I had swung around to oppose our further involvement in it despite having been willing to serve there as a conscript a few years earlier and as a volunteer a few years before that (and thank Christ I didn't), I vigorously opposed and would still oppose the idiotic and effectively if not legally treasonable actions of student representative councils, trade unions, and sundry other bodies passing resolutions in support of and sending money to aid North Vietnam and the Viet Cong.

Just because one's government is wrong in one's opinion at the time or in hindsight does not automatically mean that the enemy is right or deserving of support. The Viet Cong were a brutal, ruthless bunch of murdering, torturing, extortionate thugs who terrorised their own villagers and village chiefs in appalling ways to compel support for the VC and the North's cause. No VC ever stood trial, or were even charged for their countless atrocities, because it was encouraged by their leadership to advance their cause. Calley was charged (albeit only after the press and others got involved, but that in itself distinguishes America from the VC and North Vietnam), stood trial, was convicted, and was punished, and that's one of the things which distinguishes America, and Australia, from NV and the VC. And it's one of the reasons we didn't win, because we fought by different rules. Where the VC disembowelled a village chief's son in front of him and the villagers to compel compliance, America and Australia built wells and provided medical treatment and so on to encourage support. You don't have to be Einstein to work out which method was most likely to get support.


This unfortunate and poorly-thought-through war was brought to an end thanks to those demonstrators.

Partly.

But mostly because we weren't winning and couldn't see any prospect of winning.

And also because it wasn't fought by an all volunteer army as has been the case in Afghanistan and Iraq, which didn't generate opposition to conscription for a dangerous foreign war and bind that up with the distinct issue of whether or not one's nation should be involved in that war.

JR*
09-06-2013, 10:50 AM
Article III, Section 3 of the US Constitution reads as follows -

"Section. 3.Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."

It is true, however, that the effect of the passage of US legislation and issue of Government ordnances from time to time dealing with what might be described as specific areas of "treason", often drafted in somewhat vague terms, has tended to undermine the practical protection intended for citizens that appears to have been intended by the drafters of the Constitution. Recent use of the espionage legislation, not to mention the creative nonsense (in legal terms) of the establishment of an "unlawful combatant" are examples of this. Also, I would doubt whether the category of "enemies" can safely be regarded as including only those delineated as such by a declaration of war. In fact, in the Common Law tradition, the fact that the Constitution itself does not speak to that point should allow the Federal courts considerable leeway in what constitutes an "enemy" in the circumstances of a particular case.

One very forward-looking (at the time) feature of Article III.s3 is the abolition of the obnoxious medieval relic in the British legal system known as attainder. This was essentially a procedure in which Parliament, without engaging in any judicial process, had the power to pass an Act "attainting" an individual. Attainted individuals were automatically subject to a sentence of death, their property forfeit, and their heirs and relatives subject to a number of long-term legal disabilities in the absence of a pardon (hence the provision of the Section forbidding the application of the "Corruption of Blood" concept. This barbaric practice had been used by the English Parliament as recently as 1798, but its heyday was in the medieval period when, on one occasion during the Wars of the Roses, a Lancastrian parliament attainted virtually the whole Yorkist nobility of England, only to find themselves attainted in turn by a Yorkist parliament the following year following a change in military fortunes. The "Mother of Parliaments" certainly had its peculiar features. Britain only got around to abolishing Acts of Attainder in 1870, during a major campaign of legal system of reforms undertaken there in the late 19th century. Best regards, JR.

Rising Sun*
09-06-2013, 11:00 AM
Attainted individuals were automatically subject to a sentence of death, their property forfeit, and their heirs and relatives subject to a number of long-term legal disabilities in the absence of a pardon (hence the provision of the Section forbidding the application of the "Corruption of Blood" concept.

And, most conveniently for the Crown, the attainted subject's property was forfeited to the Crown.

Not, of course, that this could ever have influenced any monarch's desire to see a troublesome subject attainted and his or her property forfeited to the Crown. ;) :rolleyes:

Rising Sun*
09-06-2013, 11:17 AM
Article III, Section 3 of the US Constitution reads as follows -

"Section. 3.Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."

I'm not sure that this really changed anything in a practical sense by limiting attainder etc to the life of the person attainted.

The essence of attainder etc was that it forfeited the attainted person's property to the Crown and cut off all claims by issue and potential successors in title.

If one is attainted etc during one's lifetime, doesn't that have pretty much the same effect so far as issue and potential successors in title are concerned in succeeding to the attainted person's property which has already been forfeited to the Crown / State?

Perhaps there was a symbolic, but probably not much in reality, advantage to the reputations of issue in not being attainted by corruption of blood from their ancestor's act of treason.

JR*
09-06-2013, 11:35 AM
I see the point, RS - it is possible to argue that Congress could still have prescribed a procedure of personal attainder for the punishment of treason, even if the application of the Corruption of Blood principle was ruled out. This would, however, appear contradictory to the principle embodied in the preceding paragraph - although this itself is somewhat ambiguous, turning on the meaning of the word "convicted". (An obscure drafting compromise, perhaps ?)

Attainder was, after all, not strictly speaking, a "conviction"; more like a declaration that "we think that you are traitor, so there !". This is shown by what happened to the unlucky (not to mention foolish) King Charles I's star minister, the Earl of Strafford. Strafford was put on trial before the House of Lords for various (in their view) treasonous crimes, but his defense of the legality of his actions in the King's service proved so good, and so vexatious to his Parliamentary prosecutors, that they dropped the prosecution, passed an Act of Attainder on Strafford, and pressured Charles to sign the perfidious document, thus throwing his most effective Minister to the wolves. Strafford's last words from the scaffold were said to have been "put not your trust in Princes". Best regards, JR.

royal744
09-06-2013, 01:32 PM
I would disagree that she was right in her actions while in North Viet Nam. Many U.S. Citizens were against that War, but unlike Hanoi Jane, they did not produce audio tapes urging U.S. troops to throw down their arms, and turn against their N.C.O.'s and Officers whom she had deemed to be criminals, or at least acting in a criminal way. nor did they upon being given messages from U.S. prisoners, hand these messages over to the Prison authorities. The photographs of her at an A.A. gun site were nothing in comparison to those other actions.
It would be a different matter had she been told by the North Vietnamese Authorities that unless she did these things, the Prisoners would suffer even more heinous treatment, but this has never been stated as being the case. By making the tapes, and handing over the messages, she did (In my mind at least.) physically give aid, and comfort to the Enemy.
You may hold whatever opinion you wish, but you will if you open the subject of Hanoi Jane, certainly hear mine.

I don't mind hearing your opinion on the subject, Tank. Millions agree with your viewpoint. Millions disagree as well. Few things divided the American people quite so much as the Vietnam war. My point about the hysteria surrounding Jane Fonda is that she was only one of millions who opposed the war. Her celebrity gave her prominence and access but one doubts if anyone could prove her antics changed anything regarding the war's outcome to even the smallest degree. A lot of people focus on her as a locus of their loathing, but, honestly, what many loathe is that their sons, brothers, uncles and nephews - not to mention mothers, sisters and daughters - were also marching in the streets against this conflict, and that is perhaps harder to accept.

tankgeezer
09-07-2013, 06:23 PM
I would be reluctant to characterize the citizens response to Hanoi Jane's actions as hysteria, Moral outrage might be more accurate. A good portion of the younger populace did oppose the war, and not few of the older generations all very true. They however did not deliberately travel to, and meet directly with the Enemy, and give tangible aid to their efforts at the expense of those imprisoned at Hanoi. Nor did they produce audio recordings in their own voice urging U.S. troops to turn on their leadership. This alone sets her apart from your cited Millions who protested the war on U.S. soil. Had Hanoi Jane done only as those others had done, there would be no Hue and Cry for her to be prosecuted, or added to the rolls of the traitorous of U.S. History. Her deliberate, and chosen actions have brought about the consequences she has since experienced. She is a pitiable creature, best left in history's dumping cupboard. (And the occasional late night talk show, or home shopping segment ) ;)
We will I guess, have to remain in disagreement concerning Ms. Hanoi.

Cojimar 1945
10-14-2013, 01:02 AM
I'm skeptical that the Vietcong were more brutal than the South Vietnamese. Didn't South Vietnamese forces routinely commit atrocities. As far as punishment for atrocities go, I'd be curious to know how many Americans were punished for committing atrocities. People bring Calley up, was there anyone else?

Cojimar 1945
10-14-2013, 01:15 AM
I also think people might be better served to direct their anger at politicians who got the U.S. involved in the Vietnam in the first place...like Johnson and Nixon and perhaps the people who voted for them. Fonda and other anti-war protesters were not the ones responsible for sending troops there.

tankgeezer
10-14-2013, 09:59 AM
I also think people might be better served to direct their anger at politicians who got the U.S. involved in the Vietnam in the first place...like Johnson and Nixon and perhaps the people who voted for them. Fonda and other anti-war protesters were not the ones responsible for sending troops there.
True, they did not send them, but that does not relieve them from responsibility or accountability for their individual actions under Federal, State, and local law. Neither does it from our Cultural traditions concerning Rats, or Traitors.

forager
10-14-2013, 04:43 PM
You need to get a couple things straight.
Viet Cong WERE South Vietnamese.
They were the National Liberation Front who initially wanted independence from French Colonialism and others.
They waged brutal warfare, much based on terrorist tactics against the rural population which exploited them for resources and draftees.
The Governmment of the South we recognize fielded ARVNs-Army of the Republic of South Vietnam.

The NVA were North Vietnamese Army who actually were invaders and their intent was to consolidate the country under Communism.

The NVA and VC used atrocities and terrorism to a great extent.
The ARVNs are not innocent.

The VC and NVA used these tactics as everyday business.
This separates them from random isolated and rare incidents bu American troops.
There were certainly GIs prosecuted for crimes. My Lai simply stood out as a media event and was not representative of our actions my a long shot.

We never declared war on the North as the basis for our involvement was to eqip and train the South to take over the fight on their own. They failed and our mishandling of the process resulted in weak politicians forcing our withdrawal.
A bad day for all.
We drug our feet and the ARVNs never stepped up.
All this was based on the "Red Tide and Domino Theories" prevalent in the 50s and early 60s.
It was felt that Commies were growing to big worldwide and a stand had to be taken to counter their expansion.

It is kind or amusing that the North claimed none of their troops were ever in the South the whole time.
I personally saw a lot of evidence contrary to that claim.

Nickdfresh
10-15-2013, 04:24 PM
Not defending Jane Fonda, but recently she stated yet again that she deeply regretted mounting the AAA gun and said the picture in no way conveyed her sentiments and she never wished anyone shot down. As much as what she did annoys me, it's hard for me to get angry with enormous bastards like Kissinger sending troops to die in a war they knew they no longer could win with the waning budgets...

Nickdfresh
10-15-2013, 04:38 PM
I'm skeptical that the Vietcong were more brutal than the South Vietnamese. Didn't South Vietnamese forces routinely commit atrocities. As far as punishment for atrocities go, I'd be curious to know how many Americans were punished for committing atrocities. People bring Calley up, was there anyone else?

There were brutalities committed by all sides. But I think historians tend to agree that the NLF/PAVN (NVA) tended to be far more ruthless overall. The VC carried out large scale massacres during the Tet Offensive and used terrorist bombings against the civilian population. The NVA also liked to indiscriminately fire ordnance into civilian areas solely to terrorize or test morale of the civilian populace. The South Vietnamese forces varied widely, from the often incompetent and corrupt to units that were as good or better than anything we fielded. It should be noted that there were separate and distinct force structures which changed dramatically after Gen. Westmorland handed command over to Gen. Creighton Abrams, greater emphasis was placed on the reserve or militia components such as the "Regional Forces," sort of a mobile reserve, and the Popular Forces, as local self-defense militia akin to an anti-Viet Cong/NLF.

Cojimar 1945
10-17-2013, 01:28 PM
I'm curious if people have any thoughts on the reported Tiger Force atrocities...they sound pretty bad
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/28/us/report-on-brutal-vietnam-campaign-stirs-memories.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm
http://www.toledoblade.com/assets/tigerforce/BigMap.pdf
http://boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/10/20/vietnam_atrocities_revealed_in_report_boston_globe/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_Force

Rising Sun*
10-18-2013, 11:31 AM
I'm curious if people have any thoughts on the reported Tiger Force atrocities...they sound pretty bad
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/28/us/report-on-brutal-vietnam-campaign-stirs-memories.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm
http://www.toledoblade.com/assets/tigerforce/BigMap.pdf
http://boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/10/20/vietnam_atrocities_revealed_in_report_boston_globe/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_Force

All crimes, war or otherwise, should be dealt with.

Very few are.

That's life.

As for your links and question about them, this raises the interesting question to which I have yet to receive a satisfactory answer:
Why is it that there is considerable and justifiable criticism of proved and alleged war crimes by Americans in Vietnam in the Western press and from other commentators such as academics and the usual rent-a-crowd of leftist anti-everything-that's-not-them professional protesters and whingers, but never a word from those morally superior and indignant quarters about the proved and alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity by the Viet Cong and NVA?

If it was alright for the VC to go regularly into villages to terrorise the inhabitants by all sorts of vile conduct, commonly involving huge and protracted violence no different on a small scale from the Rape of Nanking, against the citizens of South Vietnam to the extent that this still doesn't excite the moral outrage of the press and usual rent-a-crowd etc, then why are Americans judged on a different standard?

After all, if a villager's life taken by the VC in profoundly brutal circumstances to encourage support for the VC isn't worthy of moral outrage and condemnation of the offender, why should a different standard be applied to the Americans responding to a village of perceived VC supporters? If peasants tortured and killed by the VC aren't important enough to warrant moral outrage in the West, what makes them important enough to warrant moral outrage in the West just because they were tortured or killed by Americans?

The problem here is not in selectively ignoring the nature of the crime but in choosing to ignore one set of offenders while choosing, on no rational basis, to get wound up about another set of offenders involved in the same sort of crimes but based purely upon their nationality.

What gives the North Vietnamese NVA and South Vietnamese VC a 'get out of jail free' card but denies that to the Americans?

How many civil aid programs, from improving water supply, sanitation, health and education were run by the VC compared with those run by the Americans?

What motivated the VC to target and disrupt or destroy such programs by the Americans which were of benefit to the local people to whose advancement, such as by improved health etc, the VC were supposedly devoted?

Any serious examination of conduct and moral equivalence will, in my view, demonstrate that the VC, and NVA via its ruthless leadership in Hanoi in pursuing the invasion of what amounted to another country in pursuit of its politically doctrinaire aims, routinely engaged in a policy driven campaign of war crimes and crimes against humanity as part of its general strategy, while the Americans engaged occasionally in roughly equivalent conduct as an aberration from American policy.

But I'd still like to see evidence of American troops sneaking into a village at night and rounding up all the villagers to witness the head man or his son being tortured and disemboweled in front of the assembled villagers to demonstrate the fate of all them if they supported the VC and, on pain of death if not paid, levying a tax on all the villagers to support the American military effort.

And the fact that Jane Fonda wasn't aware of, or chose to ignore, these aspects before publicly supporting the NV regime and therefore the NVA and VC shows just how dumb and uninformed she was, like so many other celebrities whose dumb and uninformed opinions have excessive influence on the unformed minds of morons who think that being a celebrity (e.g. fat Kardashian sheilas, anorexic English sheila married to Beckham soccer bloke) makes celebrities' opinions more important or accurate than the shambling drunk at the bus stop.

Cojimar 1945
10-18-2013, 03:02 PM
One possible reason for outrage is the because America is supposed to hold people accountable for atrocities (at least in my view). I don't think anyone is trying to suggest that the North Vietnamese respected human rights. America is not a military dictatorship where everyone in the military is untouchable and can do whatever they like without consequences. Moreover, I was under the impression that in the conflict in Europe Americans were punished for atrocities some via execution. If we could prosecute people for war crimes than why not in Vietnam?

Rising Sun*
10-19-2013, 04:42 AM
One possible reason for outrage is the because America is supposed to hold people accountable for atrocities (at least in my view). I don't think anyone is trying to suggest that the North Vietnamese respected human rights.

I'm sure that people generally expect a standard of conduct from America consistent with the noble principles expressed in its founding document etc, and so they should.

I'm also sure that people generally didn't expect a similar standard of conduct from the VC and NVA (strictly PAVN), nor the ARVN, but I don't see why that occurs or is acceptable.

What I find troubling, and what I was adverting to in my last post, is why is it that prominent commentators and sundry others get wound up about American misconduct but not that of the other side? I'm all in favour of prosecuting people who commit war crimes and crimes against humanity, and all other crimes, but I am offended by the selective focus on America, and other countries in various situations such as South Africa during the apartheid period when the international Left was full on in attacking the white South African regime for its apartheid polices and related oppression of blacks and coloured people but silent on the appalling atrocities commited by blacks on the same continent such as Angola.

The most obvious explanation is that there is an implicit racism in which good behaviour is expected from whites / Americans / Western Europeans but not Africans or Asians. The problem with this attitude, which I think is at the heart of the problem, is that the loud commentators who condemn America (or South Africa, or Rhodesia, or France etc) for misconduct also invariably proclaim themselves as universal defenders of human rights. Yet they don't condemn profound breaches of human rights by, for example, the VC or opponents / enemies of the America etc. This is the same blinkered attitude which allowed communists and leftists in the West to condemn various actions by Western nations from the Russian Revolution to the end of the Cold War while choosing to ignore the endemic and gross abuses of human rights in the USSR and PRC.

A more recent example is that I don't see the people who rightly condemned the Abu Grhraib abuses by American troops mustering the same public outrage about the far, far, far worse and more damaging campaigns of bombing innocent civilians by sundry local or Islamist irregulars, nor demanding that they be brought to justice in the same way that demands for prosecution of the Abu Ghraib offenders were made. Nor did it seem to penetrate the consciousness of the loudest of the anti-American commentators demanding prosecution of the American offenders at Abu Ghraib that what they did barely scratched the surface of the grave abuses committed over many years againt countless Iraqis at that prison under Saddam's regime and that if these commentators were truly committed to equal justice for all they would have been screaming for the Americans to hunt down, prosecute and execute the vile bastards who participated in and oversaw those abuses.

It follows that while the criticisms of America etc may have been, and often were, valid in various wars and conflicts, those criticisms were selective and unbalanced and let far, far worse abusers of human rights and war criminals off the hook because the commentators themselves were selective and unbalanced in choosing to focus only on one set of offenders.

Applying the same approach to domestic issues in Western countries, crimes by whites or men would be condemned by those sorts of commentators but crimes by, say, blacks or women, would be excused because of social disadvantage in a white / male dominated society. Which, oddly enough, is exactly what happens in my country with comments from certain quarters.

I prefer to take the view in the example in the last paragraph that one needs to look at the circumstances of each case rather than pre-judging it on the basis of race or gender, or in the wider context because America did it.

Nickdfresh
10-19-2013, 11:41 AM
One possible reason for outrage is the because America is supposed to hold people accountable for atrocities (at least in my view). I don't think anyone is trying to suggest that the North Vietnamese respected human rights. America is not a military dictatorship where everyone in the military is untouchable and can do whatever they like without consequences. Moreover, I was under the impression that in the conflict in Europe Americans were punished for atrocities some via execution. If we could prosecute people for war crimes than why not in Vietnam?

I'm unaware of any instances where American servicemen were executed in WWII for atrocities committed. A captain and senior sergeant were prosecuted during the Italian campaign for executing Italian (mostly) and a lessor number of German prisoners of war. Their trials were largely secret at the time as to prevent retaliatory killings of Allied POW's and the sentences were rather light...

Rising Sun*
10-19-2013, 11:51 AM
I'm unaware of any instances where American servicemen were executed in WWII for atrocities committed. A captain and senior sergeant were prosecuted during the Italian campaign for executing Italian (mostly) and a lessor number of German prisoners of war. Their trials were largely secret at the time as to prevent retaliatory killings of Allied POW's and the sentences were rather light...

There may have been some executions, and certainly some harsh penalties, in relation to rapes and related crimes behind the lines in Normandy and the expanding front from there in the second half of 1944 and perhaps into 1945. My recollection is that whatever punishments were awarded were largely or exclusively imposed on American Negro troops. There was certainly a major problem at the time with such crimes in rear areas, as is usually the case because front line troops are too busy fighting for their survival to get engaged in the various physical and property crimes which are more common in rear areas.

Nickdfresh
10-19-2013, 12:24 PM
The atrocities committed by U.S. troops in Vietnam can be partly laid at the the door of General Westmoreland, and his failed strategy that was little more than attrition --using U.S. firepower to inflict maximum casualties on the PAVN and NLF combined with a "Search and Destroy" mentality. In part, the strategy was to keep U.S. ground forces highly mobile as to avoid set piece battles and making them vulnerable to high casualties and a series of "Dien Ben Phu's." The failure of this strategy lies in the fact that it clearly shows that Westmorland did not understand the fundamentally political nature of the war and did not understand that this was not a war the United States could win without a strong South Vietnamese regime and political infrastructure. Merely killing lots of Northern Vietnamese and Southern communists would not lead to victory when facing an enemy willing to sacrifice enormous numbers of its men and even women. There is a large body of contemporary literature based on the notion that the United States and her South Vietnamese allies largely won the insurgency battle against the NLF and the evidence is compelling.

The palpable change in the United States' focus under the much more able General Creighton Abrams after Tet led to strategies of counterinsurgency, population control, and changing the focus of U.S. troops from "Search-and-Destroy" to "Clear-and-Hold" paralleling the pacification efforts under the controversial Phoenix Campaign. This more than anything, including Tet, led to a complete marginalization of the National Liberation Front. This was in no small part a shifting of internal security duties away from the South Vietnamese Army (ARVN) to the Regional & Popular Forces (reserve/militia) that often turned out to be much more effective and populist, and I think ultimately would have led to a more vibrant and democratic Vietnam had they survived. In many cases, some "Ruff Puffs" were better armed with light infantry weapons than their ARVN counterparts. Under Abrams, U.S. forces were broken up into smaller units and imbedded into Vietnamese rural society by placing them into fortified compounds within, or nearby, villages they were charged with protecting. This allowed Americans to bond with the Vietnamese and they no longer saw them as merely a strange, alien race but as people to be defended and protected rather than just feared and loathed while on mobile SAD operations. The argument put forth is that the U.S. actually won the counterinsurgency aspect of the war and largely crushed the VC/NLF and was increasingly rendering PAVN infiltration into South Vietnam moot by preventing North Vietnamese access to the population. It was of course too little, too late as funding for the war was being drastically cut and the U.S. population as a whole was largely fed up with the war that seemed endless after Westmorland's dubious "Saigon press conferences" that often were little more than exercises in boastful exaggerations and misinformation --whereas Abrams was ever the pragmatic realist...

Nickdfresh
10-19-2013, 12:26 PM
There may have been some executions, and certainly some harsh penalties, in relation to rapes and related crimes behind the lines in Normandy and the expanding front from there in the second half of 1944 and perhaps into 1945. My recollection is that whatever punishments were awarded were largely or exclusively imposed on American Negro troops. There was certainly a major problem at the time with such crimes in rear areas, as is usually the case because front line troops are too busy fighting for their survival to get engaged in the various physical and property crimes which are more common in rear areas.

Correct, I should have expanded on this a bit. Everyone who's seen "The Dirty Dozen" knows this. :mrgreen:

Rising Sun*
10-19-2013, 12:33 PM
The Fifth Field: The Story of the 96 American Soldiers Sentenced to Death and Executed in Europe and North Africa in World War II

The Fifth Field reveals one of the final secrets of the war: how 96 American soldiers in Europe and North Africa were tried by American General Courts-Martial, convicted by military juries, sentenced to death, executed and buried in an obscure, secret plot at an American military cemetery in France.

This is a non-fiction book, but you will swear you are reading a mystery fiction thriller. It begins with a visit to the cemetery, where to this day – seven decades after the war – their small flat gravestones have only the numbers 1-96, not names, chiseled into them.

These were not crimes against enemy soldiers or against civilians actively supporting the enemy. These 96 soldiers murdered 26 fellow American military personnel, and killed or raped 71 British, French, Irish, Italian, Polish and Algerian civilians, in addition to the one soldier executed exclusively for desertion.

The executions were not ad hoc, shot-while-trying-to-escape killings. Every single verdict had been personally approved by General Dwight D. Eisenhower or another high-ranking Theater Commander. Many of the executions occurred in the French villages, where previously the crime had occurred. There were no last-minute opportunities to avoid the noose by volunteering for a suicidal mission la the fictional account of condemned soldiers in The Dirty Dozen, although one American general, as discussed in the book, proposed something similar.

The actual cases are the stars of the book. The public really only knows of one – Eddie Slovik – and knows little of the process involved. The courts-martial, some of which started just five days after the commission of the crime, were to the point and strict (“if the glove won’t fit, you must acquit” tactics were not allowed); some proceedings took as little as one hour. Judge Advocate reviews then took a few weeks, although the defendant had no legal representation, nor did he appear at these later proceedings.

Surprisingly, the Army found that it had no qualified hangman, so English hangmen conducted 16 executions for crimes committed in Britain, but British hangmen could not serve outside England. Matters became so serious that Eisenhower ordered a U. S. Army brigadier general to hang four condemned soldiers one chilly morning in Sicily in 1943. The Army finally found a hangman, with claimed experience in Texas and Oklahoma. That was untrue – he had no previous practice, but the Army remained unaware of his deception and promoted him from private to master sergeant in a single day, but he botched at least one-third of the hangings he conducted. Seven of the 96 condemned met their ends by firing squads. Ricochets and bad marksmanship sometimes marred the proceedings.

The Army did its level best to ensure the trials were fair, although a review of the wartime legal system led to significant changes after the conflict. After spending a decade poring over the files – in the author’s opinion – three of the soldiers likely were not guilty, ten others were possibly not guilty, while two dozen others could have received life imprisonment and not the death penalty, because of mitigating circumstances.
http://thefifthfield.com/published-books/the-fifth-field/

Add in Eddie Leonski, an American soldier executed in my city during WWII for murdering several women. http://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/leonski-edward-joseph-10814 One of the interesting aspects of this case is that he was hanged in an Australian prison after being convicted in an American court martial. One of these days I'll track down the legal intricacies of how murders of Australian women in Australia were tried by a foreign power under foreign military law in Australia and the prisoner then hanged in an Australian prison not subject to or controlled by the foreign power which sentenced him to hang. A sound legal defence might have demonstrated that there was no power to execute him in an Australian prison. A sound examination of sentiments at the time might have demonstrated that there was no sympathy for him and, given the attitude to capital punishment at the time, that he couldn't have expected anything else for three murders. But, I'm still interested in the legal details which allow an Australian hangman to kill a foreigner not convicted of anything by an Australian court. The hangman mightn't be in a better legal position that Leonski killing his victims as far as the legality of the hangman killing Leonski was concerned.

http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/12004306

Rising Sun*
10-19-2013, 12:54 PM
The atrocities committed by U.S. troops in Vietnam can be partly laid at the the door of General Westmoreland, and his failed strategy that was little more than attrition --using U.S. firepower to inflict maximum casualties on the PAVN and NLF combined with a "Search and Destroy" mentality. In part, the strategy was to keep U.S. ground forces highly mobile as to avoid set piece battles and making them vulnerable to high casualties and a series of "Dien Ben Phu's." The failure of this strategy lies in the fact that it clearly shows that Westmorland did not understand the fundamentally political nature of the war and did not understand that this was not a war the United States could win without a strong South Vietnamese regime and political infrastructure. Merely killing lots of Northern Vietnamese and Southern communists would not lead to victory when facing an enemy willing to sacrifice enormous numbers of its men and even women. There is a large body of contemporary literature based on the notion that the United States and her South Vietnamese allies largely won the insurgency battle against the NLF and the evidence is compelling.

The palpable change in the United States' focus under the much more able General Creighton Abrams after Tet led to strategies of counterinsurgency, population control, and changing the focus of U.S. troops from "Search-and-Destroy" to "Clear-and-Hold" paralleling the pacification efforts under the controversial Phoenix Campaign. This more than anything, including Tet, led to a complete marginalization of the National Liberation Front. This was in no small part a shifting of internal security duties away from the South Vietnamese Army (ARVN) to the Regional & Popular Forces (reserve/militia) that often turned out to be much more effective and populist, and I think ultimately would have led to a more vibrant and democratic Vietnam had they survived. In many cases, some "Ruff Puffs" were better armed with light infantry weapons than their ARVN counterparts. Under Abrams, U.S. forces were broken up into smaller units and imbedded into Vietnamese rural society by placing them into fortified compounds within, or nearby, villages they were charged with protecting. This allowed Americans to bond with the Vietnamese and they no longer saw them as merely a strange, alien race but as people to be defended and protected rather than just feared and loathed while on mobile SAD operations. The argument put forth is that the U.S. actually won the counterinsurgency aspect of the war and largely crushed the VC/NLF and was increasingly rendering PAVN infiltration into South Vietnam moot by preventing North Vietnamese access to the population. It was of course too little, too late as funding for the war was being drastically cut and the U.S. population as a whole was largely fed up with the war that seemed endless after Westmorland's dubious "Saigon press conferences" that often were little more than exercises in boastful exaggerations and misinformation --whereas Abrams was ever the pragmatic realist...

1. The American troops put into villages were generally under-resourced, under-supported by external forces such as fire missions and air support, and thus not able to demonstrate the power against the VC which was necessary to give any hope to that process of inspiring the villagers to believe that they'd be any better off throwing in their lot with the Americans than they were with the ARVN and French against revolutionary forces which previously had come and gone.

2. Regardless, the principal problem in Vietnam was the idiocy of the ARVN and American and associated forces confining their ground troops south of the DMZ. The same sort of brilliant strategy in WWII would have seen Berlin bombed to buggery but the various Allied forces halting their forces on the German borders until Germany was ready to surrender, while allowing German forces to come out of Germany to continue the land war.

Nickdfresh
10-19-2013, 04:01 PM
http://thefifthfield.com/published-books/the-fifth-field/

Add in Eddie Leonski, an American soldier executed in my city during WWII for murdering several women. http://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/leonski-edward-joseph-10814 One of the interesting aspects of this case is that he was hanged in an Australian prison after being convicted in an American court martial. One of these days I'll track down the legal intricacies of how murders of Australian women in Australia were tried by a foreign power under foreign military law in Australia and the prisoner then hanged in an Australian prison not subject to or controlled by the foreign power which sentenced him to hang. A sound legal defence might have demonstrated that there was no power to execute him in an Australian prison. A sound examination of sentiments at the time might have demonstrated that there was no sympathy for him and, given the attitude to capital punishment at the time, that he couldn't have expected anything else for three murders. But, I'm still interested in the legal details which allow an Australian hangman to kill a foreigner not convicted of anything by an Australian court. The hangman mightn't be in a better legal position that Leonski killing his victims as far as the legality of the hangman killing Leonski was concerned.

http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/12004306

Interesting case, sounds like a serial murderer...

Rising Sun*
10-20-2013, 04:36 AM
Interesting case, sounds like a serial murderer...

That's how he's generally described.

Nobody seems to have looked into any similar murders in America, despite the reasonable chance that he'd killed there before coming to Australia. Probably not surprising given the localised nature of policing at the time, but it could still be fruitful research even now if his movements were backtracked.

He was certainly a nut case who is said to have confessed that he killed his victims to capture their lovely voices.

Nickdfresh
10-20-2013, 11:42 AM
That's how he's generally described.

Nobody seems to have looked into any similar murders in America, despite the reasonable chance that he'd killed there before coming to Australia. Probably not surprising given the localised nature of policing at the time, but it could still be fruitful research even now if his movements were backtracked.

He was certainly a nut case who is said to have confessed that he killed his victims to capture their lovely voices.

Perhaps someone should, my girlfriend is interested in this stuff.

It's seems he was from the New York City, Northern New Jersey area. It's very plausible he killed there before being drafted...

After reading a bit about him, there was a strain of mental illness running through his family. He seemed to have held it together in civilian life, but began drinking heavily in the Army. It sounded like he almost strangled an American girl in Texas in a bar or something but was stopped. The Army ignored his psychotic tendencies and shipped him out to war anyways....

Nickdfresh
10-20-2013, 11:51 AM
1. The American troops put into villages were generally under-resourced, under-supported by external forces such as fire missions and air support, and thus not able to demonstrate the power against the VC which was necessary to give any hope to that process of inspiring the villagers to believe that they'd be any better off throwing in their lot with the Americans than they were with the ARVN and French against revolutionary forces which previously had come and gone.

2. Regardless, the principal problem in Vietnam was the idiocy of the ARVN and American and associated forces confining their ground troops south of the DMZ. The same sort of brilliant strategy in WWII would have seen Berlin bombed to buggery but the various Allied forces halting their forces on the German borders until Germany was ready to surrender, while allowing German forces to come out of Germany to continue the land war.

I'm recommending the book A Better War: The Unexamined Victories And Final Tragedy Of America's Last Years In Vietnam by Lewis Sorley. It's a seminal work on counterinsurgency and Gen. Abrams' tenure there...

Rising Sun*
10-21-2013, 06:51 AM
Perhaps someone should, my girlfriend is interested in this stuff.

Ummm, might be wise for you to sleep very lightly. ;) :D :D :D


It's seems he was from the New York City, Northern New Jersey area. It's very plausible he killed there before being drafted...

After reading a bit about him, there was a strain of mental illness running through his family. He seemed to have held it together in civilian life, but began drinking heavily in the Army. It sounded like he almost strangled an American girl in Texas in a bar or something but was stopped.
Interesting, and not surprising.

Got any links?


The Army ignored his psychotic tendencies and shipped him out to war anyways....

Well, nobody can blame any army for sending a killer to war. ;)

Nickdfresh
10-21-2013, 06:55 PM
Ummm, might be wise for you to sleep very lightly. ;) :D :D :D


Interesting, and not surprising.

Got any links?


These are the two I read. He's on "Murderpedia": http://murderpedia.org/male.L/l/leonski-edward.htm

http://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/leonski-edward-joseph-10814

Rising Sun*
10-22-2013, 07:16 AM
These are the two I read. He's on "Murderpedia": http://murderpedia.org/male.L/l/leonski-edward.htm


From the above link: "In a departure from normal procedure, on November 4, 1942, MacArthur personally signed the order of execution (in future executions, this administrative task would be entrusted to his Chief of Staff, Richard Sutherland)."

Which makes me wonder how many US soldiers (and ?USN sailors as MacArthur was commander of the SWPA) were executed subsequently under MacArthur's command, and for what offences?