On 14 Iul, 19:56, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Jul 12, 10:20*am, "ScottW" wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in message
2pid stated dumbly:
Kerry said those who condoned or engaged in such activities were war
criminals.
If the others are prosecuted, then Kerry should be as well.
Odd sentiment. *Sounds like if we can't catch and prosecute all the murderers
then all shall go free.
Spin, spin, spin.
I already gave you the answer:
"The investigators concluded that many of the war crimes indeed took
place.[15] Despite this, the Army decided not to pursue any
prosecutions.[16]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_Force
It happened, just as Kerry said it did. My Lai, and other search and
destroy-type missions, as well as CIA asassinations also happened,
Kerry was right. Get over it, 2pid.
I believe that some atrocities took place, but that it was not
systematically
directed. We didn't want to deal with it when it happened, I think one
case was picked
to see how a prosecution would go over. They picked a case that was
pretty
bad and possible to document. They got one conviction. The Captain
over
Calley was acquited. After the war, with the situation in Viet Nam,
prosecutions to convictions would be a big problem
But yes, these happened and yes, they were covered up, but
no, there was not systematic coordination and direction
from on high. Nd not to the level Kerry complained about.
Also, I can't say if he was involved, his words seem to me he had
some
involvement, and certainly involvement in covering up.
As much as one can't prosecute him, one can't
prosecute anybody else right now, either.
It would have to be civilian trials, not military.
Maybe the Hague group can do it,
but I doubt there is enough evidence.
I think the truth lies somewhere between your position and Scott's.