Re: Mike - re Kerrey

[Guest guest]

Kerrey admits to all this. He admits to killing unarmed civilians. His

defense is that he was given 'verbal orders' to ignore international law,

and also to violate American law. He says his superiors told him to kill

unarmed civilians, including small children. (One baby was killed, too).

Is it not the case that in Viet Nam civilians frequently practiced warfare, and even strapped bombs to children? It seems to me that if that is the case, and soldiers got over there and came to understand this, they were in one hell of an atrocious moral position.

I don't like Bob Kerrey. But something about this scrutiny of a young Bob Kerrey in a hellish war zone, as we sit in our condos drinking our java over the NY Times before we hit the subway for the office or classroom, feels wrong to me. This is uncharacteristic, since I usually do not post about "feeling" a certain way, as opposed to supporting an argument with facts or logic...but there it is.

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

This is a matter of LAW! You are a LAWYER! This is not a matter of how you "feel" about Vietnamese civilians, blacks, poor people, or others you don't have much sympathy for.

Your "feelings" have nothing to do with the Kerrey case.

Is Kerrey a criminal? Let me walk you through it, since Wisconsin Law seems to have failed in its mission:

1) Look at the statutes: killing unarmed civilians held in custody is a CRIME, under both international and U.S. Law

2) Look at the evidence: Kerrey ADMITS he ordered unarmed civilians held in his custody to be killed (others say he physically participated in the killing, too).

3) Look at the only defense Kerrey offers: he says he was verbally ordered to break the law by his commanding officer. .

4) Look at the case law: Kerrey's defense - "I was only following orders" - has been ruled illegitimate, over and over and over.

The law is clear, Kerrey HIMSELF testifies he broke it, he has no legitimate defense. What is your LEGAL opinion? Or do your opinions on the law shift with your personal prejudices and biases?

Re: Mike - re Kerrey

Kerrey admits to all this. He admits to killing unarmed civilians. His defense is that he was given 'verbal orders' to ignore international law, and also to violate American law. He says his superiors told him to kill unarmed civilians, including small children. (One baby was killed, too). Is it not the case that in Viet Nam civilians frequently practiced warfare, and even strapped bombs to children? It seems to me that if that is the case, and soldiers got over there and came to understand this, they were in one hell of an atrocious moral position. I don't like Bob Kerrey. But something about this scrutiny of a young Bob Kerrey in a hellish war zone, as we sit in our condos drinking our java over the NY Times before we hit the subway for the office or classroom, feels wrong to me. This is uncharacteristic, since I usually do not post about "feeling" a certain way, as opposed to supporting an argument with facts or logic...but there it is. --Mona--

[Guest guest]

The law is clear, Kerrey HIMSELF testifies he broke it, he has no legitimate defense. What is your LEGAL opinion? Or do your opinions on the law shift with your personal prejudices and biases?

First, I don't know why you feel "Wisconsin law" failed to teach me, since I didn't attend law school there and am not licensed there. Second, I am passing on this issue as a human being.

The men this country sent to Viet Nam were placed in a miasma of incredible terror, carnage, danger and death. They would have developed, as Lifton puts it, psychic numbing. Seeing death, mutilation and being under threat of death at many or most moments, mangled bodies everywhere, buddies being blown to bits left and right...to survive these men would have had to either become anesthetized, or gone mad as their minds were overwhelmed by horror. Human beings must have this capacity for emotional self-anesthesia to survive.

Put men in that situation, deprived of sufficient food and sleep, and their capacity for appreciating the value of human life is not going to be as fine-tuned as yours or mine as we sit in our comfortable homes in front of our computers tossing politics around in the abstract.

Now, sure the soldiers were told in some classroom or other back stateside that they should not obey orders in violation of the Geneva Conventions. On the other hand, the military is an organization necessarily built on a dynamic that makes it as difficult and painful as possible -- even unnatural -- to disobey an order. Following orders is an enhancement to survival in country. Civilians were known to be killers by American soldiers -- men had seen friends killed by women, old men, and even children used to kill. How likely is it that Kerrey or any other soldier is simply going to revolt against his commanding officers in such a situation?

I do not understand why you are so harsh on young men who were placed in an insane and terrifying circumstance.

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

I served in the army, admittedly not during wartime, but I can not even conceive of a superior blatantly saying, or even implying 'disregard the rules, kill anyone in that free-fire zone, man, woman,or child, in uniform, or not'. We were told that even if some yo-yo did give such an order, that we had a standing order NOT to obey any orders , the execution of which would constitute a criminal act, especially a war-crime. These orders were considered to supercede any other order, from however high in the chain it came. Mike.

Re: Mike - re Kerrey

Kerrey admits to all this. He admits to killing unarmed civilians. His defense is that he was given 'verbal orders' to ignore international law, and also to violate American law. He says his superiors told him to kill unarmed civilians, including small children. (One baby was killed, too). Is it not the case that in Viet Nam civilians frequently practiced warfare, and even strapped bombs to children? It seems to me that if that is the case, and soldiers got over there and came to understand this, they were in one hell of an atrocious moral position. I don't like Bob Kerrey. But something about this scrutiny of a young Bob Kerrey in a hellish war zone, as we sit in our condos drinking our java over the NY Times before we hit the subway for the office or classroom, feels wrong to me. This is uncharacteristic, since I usually do not post about "feeling" a certain way, as opposed to supporting an argument with facts or logic...but there it is. --Mona--

[Guest guest]

Mona, are you a lawyer? EEEEwww! LOL! Just kidding.Lawyers are the bedrock of our society(now you KNOW I'm kidding). Mike.

Re: Mike - re Kerrey

The law is clear, Kerrey HIMSELF testifies he broke it, he has no legitimate defense. What is your LEGAL opinion? Or do your opinions on the law shift with your personal prejudices and biases?First, I don't know why you feel "Wisconsin law" failed to teach me, since I didn't attend law school there and am not licensed there. Second, I am passing on this issue as a human being. The men this country sent to Viet Nam were placed in a miasma of incredible terror, carnage, danger and death. They would have developed, as Lifton puts it, psychic numbing. Seeing death, mutilation and being under threat of death at many or most moments, mangled bodies everywhere, buddies being blown to bits left and right...to survive these men would have had to either become anesthetized, or gone mad as their minds were overwhelmed by horror. Human beings must have this capacity for emotional self-anesthesia to survive. Put men in that situation, deprived of sufficient food and sleep, and their capacity for appreciating the value of human life is not going to be as fine-tuned as yours or mine as we sit in our comfortable homes in front of our computers tossing politics around in the abstract. Now, sure the soldiers were told in some classroom or other back stateside that they should not obey orders in violation of the Geneva Conventions. On the other hand, the military is an organization necessarily built on a dynamic that makes it as difficult and painful as possible -- even unnatural -- to disobey an order. Following orders is an enhancement to survival in country. Civilians were known to be killers by American soldiers -- men had seen friends killed by women, old men, and even children used to kill. How likely is it that Kerrey or any other soldier is simply going to revolt against his commanding officers in such a situation? I do not understand why you are so harsh on young men who were placed in an insane and terrifying circumstance. --Mona--

[Guest guest]

I think Kerrey should demand a trial to clean himself for allegations about crimes towards humanity.

There has been a defense for him on this list. The question is, will it stand a trial?

If he doesn't he'll never get rid of the suspicion. Besides, it would sure make the American voice about other nations atrocities more trustworthy.

As I've read the defense for Kerrey, it seems that there are understanding for US citizens doing crimes, but no mercy for other people performing them.

Shortly, if Kerrey is an American man, he'll demand a trial.

Bjørn

Re: Mike - re Kerrey

Kerrey admits to all this. He admits to killing unarmed civilians. His defense is that he was given 'verbal orders' to ignore international law, and also to violate American law. He says his superiors told him to kill unarmed civilians, including small children. (One baby was killed, too). Is it not the case that in Viet Nam civilians frequently practiced warfare, and even strapped bombs to children? It seems to me that if that is the case, and soldiers got over there and came to understand this, they were in one hell of an atrocious moral position. I don't like Bob Kerrey. But something about this scrutiny of a young Bob Kerrey in a hellish war zone, as we sit in our condos drinking our java over the NY Times before we hit the subway for the office or classroom, feels wrong to me. This is uncharacteristic, since I usually do not post about "feeling" a certain way, as opposed to supporting an argument with facts or logic...but there it is. --Mona--

[Guest guest]

Don't you think a trial would be helpful to answer these questions?

Re: Mike - re Kerrey

Kerrey admits to all this. He admits to killing unarmed civilians. His defense is that he was given 'verbal orders' to ignore international law, and also to violate American law. He says his superiors told him to kill unarmed civilians, including small children. (One baby was killed, too). Is it not the case that in Viet Nam civilians frequently practiced warfare, and even strapped bombs to children? It seems to me that if that is the case, and soldiers got over there and came to understand this, they were in one hell of an atrocious moral position. I don't like Bob Kerrey. But something about this scrutiny of a young Bob Kerrey in a hellish war zone, as we sit in our condos drinking our java over the NY Times before we hit the subway for the office or classroom, feels wrong to me. This is uncharacteristic, since I usually do not post about "feeling" a certain way, as opposed to supporting an argument with facts or logic...but there it is. --Mona--

[Guest guest]

If it is no defense for Kerrey that his superiors ordered him to order his subordinates to commit murder, and his superiors are not culpable, then it follows that Kerrey is not culpable either, if his subordinates executed the orders without Kerrey's presence. Following your logic, the shit rolls all the way downhill, and lands on the e-1 through e-6 ranks at the bottom. Mike.

Re: Mike - re Kerrey

Kerrey admits to all this. He admits to killing unarmed civilians. His defense is that he was given 'verbal orders' to ignore international law, and also to violate American law. He says his superiors told him to kill unarmed civilians, including small children. (One baby was killed, too). Is it not the case that in Viet Nam civilians frequently practiced warfare, and even strapped bombs to children? It seems to me that if that is the case, and soldiers got over there and came to understand this, they were in one hell of an atrocious moral position. I don't like Bob Kerrey. But something about this scrutiny of a young Bob Kerrey in a hellish war zone, as we sit in our condos drinking our java over the NY Times before we hit the subway for the office or classroom, feels wrong to me. This is uncharacteristic, since I usually do not post about "feeling" a certain way, as opposed to supporting an argument with facts or logic...but there it is. --Mona--