Large Scale Central

POW Lawsuit Could Force Kerry To Come Clean

POW Lawsuit Could Force Kerry To Come Clean
On Vietnam ‘War Crimes’ Charges

  • by George “Bud” Day, Chairman, Vietnam Veterans Legacy Foundation.
    (10/15/2006)

Thirty five years ago John Kerry slandered an entire generation of men who fought in Vietnam branding them as a “war criminals.” Today, much of the same thing is being said about our young men and women in Iraq.

Now, a lawsuit filed in Philadelphia’s Court of Common Pleas will test the very foundation of Kerry’s anti-war persona for the first time. It isn’t dubious medals or Kerry’s disputed service record in Vietnam that is being called into question. This time Kerry may finally be forced to answer for the events that launched his public career, one that made him an anti-war hero for many American liberals and a turncoat for millions of Vietnam veterans.

The lawsuit (Vietnam Veterans Legacy Foundation, et al. v. Kenneth Campbell, et al.) challenges the basis, the factual accuracy of then-Lt. (j.g.) Kerry’s acrimonious testimony before the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1971. It was there Kerry’s public career was catapulted with his now ubiquitous portrayal of American soldiers as murderers, rapists and torturers “who ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam . . . [and] razed villages in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan.”

Kerry said then his accusations were based on the so-called “testimony” of “150 honorably discharged” Vietnam veterans who, like himself, claimed to have committed or witnessed “war crimes, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command.”

Many if not all were members of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW), an organization led by Kerry and financed by Jane Fonda during the early 1970s. Now, a number of those “witnesses” will be required to testify, under oath for the first time ever, about what they really did and saw in Vietnam.

What these VVAW witnesses say could have implications reaching beyond Kerry’s veracity and reputation. Their lasting portrait of the American soldier as a blood-thirsty butcher, a baby killer, is also at stake. And that picture remains entrenched among their kind, “proof” that those serving in the U.S. military, even today, truly are a “horde of barbarians” capable of unspeakable brutalities. That is the underlying theme, the constant drumbeat from the mainstream media and others as they try to undermine the American military today.

For the anti-war, anti-American protesters, the American soldiers are the “terrorists,” and the enemies are the victims of a barbaric U.S. military which tortures and murders defenseless civilians.

That false premise, one of the most vicious and enduring smears spawned by Kerry 35 years ago, will also be put to the test once Kerry’s true “Band of Brothers” are put under oath in a Philadelphia courtroom.

The background to this lawsuit is long and complex, but even a condensed version is rich in irony and poetic justice.

It had it roots in 2004 with the documentary Stolen Honor: Wounds that Never Heal. Many may recall the film, although it is probably best known for not being seen, suppressed after Sinclair Broadcasting Company courageously announced it was going to air the documentary in its entirety. Thanks to Kerry and his liberal colleagues in the Senate and their enablers in the mainstream media, Sinclair was browbeaten into withdrawing the film, its broadcast license threatened by a Kerry campaign manager in 2004.

Stolen Honor focused on Kerry’s venomous diatribe before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in April 1971 when he accused Vietnam veterans of “war crimes” on a genocidal scale. (A full transcript is available at http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/index.php?topic=Testimony. ) It examined the impact Kerry’s widely reported statements had on hundreds of Americans who were being held prisoners of war by the North Vietnamese communists. The film’s producer, Carlton Sherwood, a Pulitzer Prize and Peabody Award-winning investigative reporter, interviewed former POWs for the documentary.

I was among those whom Sherwood, a decorated Marine combat veteran himself, asked to participate in Stolen Honor. I was a POW for nearly six years, held in North Vietnam prison camps, including the notorious Hanoi Hilton, a place of unimaginable horrors – torture, beatings, starvation and mind-numbing isolation. When Kerry branded us “war criminals,” he handed our captors all the justification they needed to carry out their threats to execute us. Thanks to Kerry, Jane Fonda and their comrades in the anti-war movement, our captivity was prolonged by years. The communists in Hanoi and Moscow couldn’t have had a better press agent to spread their anti-American propaganda.

To guarantee Stolen Honor would never be seen by anyone – not even theatre-goers – the producer was slapped with a libel and defamation lawsuit. That lawsuit was filed by Kenneth Campbell, a University of Delaware professor, Kerry campaign aide, and long-time anti-war disciple of the Massachusetts Senator. Campbell co-founded the Philadelphia chapter of Vietnam Veterans Against the War and, in 1971, he was one of Kerry’s key war crimes “witnesses,” one of several on whom Kerry claims he based his Senate testimony.

Campbell was and still is regarded by some as one of the VVAW’s most articulate and published “experts” on U.S. atrocities in Vietnam. He has “testified” before Congress, in Europe, and elsewhere that while in Vietnam he deliberately killed “dozens and dozens” of innocent civilians as a Marine artillery forward observer. He has written extensively about his and others’ atrocities in Vietnam and he even teaches a course on the Vietnam War that showcases his war crime accusations. Campbell, like Kerry, met with enemy delegations – Vietcong and North Vietnam Communist officials – in Paris in 1971 while he was still a U.S. uniformed reservist. He was also flown to Moscow that same year to meet with other Communist leaders, all expenses paid by the Soviets.

Campbell’s lawsuit put a unique spin on the definition of defamation: He claimed that Stolen Honor damaged the public reputations of himself, Kerry and others by questioning whether they truly were the baby-killers they claimed to be!

Ignored and censored by the mainstream news networks, Stolen Honor eventually aired on some small local cable outlets. The documentary managed to penetrate Kerry’s blacklisting in rural northern Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and several other places. But, Campbell’s lawsuit against Sherwood continued in 2005, when he even added POWs who appeared in the film to the litigation!

The POWs and the wives of POWs who participated in Stolen Honor refused to abandon the facts conveyed in the film. For some of us, it was the first time since our release by the Communists in 1973 that we were able to have our voices publicly heard, to tell our stories about the consequences of Kerry’s treachery. In 2005, we formed a nonprofit organization, the Vietnam Veterans Legacy Foundation (VVLF), to gather records, documents and other materials to form a fact-based, educational repository for students and scholars of Vietnam history and to tell the true story of the American soldiers in Vietnam. The VVLF’s mission is “to set the record straight, factually, about Vietnam and those who fought there.”

For our efforts, we were promptly sued by Campbell and another long-time anti-war Kerry follower and VVAW member, Dr. Jon Bjornson. It was clear that Kerry not only wanted to punish us for Stolen Honor; he intended to use surrogates to sue us into permanent silence and financial ruin.

But in lawsuits, even defendants have an opportunity to question the accuser under oath in pre-trial depositions – even when a lawsuit is filed solely to harass, intimidate and silence and when the legal system is abused for political vengeance, as these lawsuits clearly were

Our chance came earlier this year when Kenneth Campbell was deposed. Among the first thing he disclosed was that this was the first time he had actually been put under oath in over 35 years of “testifying” about Vietnam “war crimes.” Neither he nor any of his fellow “war criminals” – Kerry included – had ever been sworn in at any hearings, not before the Senate, the House of Representatives, or anywhere.

All of the so-called “testimony” the old mainstream media trumpeted for nearly four decades – graphic, sickening and grisly “testimony” about savage atrocities committed by Vietnam veterans, “testimony” to which Congress and the media gave so much weight and credibility – wasn’t “testimony” at all! Just propagandist speeches told without limitation or fear of consequences, least of all penalties for perjury. As for the “war crimes” Campbell claimed for years he committed and personally witnessed, he now conceded he didn’t actually see innocent civilians killed by his artillery barrages. In fact, if anyone had been killed or wounded, he admitted, they may not have been civilians at all! Concerning other atrocities Campbell identified in his lawsuits – things like Marines massacring an entire village, killing surrendering enemy soldiers – those incidents, too, failed to stand up under questioning. Some were things he said he had heard or assumed happened; others, he acknowledged, were simply “rumors.”

That Campbell alleged personal knowledge of horrible atrocities in his complaints and then gave wholly different stories of hearsay and assumption at his deposition is detailed in the recently filed Philadelphia lawsuit, which repeatedly alleges that Campbell lied about supposed war crimes in 1971 and lied again when he claimed in 2004 that his war crime stories were true.

While hard evidence may have been in short supply during his sworn testimony, Campbell did offer the names of “witnesses” who would confirm his stories. Not surprisingly, the first two were Kerry State Veterans Campaign Coordinators and long-time VVAW organizers in Florida and Massachusetts.

Subpoenas were served on both men but, before either could be deposed, one checked himself into a hospital for elective back surgery and the other had himself arrested and committed to a mental institution. At last press reports, he was released from the psychiatric hospital and fled the country to Vietnam via Hawaii.

Both men clearly knew what was coming, as did Campbell. For the first time in nearly four decades they would be forced to answer for their alleged “war crimes,” their slanderous accusations against their fellow soldiers finally examined, under oath.

It was just a matter of days before all the lawsuits were withdrawn, nearly two years of costly litigation abruptly ended, Campbell’s libel claims ground to dust under the weight of his own testimony.

Like their leader, John Kerry, his surrogates wanted no part of having to defend these despicable allegations, or for being held accountable for the great harm they and he continue to inflict on our men and women in uniform. They fled the moment the light of truth shined their way.

My fellow POWs and I who were the target of these lawsuits are not willing to quit or surrender. Kerry and his cowardly followers may have achieved their purpose of keeping the American people from seeing Stolen Honor in 2004, but we refuse to allow the truth about Vietnam to remain untold.

Forced to spend huge sums to defend ourselves from these frivolous lawsuits, we have filed a countersuit against these Kerry surrogates and intend to reveal the truth about the lawsuits and their sponsors. We believe that we can prove that the purpose of nearly two years of litigation was to cover up for Kerry’s treachery, to drain us financially and spiritually, and to prevent us from setting the record straight.

At stake is ultimately nothing less than the integrity of the American military in Vietnam, the honor of the men who served their country, the nobility of those who gave their lives, and the truth of America’s history in Vietnam. Until or unless we do correct the existing record, the American military may never be free of the myths and smears of Vietnam, its honor and integrity cleansed as it fights to defend freedom at home and around the world.

Our mission is hardly over. We hope you will join us in fighting this battle . . . for our soldiers, then and now.

Col. George E. “Bud” Day, USAF (Ret.,) was a POW in North Vietnam for five years, seven months and 13 days. He served in three wars (WWII, Korea, and Vietnam) and earned the Medal of Honor. He is the Air Force’s most decorated living veteran. He is the Director and President of the Vietnam Veterans Legacy Foundation, Inc., an organization created to better educate and inform the public about the Vietnam War, its events, its history, and the men and women who sacrificed to serve their country.

Fascinating story .
We are going through a similar ritual in the UK, currently , several British Soldiers and their Commanding Officer are in the grip of courts martial for ill-treatment of Iraqi prisoners .
The bringing of these courts martial is purely political . They are not being held in totally open court “for security reasons” .
It has to be assumed that if the court does not come up with the “right” conclusion and subsequent sentence , the presiding officers will get no further in their chosen career of defending the realm . So they will have been carefullty chosen .
Either way , the accused are now marked men , and might as well leave the service .

The spoilers of the world who proclaim their nasty little ways as amnesty international cannot , will not , look at the rights of people doing the job set them by politicians whose only experience of battle zones is a carefully arranged photo shoot .
These people were around when I was in Malaya , and Cyprus , and so on . Spouting their indignation at the appalling behaviour of the British troops who were simply doing the job they were there for and trying not to get themselves killed in the process .
Terrorists can shoot troops , but not the other way round .
Iraqi police can mistreat prisoners , but the troops get the blame for “not protecting them”
This is going to be a long haul .

Verrrrry interesting Mein herr.

The LSC Sciolists are always trying to attract attention.
Usually by just being Sciolists.

Go for it fellas.

Tony,

Why do attempts to get to the truth deserve a Fascist label.

Andre’

Andre’ you do know what Sciolist means?

It doesn’t mean Fascist.

TonyWalsham said:
Andre' you do know what Sciolist means?

It doesn’t mean Fascist.


SCIOLIST
A superficial pretender to knowledge.
Some dictionaries mark this word as archaic, and indeed it may be so, since I can’t find a recent example from a printed work. And it was always in any case a scholarly or literary brickbat to throw at a rival, one hardly likely to appear in your daily newspaper.

A typical example appears in an article by Thomas Henry Huxley in the Fortnightly Review in 1878: “Judged strictly by the standard of his own time, Bacon’s ignorance of the progress which science had up to that time made is only to be equalled by his insolence toward men in comparison with whom he was the merest sciolist”.

The word, as you might guess from the spelling, comes from Latin. It derives from the verb scire, to know, which is also the root of other English words, like prescient, science, omniscient and conscience. The immediate Latin original was the diminutive sciolus, a person who had only a smattering of knowledge.

The related noun is sciolism, the practice of giving one’s opinions on subjects of which one has only superficial knowledge. That is a little more common, but the only recent example I’ve turned up was written by the American author and playwright Herb Greer in the National Review in 1998: “Tynan’s awful political sciolism sparks out now and again, but not offensively”.

Store it in the back of your mind—you never know when it might come in handy, simultaneously showing your own word power and your opinion of your opponent. By the time he has found a sufficiently large dictionary to discover you’ve insulted him, you can be well away.

TonyWalsham said:
Verrrrry interesting Mein herr.

The LSC Sciolists are always trying to attract attention.
Usually by just being Sciolists.

Go for it fellas.


HOWEVER IN THIS AREA I DO KNOW WHAT I’M TALKING ABOUT!

I’ve served the US of A in DOD for 30 years in Uniform (22 years) and as a DOD Civilian (for the last 8 years).

The Lone Railroader said:
TonyWalsham said:
Andre' you do know what Sciolist means?

It doesn’t mean Fascist.


SCIOLIST
A superficial pretender to knowledge.

Here I am, 60 years old, and that’s the first time I’ve come across that word :smiley: (and I did survive several years of Latin, nor am I unacquainted with English). Marvellous are the ways of providence and large scale sites.
I must drink more deeply of the Pierian spring.

Tony,

My comment was directed towards your chosen use of German wordage not “Sciolist”. Since neither you, Mike or the author are German I read it as a reference to Fascism. I apologize if I read something into it you had not intended.

Andre’

Personally I think this Kerry hunting is all just a bunch of political BS, thirty years later and Vietnam is still being fought. Dont get too ticked, I guess I’m just too young to “get it” about what happened and as such likely never will.

Just so we can remain “fair and balanced”…here’s a little story just to show that “loyalty” is still relative.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20061127/cm_usatoday/neoconsabandoniraqwaratwhitehousefrontdoor

Like the article says “victory has a thousand fathers, where failure is an orphan”

Coupla things to point out…

We didn’t “dis-band” the Iraqi Army, they did that themselves by dropping their uniforms and donning civvies… By the time Bagdad was liberated, there was no Iraqi Army left to disband.

While the death of one of my brothers diminishes me, 3000 KIA is less than D-Day on Iwo Jima, Peliliu, Okinawa, Tarawa or Omaha Beach. Put in perspective, it is a very small “Butcher’s Bill.”

Had the 4th ID been able to jump off from Turkey as planned, I think things would have been a whole lot different.

We won the war. We are having to fight the insurgency with one hand tied behind our backs because of the weak sisters who are afraid we might offend someone. Excuse me? If the politicians (read Democrats) would allow our guys to do what they are trained to do, this would have been over a long time ago. Unfortunately, they are more interested in loosing this fight as a way of scoring political points to “get back at Bush.”

Jon Carry smeared a lot of guys, myself included, with his comments over the years. It is about time he got his head handed to him.

The reason the Iraqis are not standing up is that they are convinced that we will pull out and abandon them just as we did in 1991. The Democrat controlled congress was made up of cowards then and the same guys just took over again. No wonder the Iraqis are hedging their bets. The Democrats have a history dating back to the Civil War of not wanting to win a war. Not winning wars is a sure way to ensure that you will have to fight them again. Those idiots never learn. Even Truman, after making the hard decision to end the war and save millions of lives by dropping two bombs, clutched in Korea five or six years later when he fired MacArthur for “insubordination.” I would probably have been insubordinate too if faced with that kind of “lets not try to win this and maybe we can be friends” attitude. Fifty-three years later we still have Korea problem. Thanks, Harry.

Sorry if I’ve gored anyoues sacred cow, but those are the facts as I see them.

madwolf

Steve rant away!

Thats what this part of the forum is about, right? Discussion?

Not going to go into the ongoing Kerry issue. I’ll let the courts decide that issue.

Democrates not winning wars? Hmmmm… the ghost of FDR and Trumann might have something about that…and I’m sure glad JFK had the smarts to know how to play nuclear chess with the Soviets over Cuba instead of “shooting first and asking questions later” if anyone would have been left later. Also wasnt it JFK and later LBJ (both Dems) who kept trying to do what they could in their power to win in Vietnam and the Nixon administration who ultimately bailed there?

As for Iraq…Actually we did disband their army along with their government as part of the de-baathification doctrine, right after the interim US governing council was established…Paul Bremmer himself issued it. The insurgency started almost overnight. Its now looked at as one of the biggest mistakes of the war by dismantling what existing systems of government control that was there.

Personally I feel the Iraqi army hasnt “stood up” because their are elements in their government just waiting for us to leave. Shi-ite elements want to align themselves closer to Iranian Shi-ites, while the Suni’s want to reestablish the Baath party system. Most of the “insurgency” is Suni Baathists, using fundementalist elements as tools where they can, to disrupt the US mission in hopes of regaining power after we leave. Al Quieda is still waiting too, doing what harm they can, hoping to create a new Teliban in our wake, but their numbers are still small compared to the greater elements of the Baath party and the Iranian elements and will likely be rather quickley eliminated after we go.

Once we go, and for good or bad I do feel it will be before or shortly after the end of this administration, that the proverbial shi-ite will hit the fan, with a full blown three way civil war between the fundamentalist, the shi-ites, and the sunis for ultimate control of the country. This isnt going to be like Vietnam or Algiers, where once the “foriegners” left, things calmed down rather quickly. Far too much hatred there between the shi-ites and the sunis for that.

As I said elsewhere, Saddam was a devil, but he was a devil that could keep the monster in its cage.

Anyway just my 2 cents, and thats all that its worth…

Oh , I don’t know , Victor , your point of view has some merit to it . The tribal system in the middle east has a long history of being a bit warlike .
As you correctly say , Saddam kept them in check , BUT . Who knows how far he would have gone with his WMD which for political reasons suddenly couldn’t be found ?. Of course he had them , he killed enough of his own people with them . He used them against the Iranians , and I have a pretty good idea why he didn’t use them against the coalition troops .That is why we should keep our Nuclear deterrents-----they deter .
Mike

Mike I read that the UN eventually concluded that Saddam destroyed all his chem weapons shortly after the 1st Gulf War but continued to lead on the UN and the west that he still had them as to keep his neighbors on edge and out of Iraq. When we went in they had already been long gone, thats why we couldnt find them, he managed to bluff a big chunk of the world, wouldnt want to play poker with a guy like that.

Yes , Victor , poker’s a mug’s game with people like that .
Mike

If Ronald Reagan had not armed the Mujihadeen in Afghanistan with the aim of defeating the Russians, who were only doing what the West is now having to do, the Taliban would likely never have evolved in that country.

You must also remember that Saddam Hussein was condoned by all of the West when he came to power in the 60’s and then actively courted by all of the West with weapons support against Iran in that 8 year war, even though they knew then what a murderous AH he really was.
I have seen the newsreel footage of Donald Rumsfield being warmly greeted by Saddam during an official visit by DR to Iraq, so don’t tell me that administration is innocent of arming Iraq.

There is absolutely no chance of bringing democracy to Islam as long as the radical Islamic clerics continue to treat women the way they do.
Probably the smartest thing to do would be to quit Iraq asap and let the Sunnis and Shiites shoot it out between each other and hope that in the process they manage to wipe out a few million of the muslim scourge.

Vic,

Roosevelt was an anomoly. Truman lost his nerve after winning the war in Big 2 and then loosing the peace. Stalin was just a tad bit smarter, or cagier. Truman choked in Korea, didn’t fight to win. JFK was going to pull the troops out of Viet Nam, a move I would have supported, but a motorcade in Dallas intervened. Johnson did not fight to win. Hell, we could have walked all over North Viet Nam in 2 weeks, tops, if the go signal had been given, but LBJ didn’t have the stomach for it. Nixon pulled us out as by then that was the only move the country would have supported.

I had misgivings about going into Iraq. It probably would have been better to cozy up to Saddam and turn him loose on Iran. Not enough to win, just enough to bleed Iran into impotence.

Water over the bridge, now.

Maybe I sould get a job at the State Dept.

SteveF

Steve Featherkile said:
Vic,

SNIP
I had misgivings about going into Iraq. It probably would have been better to cozy up to Saddam and turn him loose on Iran. Not enough to win, just enough to bleed Iran into impotence.

SNIP
SteveF


I think we can agree on that.
Just change it slightly to read …“keep on cozying up to Saddam”…

Oh! …and by the way, why not try Saddam in a full open International court for all the crimes he allegedly committed. Not just the select crimes where no real scrutiny of his involvement with the West is likely to come out.

My heart goes out to all the servicemen and women of the participating nations in the coalition of the willing side who have died needlessly, as a walk out from Iraq will surely happen.

Editing notes. I had written the last sentence incorrectly and left out women.

Now that is really weird.

Both the last posts that Steve and I put up do not appear as part of the thread but they do appear before me as I make this follow up reply.

The sad thing is that tyrants are right. Democracies do not have the stomach for extended war.

Osama knows this, so does Achmino-wack-job.

Up to a point.

The trouble is, each time it takes an even greater atrocity to “Awaken a sleeping giant,” as Admiral Yamamoto put it.

What saddens me is that some, not all, politicians of the “Loyal Opposition,” want to enhance their careers at the expense of our nation’s security. Set aside the tired arguement about WMD. Saddam had them, or was able to bluff the world’s intelligence services into believing he did. In either case, WMD was only one of several reasons put forth for going in. In a time of war, everybody in the country needs to get behind the National Command Authority to successfully prosecute the war, if only to minimize the casualties.

Does that mean that dissent is not allowed? Of course not, but it needs to be done responsibly, and not to enhance the politician’s chances in the next elections, or even more crass, to get a sound-bite on CBS/ABC/NBC/CNN/FOX/PMSNBC. I think that in Congress, dissent sould be done behind closed doors untill something of a consences is reached. (Not a perfect idea, needs work.) News services should act responsibly and not lead with the latest protest demonstration as if that was all that happened today.

Eventually, one of these terror cells will score, many people will die, and the giant will be awakened. The phrase, “Don’t you know there is a war on?” will be ressurected, and the nation will put itself on a war footing and go forth and do the necessary job. Many more people will die. All because we didn’t have the stomach to do it this time.

So, Osama and “Wack-job,” you may win this battle, but you will loose the war. Count on it.

And, you politicians who wanted the sound-bite at the expence of my brothers, shame on you. History wil judge you harshly.

madwolf