>It was Vietnam Veterans' own testimonies that let Americans know that
>My Lai was _not_ an isolated incident _at all_. Here's the website
>of Winter Soldier Investigation
>
>mbs: But if this is so, what does it mean to crucify
>Lt. William Calley, or Col. Colin Powell? Are these
>the real faces behind the atrocities?
I personally wouldn't focus on Lt. Calley. Remember that I wrote a post titled "My Lai -- Not an Aberration"? (The post in question is found at <http://nuance.dhs.org/lbo-talk/0002/0639.html>.) I'd emphasize that My Lai was one of many such incidents -- eloquently documented by "Winter Soldier Investigation" and the like -- because "[l]arge areas of South Vietnam were declared 'free fire zones,' which meant that all persons remaining within them -- civilians, old people, children -- were considered an enemy, and bombs were dropped at will. Villages suspected of harboring Viet Cong were subject to 'search and destroy' missions..." (Howard Zinn, _A People's History of the United States_, NY: HarperPerennial, 1980, p. 468). Besides, Lt. Calley was singled out & punished (if perhaps too lightly, given the nature of his war crimes) while nearly everyone else went scot-free, unpunished for any violation of the Geneva Conventions, the Nuremberg Charter, & other relevant rules of war.
Col. Colin Powell, however, is another matter. His misdeeds (like most Americans', civilian or uniformed, high or low) during the Vietnam War went _not only_ unpunished but he _climbed_ the ladder of military & political hierarchy, becoming a general & now Secretary of State. His culpability -- _as the highest ranking military officer, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff_ -- of course was much greater during the Gulf War than the Vietnam War.
***** ...Article 6 of the Charter of the Nuremberg International Military Tribunal established the legal basis for trying individuals accused of the following acts:
- Crimes against peace: the planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties [17], agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing.
- War crimes: violations of the laws and customs of war. A list follows with, inter alia, murder, ill-treatment or deportation into slave labour or for any other purpose of the civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, the killing of hostages, the plunder of public or private property, the wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.
- Crimes against humanity: murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhuman acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated [18].
As far as jurisdiction ratione personae is concerned, it covered "leaders, organisers, instigators and accomplices" who had taken part in the formulation or execution of a common plan or conspiracy to commit any of those crimes: all of them were considered for "all acts performed by any persons in the execution of such plan"....
(Edoardo Greppi, "The evolution of individual criminal responsibility under international law," _International Review of the Red Cross_ 835 [30 September 1999], p. 531-553, at <http://www.icrc.org/icrceng.nsf/4dc394db5b54f3fa4125673900241f2f/93843d76cfd2c6574125681c003dba09?OpenDocument>) *****
In other words, the concept of individual criminal responsibility has become established, at the very least since the Second World War. Keep in mind that it is the Allied Powers at the Nuremberg & Tokyo International Tribunals that set up the legal principles Greppi mentions above _for their convenience_. In the Vietnam War, the American Empire, for once, lost. Why not apply "Victor's Justice" to it _at least in the minds of the Vietnamese & American leftists_, as it has & will to others? If American servicemen & veterans are not happy about the Nuremberg Charter, let them think & argue _why_. Are they not happy _only_ when it might apply to them -- a case of _special pleading_+? Or do they have the courage to say that "Victor's Justice" is bunk?
Yoshie
+ Special Pleading is a fallacy in which a person applies standards, principles, rules, etc. to others while taking herself (or those she has a special interest in) to be exempt, without providing adequate justification for the exemption. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:
1. Person A accepts standard(s) S and applies them to others in circumtance(s) C. 2. Person A is in circumstance(s) C. 3. Therefore A is exempt from S.
The person committing Special Pleading is claiming that he is exempt from certain principles or standards yet he provides no good reason for his exemption..... <http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/special-pleading.html>
P.S. Minor typos corrected -- an apology for the repeat posting.