Talk:Criticism of the Winter Soldier Investigation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 anon's edits 2 anon wrote: does he qualify as a 'Historian'? 3 More on Lewy 4 On the "alleged" report

[edit] anon's edits

TDC, Not that it is worth much, but I have to agree with most of Anon's edits. If this information is not in the book, it should not be embelished by wikipedians.

That said, I am concerned that anon is nitpiking criticism out of existence, as TDC has repeatedly attempted to nitpick the entire article out of existence.

Again, at this point because both of your continual stubborness and unwillingness to play nice with others (I guess you both missed that day in kindergarden) it is now, ultimately, up to the arbitors to decide. Travb 15:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Hey, I had a perfectly acceptable compromise version of the article that I thought was a giant leap forewords in NPOV, balance and accuracy, don’t give me that shit of "repeatedly attempted to nitpick the entire article out of existence". TDC 15:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I have to agree with most of Anon's edits

Thanks, but can you please list the edits with which you disagree so that they can be discussed? If I've made a poor edit (wouldn't be the first time), it would be helpful if you'd point it out so it could be corrected.

If this information is not in the book, it should not be embelished by wikipedians.

Beautifully said! That is exactly why I moved TDC's additions from the article to the talk page for further review. That is also why I removed those very same additions after you tried to re-insert them into the article. Facts are fine; quotes are fine; but those few paragraphs contained just too many embellishments and too many unsupported conclusions. For weeks you have been accusing me of "keeping information critical of WSI out of the article because it doesn't fit my ideology." I apologize that you got that impression. I'm glad we are finally on the same page as to why it was really kept out.

I am concerned that anon is nitpiking criticism out of existence

Don't be. I nitpick errors, embellishments and unsupported conclusions out of existence. I leave criticism and negative information about WSI in the article if it is well sourced and accurate. For example, the article has content about Pitkin's lame attempt to politically slander the WSI and Kerry. The article has content about Lewy's claims that there was an NIS investigation that discredited several WSI participants; that one of the participants had assistance in testimony prep, etc. The article has content that the WSI didn't get squat for publicity, despite their best attempts. Criticisms are fine. False info is not fine. THAT is my ideology. 165.247.204.80 22:43, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

That is an ideology with which I agree too ! --EECEE 00:31, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

The accuracy of the material in which you question is your opinion. As long as the material is sourced, relevant and from someone notable on the subject it meets the criteria for inclusion. TDC 18:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Facts and accuracy are nobody's opinion. They either exist or they don't, and if the facts and accuracy are missing, then out goes the material. 165.247.213.227 23:00, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

As much as you might like to believe otherwise, you are not the final arbiter of what is and is not a fact. After all, some thing you consider facts, like the application of the Cooper Church Amendment, were clearly shown to be 100% wrong. TDC 23:21, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Facts and accuracy are nobody's opinion. They either exist or they don't, and if the facts and accuracy are missing, then out goes the material. As for Cooper-Church and something being 100% wrong, could you refresh my memory? I checked the WSI talk page ... nothing. 165.247.213.227 23:39, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

TDC has weird ideas about this sort of thing. He seems to be in the minority in his judgement on this, as I agree with his detractors as well. Ruy Lopez 22:22, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] anon wrote: does he qualify as a 'Historian'?

Yes albiet a disgusting one which I strongly disagree with. Click here for the page I made: Guenter Lewy Travb 02:19, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

"Thanks, but can you please list the edits with which you disagree so that they can be discussed?"

As mentioned before, i know little about this subject, and I am quite frankly not very interested in the subject.

That said, it just seems obvious if it is not in the book, it shouldn't be on wikipedia. I dont need to be an expert on the subject to know this.

As mentioned before, you and TDC use the same tactics. TDC attempted to nitpick one of your articles, and I felt it was a bad idea. I feel the same way about your heavy-handed tactics. Travb 02:19, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] More on Lewy

TDC wrote in his edit summary that including the facts that no govt agency could find the alleged report, that no historian had ever seen it, and that GL himself can't remember seeing it - as reported by more than one legitmate news source - is somehow "skirting the idea that he falsified the information, a very serious charge that no one else has made." Sorry, I don't see how reporting these FACTS is making a charge, but if it is implied then it is definitely not the doing of any poster here. It is the doing of those quoted individuals and news sources who have pointed out these FACTS. Lewy's disclaimer that he believes the info to be accurate anyway is simply his opinion, and does nothing to change the FACTS, including the fact that he can't remember if he even saw the report. --EECEE 22:00, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

The inclusion that no governmental agency can find the report without including Lewy's assertion that the information is accurate most certainly leads a reader to believe that Lewy invented the source. And FYI, my own request for the report from the National Archives found that although they did not know where the report was, apparently it had been removed and not returned, there was a record of it in their files. But hey, if you don’t believe me, and I doubt you do, go to the archives yourself and verify this. TDC 22:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

It is still his opinion only, and doesn't change the FACT that he can't even be positive the report exists as he doesn't recall seeing it. Shall we include attributions to all the WSI participants who have since said that their own testimony was accurate? --EECEE 22:50, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

And that would be who exactly, besides the main ones? And if we are to do that, lets not forget one of the biggest names of WSI, John Kerry:

Biggest name of WSI? Hardly. He didn't testify, and mostly sat against the back wall and observed and took notes -- although he did step forward to ask a couple questions as a moderator once. Seen the film footage of the event yet? As for his statement below, unless he names names, his assertion below is just as questionable as those of Lewy (who also curiously omitted citing names when speaking of the WSI, though the rest of his book is filled with the full names of veterans). It seems likely Mr. Nuance tossed out the "Sure they have, Tim" comment just to move the discussion along, so Tim wouldn't dwell. 165.247.213.227 03:03, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

SEN. KERRY: A lot of those stories have been documented. Have some been discredited? Sure, they have, Tim. The problem is that's not where the focus should have been. TDC 22:55, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Yep, every participant who gave testimony that has not been verified by third parties and who can't remember if he actually saw something or was just told about it, but who says, "I am confident the information is accurate."

--EECEE 23:00, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

something tells me that Lewy, respect author of dozens of works and professor, has a tiny bit more credibility than the VVAW. TDC 23:19, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Something tells me that is a POV. --EECEE 23:21, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

So, at least I attribute and cite mine. TDC 23:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

??????? --EECEE 23:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I state that Lewy claims the NIS report said such and such, I dont allow some tripe from the Village Voice to go uncited. TDC 23:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, maybe we should edit to say that historian and writer Nicholas Turse says such and such. Or that he claims the military archives and formerly classified Army records said such and such. --EECEE 23:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Tried and reverted. TDC 23:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure it was totally NPOV. --EECEE 23:39, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Go look for yourself: [1] TDC 23:50, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Well I see that a LOT more than your Nicholas Turse reference was edited out, for reasons that have apparently been discussed elsewhere in depth by the editor(s?). I don't have a problem with attributing the information to Nicholas Turse, but it is incorrect to say he is "of the Village Voice." He is an historian and writer whose article appeared in that publication. --EECEE 23:55, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Turse is hardly a historian he is a doctoral candidate at the Center for the History and Ethics of Public Health at Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health and a regular contributor to the Nation Institute's. He writes polemics for left wing journals. TDC 00:04, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

"his·to·ri·an n.

A writer, student, or scholar of history. One who writes or compiles a chronological record of events; a chronicler.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

historian

n : a person who is an authority on history and who studies it and writes about it [syn: historiographer]

Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University"

Assuming Turse is still a PhD candidate, his area of expertise certainly seems to qualify him as an historian under the common definition of the term. At least to the same degree that Mr. Lewy, who evidently is a poli sci guy, qualifies. But as Lewy is simply described as a "writer" in the article, I don't see any reason why Turse couldn't be similarly described. However, he is not a writer for the Village Voice. --EECEE 00:16, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

To 165.247.204.80 - Thanks for catching my incomplete edit in the article.--EECEE 23:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] On the "alleged" report

Since no one has independently verified Lewy's report we label it as "alleged". But since the "war crime" spoke of at WSI have also not been independently verified, despite anon's best attempt to spin his wheels about it, why are these not considered "alleged"? -(unsigned edit made by) TDC 23:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

The charges of indiscriminate bombing were indeed verified. The charges of forceably relocating civilians has been independantly verified. The charges of racism in the armed forces has been independantly verified, and even resulted in major policy changes. The charges of ground troop combat in neutral countries in violation of Cooper-Church Amendment, and in violation of international law before that amendment, have been independently verified. That covers more than half the testimony right there. Your wheels don't spin? 165.247.213.227 01:54, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Even Lewy admits, "Incidents similar to some of those described at the VVAW hearing undoubtedly did occur. We know that hamlets were destroyed, prisoners tortured, and corpses mutilated." Lewy just didn't believe such events were as common as the honorably discharged veterans were describing. Can't say I blame Lewy -- it's not something one would easily be comfortable accepting, and the natural inclination would be to rationalize and minimize. 165.247.213.227 08:36, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

So nice of you to, once again, cherry pick from Lewy what suits your tastes, but a full reading of the passage is more appropriate:

Incidents similar to some of those described at the VVAW hearing undoubtedly did occur. We know that hamlets were destroyed, prisoners tortured, and corpses mutilated. Yet these incidents either (as in the destruction of hamlets) did not violate the law of war or took place in breach of existing regulations. In either case, they were not, as alleged, part of a "criminal policy." The VVAW's use of fake witnesses and the failure to cooperate with military authorities and to provide crucial details of the incidents further cast serious doubt on the professed desire to serve the causes of justice and humanity. It is more likely that this inquiry, like others earlier and later, had primarily political motives and goals.

Back to my main point though; not one specific allegation made at Winter Soldier has been subsequently verified as having come from someone who was demonstrably present at the specific known war crime in order to witness same, and are therefore possessed of the minimal credibility to make such claims. So far, you have not shown that a real war crime actually occurred as claimed by the individual who claimed it , and you have failed to show that the WSI person making the claim was actually present to witness same. Of the 100+ participants at winter soldier, how many of their specific claims have been proven?

To date, you have not been able to provide me with one solid reference, that is outside of unnamed “military archives”, that show the specific allegations made at WSI, were indeed verified. The best you can do is a second hand source that states that the CID found that many claims "merited further inquiry." And where is the rest? If the claims "merited further inquiry", and an inquiry was indeed performed, where are the results of this? Certainly had the CID substantiated any of them, it would have been included in your source. TDC 17:41, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

So nice of you to, once again, cherry-pick from a quote. A full reading of the passage is more appropriate:

Another organization active in airing charges of American atrocities in Vietnam was the Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW), which was founded in 1967; by 1970 it was said to have 600 members. From 31 January to 2 February 1971, the VVAW, with financial backing from actress Janes Fonda, convened a hearing, known as the Winter Soldier Investigation, in the city of Detroit. More than 100 veterans and 16 civilians testified at this hearing about "war crimes which they either committed or witnessed"; some of them had given similar testimony at the CCI inquiry in Washington. The allegations included using prisoners for target practice and subjecting them to a variety of grisly tortures to extract information, cutting off the ears of dead VCs, throwing VC suspects out of helicopters, burning villages, gang rapes of women, packing the vagina of a North Vietnamese nurse full of grease with a grease gun, and the like. Among the persons assisting the VVAW in organizing and preparing this hearing was Mark Lane, author of a book attacking the Warren Commission probe of the Kennedy Assassination and more recently of "Conversations with Americans", a book of interviews with Vietnam veterans about war crimes. On 22 December 1970 Lane's book had received a highly critical review in the "New York Times Book Review" by Neil Sheehan, who was able to show that some of the alleged "witnesses" of Lane's war crimes had never even served in Vietnam while others had not been in the combat situations they described in horrid detail. Writing in the "Saturday Review" a few days later, James Reston, Jr., called "Conversations with Americans" "a hodgepodge of hearsay" which ignored "a soldiers talent for embellishment" and a "disreputable book." To prevent the Detroit hearing from being tainted by such irregularities, all of the veterans testifying fully identified the units in which they had served and provided geographical descriptions of where the alleged atrocities had taken place. Yet the appearance of exactitude was deceptive. Sen. Mark O. Hatfield of Oregon was impressed by the charges made by the veterans and inserted the transcript of the Detroit hearing into the "Congressional Record." Furthermore, he asked the commandant of the Marine Corps to investigate the numerous allegations of wrongdoing made against the Marine in particular. The results of this investigation, carried out by the Naval Investigative Service, are interesting and revealing.

Many of the veterans, though assured that they would not be questioned about atrocities they might have committed personally, refused to be interviewed. One of the active members of the VVAW told investigators that the leadership had directed the entire membership not to cooperate with military authorities. A black Marine who agreed to be interviewed was unable to provide details of the outrages he had described at the hearing, but he called the Vietnam War "one huge atrocity" and "a racist plot." He admitted that the question of atrocities had not occurred to him while he was in Vietnam, and that he had been assisted in the preparation of his testimony by a member of the Nation of Islam. But the most damaging finding consisted of the sworn statements of several veterans, corroborated by witnesses, that they had in fact not attended the hearing in Detroit. One of them had never been to Detroit in all his life. He did not know, he stated, who might have used his name. Incidents similar to some of those described at the VVAW hearing undoubtedly did occur. We know that hamlets were destroyed, prisoners tortured, and corpses mutilated. Yet these incidents either (as in the destruction of hamlets) did not violate the law of war or took place in breach of existing regulations. In either case, they were not, as alleged, part of a "criminal policy." The VVAW's use of fake witnesses and the failure to cooperate with military authorities and to provide crucial details of the incidents further cast serious doubt on the professed desire to serve the causes of justice and humanity. It is more likely that this inquiry, like others earlier and later, had primarily political motives and goals.

In April 1971 several members of Congress provided a platform on Capitol Hill for the airing of atrocity allegations. Rep. Ronald V. Dellums of California chaired an ad hoc hearing which lasted four days and took testimony from Vietnam veterans. Some of the witnesses were old-timers. One Peter Norman Martinson had testified before the Russel tribunal, been an interviewee in Mark Lane's book, and appeared before the CCI inquiry. Some new witnesses sounded as if they had memorized North Vietnamese propaganda. Capt. Randy Floyd, a former marine pilot, ended his testimony by telling the committee that he was ashamed to have been "an unwitting pawn of my government's inhuman imperialistic policy in Southeast Asia. . . . And I am revolted by my government which commits genocide because it is good business." For his testimony Floyd drew the praise of Congressman Dellums: "I would like to thank you very much for the courage of your testimony and the preparation and details. We are deeply appreciative of the fact that you came forward today." The testimony of some other witnesses was more judicious. When Capt. Fred Laughlin, a West Point graduate, was asked by Rep. Patsy T. Mink of Hawaii about the "mere-gook" rule, he replied that the attitude of American servicemen toward the Vietnamese varied from unit to unit. Some had a bad attitude, but "I felt that most of my unit considered the Vietnamese human." Rep. John F. Seiberling of Ohio wanted to know to what extent Laughlin felt qualified to generalize about incidents of mistreatment, and the captain answered: "I certainly don't feel qualified in generalizing. . . . I hope, as you point out, that we do in this exercise get down to the facts, not be guilty of generalizing. . . ."

The detailed facts of particular incidents were not of any great concern to Kenneth B. Osborn, who testified before the House Government Operations Committee in the summer of 1971. The former intelligence officer had told the CCI inquiry of an incident in which a VC suspect had been pushed out of a helicopter in order to scare other detainees into talking. Asked for the name of the marine officer who had given this order, Osborn declined: "In all due respect, I do recall his name, but I am not willing to go into that. You can see that is irrelevant. In fact, the form of the thing is what we are talking about."

As for your main point, yes many were. Just see above. 165.247.204.50 00:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)