Talk:Winter Soldier Investigation/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

1 First entry in this Talk page
2 Related links
- 2.1 Winter Soldier (film)
3 July 2004 Protection
- 3.1 Talk: Disputed allegation of phonies in the Winter Soldier Investigation
- 3.2 Quick addition by Rob
- 3.3 C. Alan Hopewell on Jim Weber's Testimony
4 Winter Soldier Investigation - Participants and Relationships
- 4.1 Well known
- 4.2 Lesser known
- 4.3 People without apparent involvement in WSI
  - 4.3.1 Gaetano Puglisi
- 4.4 References
  - 4.4.1 David Cline
  - 4.4.2 Nancy Saunders
5 Winter Soldier Investigation verification processes
6 Related Source Information
7 NPOV September-October 2004
- 7.1 WSI Steering committee
- 7.2 Al Hubbard references
- 7.3 WSI Problems
  - 7.3.1 Steve Pitkin references
- 7.4 Stuff that just vanished
- 7.5 American and allied war crimes
- 7.6 Inconsistent press coverage
- 7.7 Multiple edits by anonymous editors
- 7.8 Exerpted Testimony From Veterans
8 WSI Support
- 8.1 Confirmation or Duplication?
  - 8.1.1 John Beitzel messages
    - 8.1.1.1 Online messages
9 Copyright infringement Ensign_War_crimes.html
10 Kerry swore to committing war crimes?
11 .50-caliber question
12 Tiger Force relevance
13 On which occasion was Pitkin lying?
14 Disputed
- 14.1 Excerpted testimony from veterans
15 Disputed, continuation
- 15.1 Accuracy dispute procedures
16 Folks, this isn't working
- 16.1 Copyright violation
- 16.2 Present vs History
- 16.3 Sandbox, again
- 16.4 NPOV is a starting point
  - 16.4.1 Verification of participants' credibility
17 3.3 C. Alan Hopewell on Jim Weber's Testimony--Summary
18 October 2004 protection
19 Reasoning behind TDC's deletions
20 Ed Poor's Additions
21 Motives, Intents and Objectives

First entry in this Talk page

In fact, some of the claims of systematic military atrocities made outside of the "Winter Soldier Investigation" can't be confirmed, and some of the participants of other inquiries are alleged to be frauds. To date, none of the actual Winter Soldier Testimonies have been refuted.

From "America in Vietnam" by Guenter Lewy, pp.317:

"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."

July 2004 Protection

The page was protected for a time period during the 2004 Democratic National Convention. (Relevant comments found in User talk:SEWilco moved here.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Protected_page#Pages_protected_due_to_edit_wars_or_vandalism : "Info being deleted and meanings reversed by multiple anonymous editors."

The temporary protection was mainly needed to reduce the amount of chaff being generated this election season. John Kerry's recent presidential campaign has drawn attention to his past activities. Emotional editing should lessen in a few months, after the big Boston TV party, the NYC TV party and scheduled debates end. -Rob (14:15, 8 Aug 2004 165.247.222.82)

The temporary protection was mainly needed to reduce the amount of chaff being generated this week. John Kerry's recent military campaign has drawn attention to his past activities. Emotional editing should lessen in a few days now that the big Boston TV party has ended. -- (SEWilco 14:25, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC))

Could you characterize the nature of the changes needing protection? What meaning has been reversed? Thanks! Cecropia | Talk 17:05, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

See my history comments during past two weeks for summary of changes. -- (SEWilco 04:39, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC))

This has been protected for quite a long time, so I'm going to give it a chance to be edited again. Please keep it civil and try to either reach consensus or agree to disagree. Snowspinner 13:56, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)

Talk: Disputed allegation of phonies in the Winter Soldier Investigation

As one of the 'anonymous' editors Winter Soldier Investigation, perhaps I can shed a little light on the recent edit issues. Of particular interest to me was SEWilco's inclusion of a whole page of names of "phonies" - people that had, in various ways, lied about aspects of their Vietnam War involvement. SEWilco cites 2 books (Stolen Valor and America in Vietnam - copies of which I have sitting before me) as the source of these names and fabrications. While I don't dispute the existence of the fabrications, they have nothing to do with Winter Soldier.

Not a single "phony" mentioned gave testimony at Winter Soldier - a fact that is easily verifiable by doing a search for the names in the congressional record of the testimonies (see the link to testimonies on the Winter Soldier Investigation page). However, SEWilco not only listed phonies, but falsely implied they were involved with Winter Soldier through headers like: "Phony Vietnam Vets around Winter Soldier."

Since SEWilco seemed persistant about re-inserting Vietnam Vet Phonies in one way or another, I stopped editing out a sample handful of names, and instead inserted text to make clear that those named 'phonies' had nothing to do with Winter Soldier. (I still feel their inclusion under this topic is inappropriate and misleading.) Note: I left mentions of Hubbard and Lane intact, since they were involved in the organization of Winter Soldier - though they too did not testify in it. -Rob

Regarding the fabrication by Hubbard:

From historian and author of Home to War: A History of the Vietnam Veteran's Movement, Gerald Nicosia: "Although Mr. Burkett has certainly done some good work outing fake vets, he ignores one critical factor -- that service people doing covert missions, such as rangers going across the border in Laos, into North Vietnam, etc., never had those actions put into their records. Al Hubbard was on similar covert missions, flying in a supply plane to the French when they were fighting the Viet Minh in the fifties. It doesn't surprise me that those flights were not in his record. He did lie about being an officer, when he was a career sergeant, because the press kept paying more attention to his co-leader John Kerry, a decorated officer. Also, Hubbard never claimed to have been wounded in combat; his back was hurt when his plane crashed on a runway. When I interviewed him in 1992, he was on medical disability from the Air Force."

It was also noted about the reporter that first publicized Hubbards embellishment: "Overend wrote that the Defense Department did allow for the possibility that Hubbard had been in Vietnam for short periods loading and unloading cargo planes." I have edited the entry on the article page. -Rob

Overend also noted that claims that he had served for two years in Vietnam and been wounded there were not justified. His injuries are also discussed. --(SEWilco 19:38, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC))

Please provide a link to substantiation that Hubbard claimed, in his own words, that he served for two years in Vietnam, and whatever claims he made as to where and when he was wounded. If he merely said he served in the Vietnam war (which he did) and got wounded during the Vietnam war (which he did) then there really isn't a case here. Removing those assertions from article until substantiated. -Rob

Still waiting for this substantiation. -Rob

I listed identified phonies related to WS. Lane's previous collection of phony veterans seems relevant to his VVAW job of collecting similar people. The summary of the military investigation did not specify which of the participants were identified as phony, so we don't have their false names -- has their report been found yet? Military investigators finding that some participants gave false names si quite relevant -- disputed edits said merely the impostors "had the same names", but investigators would have been able to confirm specific individuals because they actually identified themselves by name, age, hometown, rank, role, and unit. -- (SEWilco 04:39, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC))

"I listed identified phonies related to WS."

Please list how each is "related" to Winter Soldier, specifically. You will not be able to, because there is no relationship. The names that were deleted have nothing to do with Winter Soldier. The remaining 4 names that were not deleted also have nothing to do with Winter Soldier Testimony - but I left those as a representative example that phonies did indeed exist in those years. (Though why you insist on injecting that information under the irrelevant topic of Winter Soldier evades me. Well, actually, I know damn well why it was done...)

I believe I inserted those with a relationship. Scot?

SEWilco - We're still waiting for the relationships to Winter Soldier. Still avoiding this?

Busy with other relationships. While you're waiting can you add more details about the verification of records by Lane? Did he also verify the referenced German soldier? -- ((SEWilco?) 06:16, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC))

Surely you are not STILL too busy with other relationships to provide information on those veterans you alleged were phonies and related to WS? Still avoiding this? -Rob

Sure. "Mark Lane subsequently substantiated the veracity of his interviewees, but that isn't mentioned by Burkett..." [2] I have no clue what German soldier you speak about... -Rob

I already read the "substantiated the veracity" sentence, but repeating it does not "add more details". Schneider's father, the German soldier. In Vietnam, the commanding officer in Eleventh Cavalry Regiment. Read around the Fonda/Lane picture. -- (SEWilco 14:24, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC))

Doesn't seem to need "more details." It was clear enough to me. As for the German - did he give testimony at Winter Soldier Investigation? If so, give me the name and I'll look him up. If not, he (or she) probably isn't worth investigating, since we're dealing with the Winter Soldier Investigation here. -Rob

What are the details of the veracity verification of Michael Schneider? "Later on in Mr. Lane's book you will meet Michael Schneider. ... "Your father is a colonel in Vietnam?" Mr. Lane asks. "Right. Full colonel. Commanding officer in Eleventh Cavalry Regiment now." Schneider goes on to tell you that his father once worked for the notorious Nazi armor commander, Gen. Heinz Guderian." -- (SEWilco 03:43, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC))

As for the German - did he give testimony at Winter Soldier Investigation? If not, he (or she) probably isn't worth investigating, since we're dealing with Winter Soldier Investigation here. -Rob

I included the list from Lane but misattributed to Winter Soldier and I pointed out that common error. I left a summary of them so I wouldn't delete information, so it was clear what type of expertise was being used, and so it was clear which names were being referred to. (Note that I did not mention Levy's other activities, as they are not factually related and I haven't seen an authoritative study of his behavior.) -- (SEWilco 07:14, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC))

Some of those listed weren't even part of Mr. Lane's earlier research. Removed again. Might consider creating a seperate Wikipedia entry for Lane's earlier literary works and interviews to keep things straight. -Rob

"Lane's previous collection of phony veterans..." ...should be discussed under a Wikipedia entry aptly named for Lane's book, Conversations with Americans, and not introduced under the Winter Soldier entry. -Rob

Oh, good. Add a crossreference for more those needing more detail. --(SEWilco?)

Naww, you do it. I'm busy squelching propaganda.

As for the often cited Military Investigation, here are the facts: An investigation was requested by Senator Mark O. Hatfield, of the allegations specifically by or against the Marines - a small subset of those that testified. This much is a matter of public (congressional) record. Lewy, in his book, claims an investigation was done by Naval Investigative Service (page 317) and cites as his source: Office of the Director, Judge Advocate Division, Headquarters USMC, Winter Soldier Investigation files. Contacting them regarding this matter has revealed that such an investigation does not, and furthermore did not exist. Feel free to confirm this (they are quite helpful, but be prepared to be transfered a couple times):

Head, FOIA/PA Branch OJAG (Code 13) or (Code 15) 1322 Patterson Ave SE, Suite 3000 Washington Navy Yard, DC 20374-5066 (703) 604-8208

When Burkett (author of "Stolen Valor") was interviewed about the specifics of the Winter Soldier information, he said he was citing Lewy's book. When asked if he (Burkett) ever saw this investigation report, he said he hadn't, and he was unable to obtain a copy, so he relied on Lewy's information as accurate. -Rob

Thanks. Gee, now we can all ask the same person to not find the same thing. Too bad Senator Hatfield's archives are not public. (SEWilco)

Lewy does make a factual statement, however, on page 316: "Lane's book had received a highly critical 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 ... 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." Funny, that last part never seems to make it into citations of Lewy. Go figure. Lewy admits this prior to describing his questionable investigation report that doesn't seem to exist.

The VVAW said, and says, the same thing. http://www.vvaw.org/faq/#10 (SEWilco)

Final note before I toss the ball back in your court: Lane's job wasn't to "collect similar people." In fact, due to the controversy surrounding his prior book, he was kept quite seperate from that process. -Rob

Quick addition by Rob

Just a quick addition... As mentioned above, Burkett can't verify the existance of the Naval Investigation report - he says to see Lewy. Now, to add to the hilarity, it seems Lewy can't verify where this "Investigation Report" tripe comes from, either. See this article:

-- In an interview, Lewy termed the Winter Soldier project "completely unreliable and untrustworthy" and doubts that Vietnam War atrocities were officially condoned or as widespread as the Detroit testimony indicated.

Lewy said he does not recall if he saw a copy of the naval investigative report or was briefed on its contents. "I'm quite confident the information is authentic," he said. Paul O'Donnell, a spokesman for the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, said officials were searching for a copy of the report.

Bobby Muller, president of the Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation and a Marine Corps veteran of the war, worked with the Vietnam Veterans Against the War. He stands by the Winter Soldier project and was unaware of any investigation that called into question the truthfulness of the participants.

The rest of the article is here: http://www.bushcountry.org/news/feb_news_pages/n_022304_kerry_soldier_anti-war.htm

As a final note, you DID know that author Burkett and President Bush are co-chairmen of the Texas War Memorial, and long time drinkin' buddies, right? Not that this means anything, during this election season... -Rob

Regarding the 8/13 Deletion of info rv: What are you referring to as being deleted? Teresa Heinz Kerry? The IS/ISN'T chain which was obsoleted by the contradictory comments about the Weber film clip? The group of people which were moved (not deleted)? The brief and redundant Hopewell segment just above the more complete paragraph? -- (SEWilco 09:10, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC))
- I was referring to anything that was lost without comment during your previous rv, including some of the above listed items. It's not productive to delete large segments of text, without adequate explanation, that were not submitted by you. If you think a significant segment should be removed, perhaps you might try marking that segment for discussion. Portions of text that may seem extraneous to you might still be useful to others as notation, or to provide continuity. -Rob

C. Alan Hopewell on Jim Weber's Testimony

C. Alan Hopewell, former Chief of Psychology Service for the Mental Hygiene Clinic for Fort Jackson as well as Moncrief Army Hospital.

Summary

Jim Weber is a "scruffy, befuddled individual making a number of outrageous claims," according to C. Alan Hopewell, Ph.D, ABPP, former Chief of Psychology Service for the Mental Hygiene Clinic for Fort Jackson as well as Moncrief Army Hospital. Hopewell arrived at Fort Jackson a decade after Weber took basic training there.

He stated he had "never heard one single statement similar to those Mr. Weber claimed of his training" from working with hundreds or thousands of recruits, staff, and records.
In addition to working with much of the staff, Hopewell reviewed training files and programs going back years throughout the entire 1960's while engaged in some research projects on post and doesn't recall seeing anything officially documented that would incriminate the trainers. Not in training records, procedures, medical records, training cadre, mental health team, nor the Chaplains records was anything remotely resembling Weber's claims noted. [3]
Mr. Webers claims regarding his basic training consisted of: "my complete moral worth was completely destroyed. I mean I was a worthless human being. The worst thing that you can be in the military is to be called a civilian. And so they had to completely resocialize us, which they were very effective at doing." Hopewell indicates that he hasn't seen any evidence that new recruits were broken down and re-socialized as military rather than civilian people. -Rob
During another investigation of problems in training, a senior Army psychologist who had probably been at Ft. Jackson during the time Weber was there also found nothing that would be remotely consistent with Weber's statements. As an expert consultant and in his position as Chief of Psychology at BAMC, Hopewell also did some review of AIT procedures at Ft. Polk in 1982 due to claims of stress at Ft. Polk and Vietnam.
- - Rob prefers hiding these until substantiated, rather than their being visible for discussion.
    - (If the following comments make no sense, it means that once again a preceding phrase has been hidden.) -- (SEWilco 07:06, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC))
    - Unhidden. I said the source is Hopewell. -- (SEWilco 08:05, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC))
    - Fine. Substantiate it with a written source. (And before you suggest I call or email him, I mean with a source that ANY viewer of this article can easily verify at the time they read it.) Hidden again. -Rob
      - The source is the same summary of Hopewell which is being read. ANY viewer can see that Hopewell is being presented as an expert whose qualifications are apparent in the paragraph. Just as this section has Weber as the other source, one which ANY viewer of the article can learn about from this section. We can include links to Hopewell's current online info, which is easy enough to find. Include Weber's current online info so I can use a similar format. -- (SEWilco 07:06, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC))
        
        Reiterating: Substantiate it with a written source. The new Psych that 'probably was somewhere, and Hopewells time and position at Ft. Polk. Have him edit it in to original article, i.e; "the same summary of Hopewell" you mentioned. Thanks. -Rob
  - The previous statements are unsourced. Also, please clarify - Hopewell was AT Ft. Polk in 1982? I'll need dates, and official capacity, because we have severe contradiction here. Source the new mystery Army Psycho please. -Rob
Although his work as a psychologist was somewhat after Weber's time in training, Hopewell also experienced similar Army training during 1969-1970, so he had gone through very similar training personally and then reviewed the same training methods as a professional psychologist. -- (SEWilco)
- - 'Very similar' training? Then he, too, was taken in as a civilian and resocialized as a soldier? Do we have a location? -Rob
    - Yes, we have a location. Not that it matters, as WSI showed that the problems were endemic through the entire system and through all levels of command. :-) -- (SEWilco 07:06, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC))
      - Not all problems were systemic. Regardless, this goes to the credibility of your source, not the WSI issues. -Rob

- - - Source for previous statements is personal communication with Hopewell. No contradictions, other than with your lies that Hopewell told you otherwise. If you want confirmation, bother the Ft. Polk JAG about their 1982 cases. -- (SEWilco 15:37, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC))
      - Better idea: If you want inclusion, provide confirmation. If Hopewell is amending his article, then I am sure you can cite a source for the amended article. As it stands right now, you are adding people that might "probably" have been somewhere (Mystery Psycho), or passed through somewhere (Hopewell) when it proves convenient to a morphing article. Please cite verifiable sources, thanks. -Rob
        
        You stated you are in communication with Hopewell, so you can get confirmation from him. -- (SEWilco 03:30, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC))
        
        No, I stated I have private communication that refutes Hopewell. Should I ever try to include undocumented statements of his, I would certainly get documented confirmation from him. -Rob
        
        You said No, Hopewell says he was mistaken, and was never at Ft. Polk in any official capacity. -Rob. Prove it already. -- (SEWilco 08:05, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC))
        
        It's not my burden - I'm not the one trying to introduce hearsay from a tainted source. -Rob
        
        You're right. I'm the one trying to introduce hearsay from Weber. -- (SEWilco 07:06, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC))
        
        Touche', then it appears we should drop all Hopewell and Weber references, just to be fair. Oh ... wait just a minute ... Palossari just confirmed Webers hearsay. Now who is confirming Hopewells? -Rob

Rob asks Scot to prove Hopewell reviewed relevant files - Unresolved Questions

- I must have missed that - can you please provide a reference link? I see where he says he had "access" and "opportunity" to review files (which I automatically assumed because of his rank and position - it's expected), but he never specifically details which files, of those "available" to him, he reviewed. Maybe you can get him to "privately" elaborate a little as to what documents; what "a number of years" translates to; and what exact "program, procedure, or training protocol" did Weber mention, that might have caught his eye? -Rob
  - You're trying to quibble about information which is in Hopewell's article. -- (SEWilco 14:44, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC))
    - You say "quibble," I say "point out glaring inconsistencies and fabrications within your source article." Same thing, just a difference in our terminology, I guess. (Yours is much less cumbersome however, mind if I use it? Thanks.) My quibble still stands, please address it. While we're at it - in your opinion, would you say Hopewell is trying to quibble with Weber? -Rob

Rob points out Scot's source has alterior motives - Unresolved Questions

- Hopewell makes these claims more than 30 years after the described events, during discussions about presidential candidate, and former VVAW spokesperson, John Kerry. Hopewell said that while normally he would not worry about actions by a candidate more than 30 years earlier, "that kind of pattern just really can't be forgotten the way that most other things can be forgotten." -Rob
- What is Kerry's relevance to Weber's testimony? -- ((SEWilco) 20:35, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC))

Not relevant to Weber? I disagree. Hopewell, Weber and Kerry are all quite entwined in regards to Weber's testimony being disputed. We can elaborate on the connections, if you'd like - but we're certainly not going to pretend they don't exist. -Rob

- - Kerry's relevance to Weber's testimony? Perhaps you should do a google search, or hire an investigator. The real question is what is Kerry's relevance to Hopewell's propaganda piece that you cite as a source. Is that what you were asking? Just let me know. -Rob

Rob requests proof of Hopewells and Webers location and work - Unresolved Questions

- Needs proof that Hopewell was stationed at that base, and during what time. He also mentions one or more of his project studies was published - can we verify that? I have to question this since his veracity is in question due to gross fabrications he makes elsewhere in his letter. -Rob
  - While we're at it, can you please provide substantiation that Weber went to Fort Jackson? With Hopewells established track record of fabrication, I'd be willing to wager against him. The video and transcript both merely say he "went to South Carolina..." -Rob
  - Ask Hopewell. Or hire an investigator. Shouldn't be hard to find info about such a major Post position. Or see if one of his two books mentions his history and bibliography. -- (SEWilco 20:35, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC))
    - - I know you didn't have a straight face when you suggested that *I* should "Ask Hopewell, or hire an investigator." You'll be doing all verifying of the veracity of that fraud before his name finds it's way into a Wikipedia main page, thank you. -Rob

Discussion of qualifications as a legitimate "source." Strike 1: Hopewell's dual agendas

- You are presenting a source that admittedly has the dual agendas of a) casting suspicion upon the Winter Soldier Investigation participants, and b) discrediting John Kerry in whatever ways necessary to reduce his chances of success in political arenas. That's strike 1.
  - a) The source is casting suspicion upon facts in the Winter Soldier Investigation testimony. Which facts are correct? b) In what way does Weber being wrong discredit Kerry? Kerry repeated some Winter Soldier Investigation info after labeling it as being from the Winter Soldier Investigation, not his. --(SEWilco)
    - - (I thought you said Hopewell hasn't seen that testimony... -Rob) (That's the facts in the Winter Soldier Investigator testimony, which exist whether anyone looked at what they are. Perhaps we should say "claims" rather than "facts"? -- (SEWilco) )
        
        Incorrect. You said the source (Hopewell) is trying to cast suspicion upon the facts (testimony). You also state Hopewell has not seen the facts (testimony), only the propaganda (WinterSlander.com creation). Please make up your mind. Thanks. Perhaps we should just stick to facts, rather than claims? -Rob
    - a) All "facts" are correct - by its very definition. What did you really intend to ask? Also, can you cite one "fact" in Winter Soldier Investigation upon which Hopewell casts suspicion? Please quote both the fact, verbatim, and Hopewell's refutation, verbatim - and leave interpretations out, thanks. I don't see any. b) I never said "Weber being wrong discredits Kerry." Was that question directed to another poster? -Rob
      - a) I'm saying Hopewell is addressing the facts, not the participants.
        
        Incorrect. You were saying Hopewell had not seen the facts, only the propaganda piece (video snippets) upon which he commented. Are you recanting this, and taking a different stance? And, to reiterate: You are presenting a source that admittedly has the agenda of casting suspicion upon the Winter Soldier Investigation participants. That's not a very qualified "source." -Rob
        
        You also seem to have missed the pertinent question, so I'll repeat it here: Can you cite one "fact" in Winter Soldier Investigation upon which Hopewell casts suspicion? Please quote both the fact, verbatim, and Hopewell's refutation, verbatim - and leave interpretations out, thanks. I don't see any. -Rob
      - b) We're discussing Weber here, and you claim that Hopewell showing that Weber's facts are wrong will somehow discredit Kerry. (Scot?)
        
        Incorrect. I claimed your "source" has the admitted agenda of discrediting Kerry. I said nothing of Weber. Perhaps we should stay with claims I actually made, and not with claims you say I made - it will keep things clearer, and more factual. -Rob
      - And somehow an effect on Kerry is justification for affecting something about Weber's testimony? -- (SEWilco 06:44, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC))
        
        Incorrect. Now see what happens when you start building further assumptions on your earlier incorrect assumptions? -Rob

Strike 2: Hopewell document has unsubstantiated POV

Further, you are citing a source document that, rather than attempting to be factual, is riddled with unsubstantiated POV. i.e., "...Oliver Stone-type film...," "...befuddled individual," "These blatherings...," etc. Strike 2.
- I'm not introducing irrelevant Hopewell POV. -- (SEWilco)
  - Of course you are. You did, the very moment you typed in the link to his op-ed piece. -Rob
    - Hopewell's article is the source for his information.
      - Let me get this straight. Hopewell is using his article as the source for the information in his article? How can he use his article to write his article when his article does not yet exist? -Rob
    - Even the most scholarly article may have stuff like that referenced, but it doesn't have to include the POV around the facts. -- (SEWilco 06:44, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC))
      - Hopewells article does not rise to the level of "scholarly," and hasn't even reached the qualification of merely factual. To the contrary, it is obviously fiction, and has no place in a factual Wikipedia article. -Rob
        
        I was not referring to the Hopewell article as scholarly. I said a scholarly article may reference such. -- (SEWilco 04:34, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC))
        
        I'm pleased that you do not refute the last sentence.

Strike 3: Hopewell misquotes subject with intended reversal of meaning

Your source blatantly misquotes a subject, not just to the effect of producing small discrepencies, but with the intended end-result of totally reversing the meaning of the subject's testimony. Strike 3.
- It is the Winter Soldier film which "misquotes a subject". I don't know if the film makers intended to reverse Weber's meaning. -- (SEWilco)
  - Incorrect. It's definitely Hopewell doing the misquoting. Better check again. Thanks for trying though. -Rob
    - Hopewell said: "he underwent "training in genocide," that his "moral worth was completely destroyed," that attitudes were inculcated in him that he was a "worthless human being," and that the worst thing that a recruit could be called was a "civilian," which was used as an epithet against the draftee. Weber then goes on to state that upon graduation, he was posted to Ft. Polk, Louisiana, for "advanced genocide training," in which caricatures of "slant eyed gooks" were posted in all barracks above gun racks, inciting him to want to "kill his mother" upon graduation."
      - That's all fine and dandy, but back to the immediate topic: Hopewell falsely claims Weber "relates that while at Ft. Jackson, he was forced "to carry flags all the time..." Hopewell further falsely states, "These are verbatim quotes from those of his ramblings which can be understood." It most certainly is not a quote of Webers.
        
        The transcript, with details omitted by the documentary: [4]

Strike 4: Hopewell: wrong time, wrong place

Your source is not qualified, even assuming he hasn't fabricated his presence at Fort Jackson, for several reasons: a) He is commenting on an environment that existed 10 years prior to his arrival. b) He is commenting on an environment that was radically revamped, and no longer existed by the time he arrived. c) Your 'source' tries to insist he didn't "find" corroboration of Weber's statements, but fails to mention he wasn't even looking for it at the time. d) Most of the accusations with which your source takes issue are about a location (Ft. Polk) that he hasn't even seen, but he deceivingly addresses them as if he would somehow have first-hand knowledge of them. Strike 4.
- a) You assume no traces of the previous environment would remain.
  - No, Hopewell indicates that no traces of the previous environment remained. Are you calling his statements into question?
    - No, your item (a) assumes he is commenting on an environment whose traces could somehow be completely removed. That is quite an accomplishment in cleaning up, including the human memories. I'm sure you know better than to invoke inhumanly perfect conspiracies. -- (SEWilco 06:44, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC))
      - Incorrect. Item a) states: He is commenting on an environment that existed 10 years prior to his arrival. Zero assumptions. If you wish to dispute that statement, please do so. -Rob
- b) You assume there was an earlier environment which was revamped without leaving traces of the previous situation.
  - No, Hopewell indicates that no traces remain. The revamp is a fact, see: TRADOC
    - Your item (b) assumes there was such an earlier environment as well as assuming there could be a full cleanup. You ignore how improbable such a good clean up would be. -- (SEWilco 06:44, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC))
      - Incorrect. Zero assumptions. Item b) makes two assertions: The environment was revamped by TRADOC; signs of the environment Weber described didn't exist, in Hopewell's opinion. If you wish to dispute either of these assertions, please do so. -Rob
    - Hopewell confirms that the TRADOC revamp took place and that the revamp retained old records. -- (SEWilco 06:44, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC))
      - A global search of his article for references to "old records" comes up empty. Please restate. -Rob
- c&d) You ignore that he examined much information and his job was to fix problems such as Weber describe, so he would have noticed traces of such problems. And as the Winter Soldier Investigation was showing systemic problems, similar problems would be present at similar facilities where others would also notice them. Other staff, recruits, and newspeople would have reported problems. And other Winter Soldier Investigation participants may have noticed them also. -- (SEWilco)
  - I ignore your assumption that it was Hopewell's "job ... to fix problems such as Weber describe[d]," - correct. You have no problem with that, I hope? Perhaps you can cite one "problem" stated by Weber (verbatim, of course), and cite one indication that Hopewell was charged with fixing that particular problem (also verbatim, if you please). I don't see that the correlation exists. What am I missing? In regard to your systemic problem statements: Yes, Winter Soldier Investigation sought to expose such problems. No, the existence of a problem does not imply that problem exists system-wide. (Funny assertion, though. You are fast becoming my favorite paralogist!) Webers colorful, analogous reference to going to "murder training" seems to be echoed in several other of the links I have previously provided - they each indicate the predilection of training camps to instill the instinct to "kill." So in that respect, yes, you are correct - other recruits, Winter Soldier Testimony participants, etc., "have noticed them also." Did you have a point? You do not contest my statement: "Most of the accusations with which your source takes issue are about a location (Ft. Polk) that he hasn't even seen, but he deceivingly addresses them as if he would somehow have first-hand knowledge of them. Perhaps just an oversight on your part. -Rob
    - Repeated here, since you apparently overlooked this query: Perhaps you can cite one "problem" stated by Weber (verbatim, of course), and cite one indication that Hopewell was charged with fixing that particular problem (also verbatim, if you please). -Rob

Strike 5: Misedited video clip distorts meaning

Your "source" cites, as his source, a video clip that was severely mis-edited with the end result portraying meanings that do not exist, or are directly opposite than what the unedited version intended. Strike 5.
- Which meanings other than that of "flag waver"? -- (SEWilco)
- Hopewell claims the subject claims he underwent "training in genocide," at Fort Jackson. Weber made no such claim. Just perusing that document, I see 7 more blatant fabrications and gross misinterpretations. It would appear your expert liar isn't so "expert." -Rob
  - He is an expert on psychology and military training environments. Not an expert at lying. -- (SEWilco 06:44, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC))
    - An expert on psychology? I'll not dispute that. An expert on training environments? Unsubstantiated, and highly unlikely. An expert liar? I agree 100% with you, he is certainly no expert - as his op-ed article is clearly demonstrating this. He'll get better with practice, I'm sure.

Film clip authentic?

- While we're at it, can you please provide substantiation that your source video, the one to which you keep linking, is authentic? (It's already established that it is inaccurate.) It appears to be located on someones personal site dedicated to cleaning solvents and other Multi-Level Marketing products. With WinterSlander.com's established track record of fabrication, I'd be willing to wager against them. -Rob
  - It is in the long version of the Winter Soldier video. Many libraries have copies of various versions. -- (SEWilco 18:14, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC))

Scot asks if there is more than one Basic training facility in South Calrolina

- - Did Americal have more than one basic training facility in SC? Google Americal basic training South Carolina 1967 -- (SEWilco 20:35, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC))
    - No clue. Did they? Seems you did a little research, what was the result? -Rob
      - Just a reminder to Scot: You keep attempting to prove a negative (i.e., something did NOT happen at Fort Jackson). If Weber says it did, and other Winter Soldier participants say it did, and if several accounts from OUTSIDE of the Winter Soldier say it did (see links I provided) - one must question your source. If I vacation in Oregon and fail to see rain, I can not conclude that it has never rained in Oregon. No matter my expertise in meteorology; no matter how many locals I spoke with during my vacation; no matter how much I would like to believe it never rains in Oregon. -Rob

More of Rob's observations on Hopewells propaganda article

C'mon, Scot... another Texan? Your agenda is clear, but I don't have a problem with that. All I ask is that you be just a little more sincere and credible in your efforts.

Video is doctored, edited, has qualifying statements snipped out - so scrap it

1) The video - scrap it. Unless you can find an un-hacked, un-edited version, that include the interviewee's qualifying statements that were so handily snipped out.

The video clip is all that Hopewell saw and should be connected to his comments. -- (SEWilco? 15:48, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC))
- The video clip is not all that Hopewell saw, as he refers to the "transcript" in those very comments. -Rob
  - A few lines below this one is mention that Hopewell did indeed only see the film clip. Referring to "transcript" doesn't mean it has been read. I just referred to it, but that does not mean that I did read it (nor that I didn't). -- (SEWilco 06:57, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC))
    - No, but quoting it does. Or are you implying Hopewell is making statements on unsubstantiated second-hand information? (Beyond doing just that by commenting on tampered 'testimony.') -Rob
  - The video is heavily edited so as to be misleading. Please replace it with an unedited (or properly edited), factual representation of what the interviewee on the film was expressing. Otherwise, the corrupted video, and all comments resting on it, have no place in a factual Wiki document. -Rob

Hopewell only saw doctored film clip, not transcript

Hopewell has seen the complete transcript - he refers to it. The "video" is edited for shock value as a propaganda piece. It neither accurately reflects the testimony given, and recorded in the congressional record, nor does it accurately represent the unedited footage from the film from which it was taken. -Rob

Hopewell says in private communication that he only saw the film clip. Is the video which "is edited for shock value" the same on WinterSolder.Com as it is in the full documentary? -- (SEWilco? 15:48, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC))

Hopewell says in the very document that you reference, "This individual, listed in the Winter Soldier Investigation transcript as Sgt. Jim Weber of the Americal Division, states..." Are you telling me he says one thing in private, and the opposite in public? Clarify, please. As for whether your two video clips are the same, perhaps you might try actually listening to them. I can tell you this, the segment in Fiore's film corresponds to the actual testimony given at WS. -Rob

He refers to a transcript, although doesn't use the full phrasing "Jim Weber, 24, Sgt. (E-5), "A" Co., 1/6 and 1/46, 198 LIB, Americal Division (November 1967 to November 1968)". There are several likely sources for the phrase which he used, the most obvious being that it was in whatever information was attached to the film clip when he saw it. He had not seen the full transcript. And the segment in the film clip does not include the full testimony. -- (SEWilco 20:35, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC))

He had not seen the full transcript? Proof please. Until then, we'll just have to take him for his word when he references a "transcript" in the source you provided. -Rob

He told me that he had not seen the full transcript, and his correction to his WinterSoldier.Com article reflects that. -- (SEWilco 14:49, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC))

No, the article still reflects that Hopewell references the transcript. Furthermore, the article appears to have been tampered with by someone at the WinterSoldier propaganda site where it is posted, as evidenced by the footnote at the bottom. Heh, and even that footnote further implies that Hopewell has seen the transcript. -Rob

The footnote is because Hopewell did finally see the transcript so he was able to get the context which was omitted by the film makers. (SEWilco 06:57, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC))

By "film makers," you are referring to the WinterSlander.com people? Fiore and the Winterfilm Collective certainly didn't have a hand in generating that propaganda piece. -Rob

It is in the long version of the Winter Soldier video "propaganda piece". -- (SEWilco 18:17, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC))

Hopewell is not an expert

2) Your "expert" Mr. Hopewell, isn't. He's a Kerry-Hunter (see http://www.insightmag.com/news/2004/05/11/Politics/Not-All.Veterans.Are.Kerrys.brothers-673486.shtml). He's a Vietnam-Image-Rehabilitation Activist (see his articles at http://www.viet-myths.net/). And he's a registered Texas Republican that couldn't give a damn about Winter Soldier unless Kerry is campaigning 30 years later. All of this alone should be enough to cause you embarrassment for even citing him as a factual source. But there is more... -Rob

He apparently is an expert [5] who has an opinion about Kerry. I didn't examine voter registration records, as I didn't think that was relevant. Have you found any of the Winter Soldier Investigation participants in those records? -- (SEWilco)
- He's not an expert on Winter Soldier, nor on what was taught in training at Fort Jackson a full decade before he arrived there. He makes that evident. -Rob
  - He makes evident that he is an expert on training at Fort Jackson during several preceding decades. -- (SEWilco 07:54, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC))
    - Not. He's a shrink that claims to have had access to some old records during a project that he was on; a project that had nothing to do with Weber's allegations. He had access to, 25 years ago, policies that had undergone radical transformations (TRADOC) since Weber's time 35 years ago. The only exposure your 'expert' had to Weber's training environment was to browse (he implies?) through some old documentation while something other than Weber's allegations were on his mind. Now here is the question you must ask yourself: What does looking through official training manuals have to do with investigating UNOFFICIAL training procedures that were adopted off the record? Weber wasn't complaining about the normal training procedures. He was complaining about the abnormal ones. The fact that Hopewell didn't see "Chapter 3 - Refer to the enemy as Gooks, while instilling complete disregard for their worth as human beings..." - does that come as a suprise to you? -Rob
      - He stated that he "was actively involved with the processing and testing procedures at the Recruitment Center, which was the initial station to which recruits were assigned." During that involvement he reviewed past programs, as well as working with that Center's staff. Hardly "looking through official training manuals". -- (SEWilco 15:48, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC))
        
        Hardly having anything to do with "training" at all. I do not see testimony given by Weber as to what was experienced in the "Recruitment Center." Only in subsequent basic training. Your point? -Rob
      - And "unofficial" training procedures with the effects which Weber mentions would have attracted official attention. -- (SEWilco 15:48, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC))
        
        You would think so, wouldn't you? And incidents like My Lai would too, but instead remained covered up until a journalist revealed photos a year later. Or the Tiger Force cover up, until the Toledo Blade finally obtained classified documents. Wow, Scot, I do believe you've hit on something there! Hopewells assertions are baseless - thanks for proving my point. -Rob
      - Hopewell mentions twice that he would have been assigned recruits with such problems. -- (SEWilco 15:48, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC))
        
        I beg your pardon, which "problem?" If he mentions it twice, I'm sure you can clarify this for me. We're talking Weber here, by the way. Not the problems of new recruits in a revamped system 10 years later. So, back to Weber, exactly which problem did he have that would have landed him in front of Hopewell, assuming Hopewell was around at the time? -Rob
      - Believing that the situation would have been different ten years earlier requires assuming conspiratorial "loose cannon" training under a "cannon fodder" policy. Such blatant disregard for the humanity of recruits would require there to have been no professional psychological unit at the Post, but Hopewell indicates there had been continuing programs there. (And I think the paperwork created by a Marine psychological unit would have left plenty of traces of past activities.) -- (SEWilco 15:48, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC))
        
        Please cite your source for "loose cannon" and "cannon fodder" theories. I don't see them in the propaganda clip you provided. What I do see are his claims that he arrived South Carolina for basic ("murder") training, had his self-worth broken down, then he was "re-socialized" before shipping off to Fort Polk for AIT. Weber claims that he didn't agree with everything taught in South Carolina, but he "went along with it." Loose cannon? Explain, please. -- (17:44, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)) Still no explanation? Go figure. -Rob
        
        Of course there is no such reference in the film. I was referring to your claims of a massive cover up. The phrase "ten years earlier" obviously has no context within the film. -- (SEWilco 18:23, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC))

Hopewell falsifies testimony, and makes multiple false statements

3) Hopewell even has the nerve to falsify testimony, and out right lie. Take Weber's testimony that he, before being changed by the military, was a patriotic flag-waver: "...I was waving flags all the time that I was on my train..." Now, take that statement and run it through the Hopewell propaganda machine, and you get: "He relates that while at Ft. Jackson, he was forced "to carry flags all the time..." Uh-huh. "Expert" source, Scot? Or an obviously biased one that would mis-quote and fabricate to achieve his ends?

You say the film clip was edited, so you apparently watched it. The patriotic implications were edited out, as the clip starts just after "...I had a racist attitude. Of course, we all still have racist attitudes. I, I didn't care about anyone else. You know, I cared about myself and I, ..." -- (SEWilco)

Hopewell article on WinterSoldier.Com modified by unnamed editor

- Hopewell has clarified his interpretation on WinterSoldier.Com. [6] -- (SEWilco 08:41, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC))

Hopewells reminder that present day training is reviewed, overseen and irrelevant

4) Hopewell concludes, "Those knowledgeable of military matters also realize that training is extensively and thoroughly reviewed and overseen by the Training and Doctrine Command, or TRADOC. During this review we again evaluated training procedures, especially in regards to TRADOC doctrine. The training program emphasized the following of the legal orders, knowledge of and adherence to the Geneva Conventions, and the highest of ethical and moral standards. Once again, there was never any single indication of any type of program, procedure, or training protocol, which would in the slightest way resemble what is described in the "Winter Soldier testimony." Wow. TRADOC, eh? Perhaps Mr. Hopewell hopes that "Those knowledgeable of military matters..." won't stumble upon this farce he is trying to pull off, and expose it. TRADOC wasn't formed until late 1973! And it was formed, in part, because of the very deficiencies in military training and doctrine exposed by the likes of Weber. See: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0JAP/is_1_10/ai_73328194

He said "evaluated training procedures, especially in regards to TRADOC doctrine". The TRADOC doctrine was considered during the review of "training files and programs going back a number of years into the Kennedy-Johnson war years." -- (SEWilco)

Basic Training comments from Webers era of training

- I know what he said - I quoted him. He definitely implied Weber's training conformed to TRADOC, when TRADOC didn't yet exist. He also refers, twice, to his efforts in trying to locate the training aberrations by reviewing old "training files and programs." Then he triumphantly proclaims he didn't discover "anything like this." Gee whiz, no kidding? What did he expect to find ... Documented instructions in the Drill Instructors Manual on how to dehumanize the gooks, er...enemy; instill total distrust and an unquestioning killer instinct? Wake up, Scot. If it was in the books as part of the 'official' program, it wouldn't need exposing, would it? Time for you to find another "expert." I'll see your quack, and raise you three doctors:

"On the basis of this information, basic training was revamped so that recruits would be desensitized to killing. Indoctrination techniques were geared to getting soldiers used to the idea of "wasting" an enemy. As one marine reported: "'Kill, kill, kill, kill,' It was drilled into your mind so much that it seemed like when it actually came down to it, it didn't bother you" (Dyer 1985:121)."

http://www.dccam.org/Article%20and%20Translation/Agents_of_death_searching_for_the_truth.htm

"For the kid in Basic during the Vietnam War, it was not easy to forget that he was expected to be able and willing to kill people in Vietnam. This meant that he had to put aside some of the most closely held beliefs of civilized Western society about the sanctity of human life."

http://www.patiencepress.com/samples/rfwch1.pdf

"We systematically dehumanize them in basic training and teach them how to dehumanize "others," "over there" until those others become "the enemy." Surely whatever happens to the enemy is fair game. They are, after all, the enemy."

"Consider this from Hal Muskat, who went through basic training at Ft. Dix, NJ, describing a frightening scene during bayonet practice for 1,000 young men: "In between the call/response of, 'What's the spirit of bayonet?' 'Kill! Kill! Kill!' drill instructors (DIs) would pick up megaphones and scream, 'See those C-130s landing? They are bringing in bodies of dead Americans killed by gooks. The gooks murdered our soldiers! Do you want to be a body on that plane? I can't hear you? What's the spirit of bayonet?' Every once in a while, a DI would pull several of us aside and give us lessons on the proper use of bayonet in performing a 'field abortion.' Stick the bayonet in the gook's cunt and pull up towards her throat. A dead gook in the womb saves Americans lives!'"

Or this, from Roger Domagalski, describing what he was told as a recruit and his duties after basic training: "From the first moment we arrived, we often heard the words, 'girls, ladies, sissies, pussies, and worse' when insulting us. Thus 'women' as a whole became a derogatory concept; very sexist and very dehumanizing...I had been dehumanized to such an extent that I completely lacked all empathy for these frightened, new trainees. Instead of treating them decently, I mistreated them as I had been mistreated. Once you dehumanize a person, you need to maintain control because such a person is liable to do anything, from the relatively mild 'hazing' I engaged in, to the Nazi-like terror tactics used by the guards against Iraqi prisoners. Yes, basic training works...all too well sometimes."

http://69.24.75.153/gi/vietnam%20recollections.htm

"I had my basic training in the infy at Ft Polk, LA. I went through most of the training as the other guys went through. The complete dehumanization of a person in preparation for the VW. Now in this training they referred to the Vietnamese as dinks, or gooks. The impression was that they were something less than human. I had a DI in AIT reply to a question, "What is it like over there?" and he told us, he said, "It is like hunting rabbits and squirrels.""

http://members.aol.com/warlibrary/vwch4.htm

"In his book, On Killing, Lieutenant Colonel Dave Grossman, an Army psychologist, outlines a history of studies examining how soldiers are motivated to kill, and the effects that killing has upon them. Grossman’s main finding is that there is within human beings something that makes the idea of killing another human being anathema. That fact is illustrated by trigger-pull studies taken from various armed conflicts. In earlier wars the estimate is that only a small number of the soldiers actually fired at the enemy. Grossman tells of muskets recovered during the US Civil War which were filled with layers of “buck and ball,” suggesting that soldiers may have wanted to pretend to shoot, and so kept loading but faked firing. Soldiers in basic training units often admit to that same hesitancy as they came to grips with the reality of what they were being trained to do. That hesitancy is a powerful force within human nature, but it is not necessarily permanent. As Grossman points out, during the Vietnam War and subsequent conflicts, the trigger-pull ratios were much higher. The Army recognized the need to overcome that innate hesitancy, altered training, and focused on techniques to dehumanize the enemy and thus condition its soldiers. In essence, it is easier to shoot an “enemy” than to shoot another “human,” and conditioning through training can, to some degree, overcome the natural hesitancy to kill."

http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/02summer/shurtlef.htm

- "Racism is key to the training. "As soon as I hit boot camp in Fort Jackson, N.C., they tried to change your total personality," recalled Vietnam veteran Haywood Kirkland in the book Bloods: An Oral History of the Vietnam War by Black Veterans. Right away they told us not to call them Vietnamese. Call everybody gook, dinks…They were like animals, or something other than human. They don’t have no regard for life. They’d blow up little babies just to kill one GI…They told us they’re not to be treated with any type of mercy or apprehension. That’s what they engraved in you. The killer instinct. Just go away and do destruction."

http://dc.indymedia.org/newswire/display_any/83834

- Writing in the April 20, 1969, issue of The New York Times, Ben A. Franklin clearly exposes the Army's frame-up attempt: "A classic case approaches a climax this week at Fort Jackson, S.C. By harassing, restricting and arresting on dubious charges the leaders of an interracial militant enlisted group there called GIs United Against the War in Vietnam, Fort Jackson's brass has produced a cause celebre out of all proportion to the known facts. It has also brought about two court actions, directed by capable and contentious civilian legal counsel, which may give a merely fractious episode lasting effect. "The Fort Jackson lawsuits, if they are upheld, will give the courts a clear opening to declare that American enlisted men do, indeed, have the same right to oppose by all lawful, orderly means the course chosen by their Government and military leaders...."

http://www.aavw.org/protest/subversive_internal_security_abstract04_excerpt.html

Awareness of TRADOC; unaware of reality - Hopewell comments on wrong camp

- - He didn't say that everything matched TRADOC. He was aware of TRADOC when reviewing. He said he hadn't heard of what Weber described. The expert is saying that the reality of staff experience and records doesn't match what Weber described. Oh, and that the Post's community did not seem unusual. You might stop at the local library and see if the high school yearbooks or newspapers mentioned anything like what Weber says was going on. -- (SEWilco 07:54, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC))
    - The community didn't seem unusual, after many years of TRADOC? It better not have. Your point? As for what Weber mentioned going on, check the previous several paragraphs under "Basic Training comments" above. -Rob
      - The community did not produce reports of training problems while Weber was there. Weber wanted to kill his mother, so one has to be concerned about the nearby mothers. -- (SEWilco? 15:48, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC))
        
        Still waiting for your point. And where did "killing mothers" come in? Oh! The Ft. Polk advanced training! Was Hopewell stationed there too? This I must see - please provide direct quotes. -Rob
        
        Oops. I hope the mothers around Fort Polk survived. -- (SEWilco)
        
        Still waiting on the information proving that Hopewell was at Fort Polk. Thanks -Rob
        
        I know you're being smug about my misreading. However, Hopewell says he actually was also at Ft. Polk, but on temporary assignment as an expert consultant. -- (SEWilco 08:52, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC))
        
        No, Hopewell says he was mistaken, and was never at Ft. Polk in any official capacity. -Rob
        
        I meant that in private communication, Hopewells says he was also at Ft. Polk. -- (SEWilco 06:57, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC))
        
        I meant that in private communication as well, Hopewell says he was never at Ft. Polk in any official capacity. -Rob
        
        Hopewell says he has not said that to anyone, and the Ft. Polk staff and JAG consider he was certianly there in an official capacity. -- (SEWilco 02:38, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC))
        
        Just re-checked - private communication insists Hopewell was NOT there in official capacity. Perhaps you should verify your source - imposter, maybe? -Rob
        
        C. Alan Hopewell, Ph.D., President of the Texas Psychological Association? Had his own article on Wintersoldier.Com updated. That certainly seems to be the right Hopewell. I don't know who you found. -- (SEWilco 06:25, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC))
        
        That's the same person to whom I refer. -Rob
        
        Well, ask him to send Scot a new note about his official and unofficial visits to Ft. Polk. -- (SEWilco 03:56, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC))

Rob's recommendation

After you have had a chance to digest this, Scot, perhaps then we can delete this segment. I'll leave it here in the Talk:Notes for now, but it certainly isn't making it to an encyclopedia page that claims to be factual. And a bit of advice... be very wary of anything obtained from the political action site known as wintersoldier.com. -Rob

Scot's recommendation

Be wary of anything from any activism source. But check the bathwater for baby. -- (SEWilco 06:29, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC))

Winter Soldier Investigation - Participants and Relationships

The military investigation which stated that some participants were phonies has not been confirmed. But the identities of some participants are known, which reduces the list of possible impostors. Actual participants in the Winter Soldier Investigation should be noted in each person's section. Some people who are not known to have testified at the Winter Soldier Investigation should be listed if it seems likely they were involved, such as VVAW officers and coordinators.

This section is a cross-reference web, using concepts from classification and friend of a friend systems. This being a discussion area, it is likely to contain fragmentary information which editors will expand when using info in main article.

Well known

John Kerry

John Kerry
Involved with VVAW when it hosted the Winter Soldier Investigation but did not give testimony.
John Kerry, 27, Lt. (j.g.), Coastal Sq., Coastal Division, 11 & 13, USNR (November 1968 to April 1969) [7]
- Co-moderator, WSI Miscellaneous Panel. Link to transcript of Panel discussion: http://lists.village.virginia.edu/sixties/HTML_docs/Resources/Primary/Winter_Soldier/WS_28_Misc.html
Summarized the Winter Soldier Investigation descriptions later at a Senate hearing in Washington.
Peggy Kerry introduced him to VVAW.

Teresa Heinz Kerry

Teresa Heinz Kerry
Married to former VVAW Spokesman John Kerry
It is reported that Teresa Heinz Kerry has slept next to the one time spokesperson for the WInter Soldier event, as he had nightmares about Vietnam. [8]
In what way is she relevant to WSI? Are John Kerry's dreams about Vietnam relevant to WSI? --(SEWilco 03:38, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC))
- While she wasn't directly involved with Winter Soldier Investigation, she can comment on people that were. She will therefor most likely end up in a section with Hopewell. Still researching. -Rob
  - "Mrs. Heinz met John Kerry in 1990". Teresa_Heinz_Kerry#Marriages_and_Offspring Perhaps Julia Thorne would know better those who John Kerry met 20 years earlier. --(SEWilco 08:13, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC))
    - ...and Hopewell didn't get to Ft. Jackson until 1978 - what's your point about timelines? Good idea about adding Julia though, we should do that.

Barry Romo

Barry Romo
- VVAW National Coordinator
- Romo states, "Kim Phuc visited with VVAW for three days, and despite the fact that she was always in pain (she almost died that June day in 1972), she exuded joy and love and humanity. People felt good being around her. "
- [9]

Pete Zastrow

Pete Zastrow
- VVAW National Coordinator

Scott Camil

Scott Camil
- VVAW Florida regional coordinator.
- One of the Gainesville Eight.
- Nancy Saunders refers to him.
- Referred to in the Winter Soldier Investigation transcript as Scott Camile, of 1st Marines. [10]
  - John F. Sugg identifies Scott Camile's testimony as belonging to Scott Camil. [11]
  - Sugg met Camil at U of Florida. "In 1971, I witnessed Camil's and Kerry's testimonies at the Winter Soldier Hearings (a play on Paine's "Summer Patriot" admonition) in Detroit."
- Winter Soldier Investigation testimony, 1st Marine Division. [12]

Donald Donner

Donald Donner [13] [14]
- VVAW Arkansas and Louisiana regional coordinator.
- Winter Soldier Investigation - 1st, 4th, and 9th Infantry Divisions co-moderator [15]
- Winter Soldier Investigation - Miscellaneous Panel testimony [16]
  - Says he is also from Fayetteville, Arkansas (reference to previous Williams intro).
  - Refers to an engineer unit, the 86th, with the other gentleman at a much later date (reference to Sam Schorr).
- Nancy Saunders says he and Marti Jordan did draft counseling together.

Marti Jordan

Marti Jordan
- VVAW Arkansas state coordinator
- Nancy Saunders says he and Don Donner did draft counseling together.

John W. Kniffin

John W. Kniffin
- VVAW Texas regional coordinator.
- Nancy Saunders refers to him.

Bill Davis

Bill Davis
- VVAW National Coordinator
- Nancy Saunders does not refer to him.

Bill Patterson

Bill Patterson
- VVAW West Texas and New Mexico coordinator.
- Nancy Saunders refers to him.

Joe Miller

Joe Miller
- VVAW National Coordinator
- Admitted father of Lisa Boucher, who was only five

years old at the time of the Winter Soldier Investigation.

- Unfortunately, I never attended the Winter Soldier Investigation,

as I was busy working fulltime, going to school fulltime, and helping to take care of my family in the Chicago area.

Michael Damron

Michael Damron [17]
- Winter Soldier Investigation - 3rd Marine text [18]
- Photo of Damron with VVAW FBI informant William Lemmer [19]
- Nancy Saunders refers to him.

David Cline

David Cline
- VVAW National Coordinator
- Cline is alleged to have reviewed a VVAW guide to organizing protests.
- Cline notes in his review, the start of the VVAW, "That was the beginning of VVAW. Soon a meeting was held and the organization was officially founded. Jan was elected the national president and devoted the next four years to these duties. During that time, VVAW grew to a membership of over fifteen thousand and became a leading force in the antiwar movement and an advocate for veterans' rights." [20]

Peggy Kerry

Peggy Kerry
- Introduced John Kerry to the VVAW
- Peggy Kerry says that her brother "had the anguish" shared by so many other vets just back from Vietnam; she says he suffered "indescribable pain" about the people who'd died in the war, and that he would sometimes wake up screaming from nightmares that continued even into his present marriage with Teresa Heinz Kerry. At a rally on Wall Street in April 1971, the files show, Kerry spoke of being "guilty" like everyone else in the country "for having allowed the war to go on"-a burden that, he said to me in a second interview, in 1989, could have "croaked" him if he had not been personally strong enough to deal with it.
- [21]

Mike McCusker, Michael McCusker

Michael Paul McCusker, VVAW Coordinator - Oregon
There are two similar identities in WSI records, differing by first name and final year of service.
Mike McCusker, 29, Sgt. (E-5), Public Information Office, 1st Marine Division (1966 to 1968) [22]
- 25th Infantry Division and Public Information Office Panel [23]
- Mike McCusker and Larry Rottmann met "in Chicago and we both got gassed together."
  - (Conjecture: context implies years of activism, so probably refers to tear gas used on protestors during the 1968 Democratic National Convention, a historic protest event in Chicago within months of the end of McCusker & Rottmann's Vietnam service.) [24]
    - Rob thinks maybe they were "writing in protest"? How did they get "gassed" by writing? Context refers to what they are doing at the WSI together, so they probably did not meet as DNC delegates or hotel staff. -- (SEWilco 06:24, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC))
      - I see where the misunderstanding occured - you took the term "gassed" literally, as in tear-gassed? In that context, it could imply one of several different protest events held in Chicago at which gas was used. I read it instead as its common reference to getting drunk or wasted, assuming perhaps they had met in a bar or something. In either case, let's leave the conjecturing up to the individual readers. Having you or me interpret, by claiming he 'might' mean this, or 'probably' meant that... not appropriate for a factual article. Oh, and as to the "protest writing" context - on that same page, they are both talking about their writings, and even giving samples... a poem, a postcard. Rottman was an information officer with the duty of screening news stories, etc. -Rob
        
        The basis of that section seems to be that they've been speaking but nobody was ready to listen, and now people are starting to listen to the protests of problems. The environment of the event is why I put the note on the possible background in parentheses and said "probably". That note is there for the benefit of those who are not aware of the activism environment of the times. -- (SEWilco 03:08, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC))
Michael McCusker, 29, Sgt. (E-5), Public Information Office, 1st Marine Division (1966 to 1967) [25]
- Miscellaneous Panel [26]
Also a witness at the National Veterans Inquiry on U.S. War Crimes in Vietnam, Citizens Commission of Inquiry. http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jksonc/docs/vietnam-nviuswcv-19701201.html#mm

Joe Bangert

Joe Bangert [27]
Participated in creation of Winter Soldier film.
Winter Soldier Investigation - 1st Marine Division testimony [28]
Bangert has worked for several of John Kerry's campaigns since 1984, including as a veterans' organizer in 2004. -- (SEWilco)
- I don't doubt it - but do you have a source for that? - Rob
  - It was in the WSI stuff which you reverted. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40304 -- (SEWilco 03:14, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC))
    - Still not relevant to this article subject. Perhaps in a specific Bangert article, or possible under a Kerry Campaign article? (also - I can't verify www.worldnutdaily.com articles, as my virus filter prevents access to it. Do you know if a similar article is located at a news site?) -Rob
"Former Sgt. Joe Bangert, 22, of Philadelphia, wore fatigues, a good conduct medal, a Vietnam defense medal, and combat gunner's wings. Bangert said he earned the wings in 1968 during incursions into Laos, which the government said were never happening. Bangert said he became a crack shot shooting elephants." -- News Bureau Washington article, April 20, 1971.
- Bangert arrived in Vietnam October 1968. "Marine aviation was relieved of "out of country" MACV-SOG flight by early summer 1968." http://www.specialoperations.com/MACVSOG/USMC.htm
In an article by By Bill Homans, Joe Bangert is mentioned. [29]
- "Silber and Dane were the publishers, in 1969, of the original "Vietnam Songbook," a comprehensive collection of songs in vehement opposition to the Vietnam War, by Phil Ochs and Tom Paxton, Nina Simone and Richard Farina, Ewan MacColl and Peggy Seeger, and many more.
- "Wrong! It was my old VVAW brother Joe Bangert, who, with me, was to provide the VVAW presence at the big gig. Joe is cutting-edge hardcore; he spent five years in the 1990s living with the Vietnamese in Hanoi. That's right, y'all, the Vietnamese. Not the "North" or "South" Vietnamese; the Vietnamese. You remember that old expression from the 'Nam, "It don't mean nothin'"? Well, thirty-some years later, it does mean something. That, at least, we can say we accomplished, brothers: Vietnam is one country again. Right on."
Letter from a Fred Keller to WinterSoldier.Com comments on Bangert's stories. http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/index.php?topic=Letters
- "I worked in Vietnam for six years as a civilian, 1968-1974 and I'm married to a Vietnamese from the Delta. My friend who worked with me is married to a girl from Quang Tri. Recently he and I were discussing the claims made by Kerry and Joe Bangert, after listening to us for a short time the girls joined in, their first question was, were these guys on drugs or drunk when they were making these claims."
- "They both stated that while living in these areas 24/7, they saw some fighting but never things like these people were talking about."
- "Both of these guys have seen too many action movies or they are on the pipe."
- "My wife did say that she saw civilians killed but it was by the VC for actions that they thought these people had taken against them, (informing on locations.) First the VC killed their children, then the wife and finally the man. This was done after assembling the entire village to watch as an object lesson against cooperating with the Americans."
- "Anybody who has ever skinned a deer or other fair sized animal will tell you its not a five minute job, when your in combat with the possibility of people shooting at you, who in their right mind is going to stop to take the time to abuse or torture civilians."
- "I had 3500 Vietnamese working on my job site and knew many of them on a personal basis, I can't remember one telling me of Americans wantonly killing civilians."
- "The lies that these people are telling remind me of my time in Africa when a congressional delegation was visiting, several opposition members of the government were arrested for demonstrating illegally. They were in custody about one hour. After their release they told the congressmen of all the thing that were done to them while in custody."
- "Shooting people is quick and easy, but when you stop and start abusing or torturing them as Kerry and Bangert claim, it takes time."
Letter from a Sen Star to WinterSoldier.Com points out oddities in Bangert's stories. http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/index.php?topic=Letters
- "Joe Bangert enlists in 1968, and serves in VMO-6, an aviation unit that flies very small observation planes. Banger does not state his MOS (Military Occupational Specialty), but almost all the enlisted men in these units were maintenance types - fix airplanes, attach bombs, fix radios, etc. They usually did not fly, and they saw very little combat."
- "Bangert says he sees a truck load of Marines murder a bunch of children on his first day with two officers present. Then he sees bodies "crucified" on perimeter wire, apparently cut up with knives and hung on the wire. Then he has a friend who is CIA who takes him somewhere, murders a woman with twenty shots, then cuts open her vagina, takes out her organs and skins her. The perpetrator was a former military officer, and two other field grade officers knew about it."
- " Then Bangert works with the pacification program in Vietnam, and travels extensively through Quang Tri Province. He sees approximately twenty deformed infants under the age of one."
- "Bangert sees journalists, specifically women journalists who were readily welcomed into the unit. There was always this whitewashing thing. Well, sometimes these people would go right past the bodies and come into our base to get a story. They were kept away from the enlisted men, away from the people who were involved. The typical thing was to take them down to the Officers Club, get them soused."
- "As the song says, "lie lie lie, lie lie lie lie, lie lie lie, lie lie lie...""
- "Elsewhere in his testimony, Bangert claims to be a door gunner with two helo units."
- "Bangert worked for a light observation squadron - very little combat. The men worked like coolies, often 16 hours a day 7 days a week, servicing planes, refueling, rearming, preparing, cleaning, maintaining. Usually they did not fly. They did not get to wander off on secret CIA missions. They did not participate in the CAP program - these were separate small units who lived permanently in villages, protecting the villages from the VC. They did not get to wander around Quang Tri looking at deformed kids. He states on his first day he sees a bunch of kids murdered on Route 1 -- this the main thoroughfare through the area, not some remote area. Can you imagine the press coverage? He says the press saw the crucified bodies, but were wooed with booze and did not report on this. Come on, get real."
A person named Admin responds to Sen Star and Fred Keller
- "We're accumulating reports that subject the wild claims of the Winter Soldier witnesses to the harsh light of reality. Thanks for this excellent example."
- "...or have some other agenda. Thanks."

Bangert says he threw away his medals. [30]
- He was unscathed. [31]
Bangert has lived in Vietnam. [32]
Bangert said he was "receiving thirty percent disability from the government for being crazy from the war." [33]
David Gorick observes that Bangert's VMO-6 unit was "irresponsible" to let people hitchhike to the unit, as Bangert says he did on his first day. Helicopter transport was required. [34]
- "VMO-6 was stationed at Quang Tri where my squadron HMM-161 was. I was also there during the same time period of 68-69 and I know for a fact that all Marines assigned to any of the three Marine Squadrons there were picked up by either us or HMM-262 while they were in Danang. For a newbie to be allowed to hitchhike would be irresponsible. Also we were not allowed off the base of Quang Tri with the exception of medcaps and that policy was in effect until just before I left there. The only way on and off the base for anyone assigned to one of the three squadrons was by helicopter. You would need to be one hell of a lot higher up the food chain than a corporal to get around that policy."
Patrick Hughes responds to David Gorick by admitting, "I don't suppose it has occured to some folks that in 1967 and 1968, the Marines were surrounded by something like 3 Million Viet Namese of one persuasion or another and we considered them all VC or NVA until proven otherwise."
Edward Combs disputes David Goricks claims in that same forum when he observes, "I've 'hitched' a ride from Bien Hoa to Saigon on Route 1 then caught a bus

from TSN back."

Steve Pitkin

Steve Pitkin [35]
- WSI Miscellaneous Panel (Sixties Project) [36]
Yesterday's Lies: Steve Pitkin and the Winter Soldiers [37]
- WSI Miscellaneous Panel, Pitkin testimony (WinterSoldier.Com) [38]
- John Kerry and Scott Camil drove van with Pitkin to WSI.
- Pitkin states he was pressured by WSI participants to falsely testify at the event. [39]
- In the Winter Soldier film, Pitkin is presented at the beginning of the film being interviewed by Kerry, and later during his appearance in the panel.

FALSE TESTIMONY?

Many questions have been raised about the testimony given at the Winter Soldier Investigation.

In September 2004, Steve Pitkin stated that "John Kerry and other leaders of that event pressured me to testify about American war crimes, despite my repeated statements that I could not honestly do so. One event leader strongly implied that I would not be provided transportation back to my home in Baltimore, Maryland, if I failed to comply. Kerry and other leaders of the event instructed me to publicly state that I had witnessed incidents of rape, brutality, atrocities and racism, knowing that such statements would necessarily be untrue." Pitkin testified and was a participant shown in the Winter Soldier film, first shown while talking with Kerry. -(anonymous)
- As it turns out, Pitkin never did give false testimony. It appears he was going to testify to atrocities, as he says he will during the introductions, but when his turn comes to speak, he merely rambles on about the generalities of war in a foreign country. Isn't it a little misleading to generate a major sub-catagory called "False Testimony" when there wasn't any? -Rob
  - So it is OK for his generalities to be false? Identified coerced testimony is not relevant? -- (SEWilco 19:14, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC))
    - Are his generalities false? As for identified coerced testimony - which testimony was that? -Rob
      - He provided testimony, first in reply to a moderator's request from him by name to explain "how these men become animals in a sense." He got more specific at the end. You're complaining about the quality of his testimony. Noted. The moderators in this panel seem like better speakers, too bad they didn't testify. -- (SEWilco 04:54, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC))
        
        I was not complaining about the quality of testimony (although some of it leaves me wondering if perhaps his head was a little too close to exploding mortar rounds - even in recent interviews). I was complaining about your header label of "False Testimony" when it appears he never gave any. I was complaining about your assertion that he explains "how these men become animals in a sense" at a moderators request, when he actually gives no such explanation. And of course, as a good political skeptic, I question the timing and sincerity of his recent vague statements, 33 years hence, in the midst of a heated presidential race. Have his statements been corroborated? Have these "other leaders" he claims "pressured him" been named, and have they confirmed or denied his account? -Rob
        
        "Testimony" is what the statements given by participants have been called. He was called upon, he spoke, he was shown in documentary.
        
        Perhaps I was not clear. I was complaining about your header label of "False Testimony" when it appears he never gave any. Which part was false? -Rob
        
        The timing is not a coincidence, with Kerry calling attention nationally to his past activities and attracting a lot more attention than did his quiet campaigns in Boston. The article is hardly complete without this statement by someone whom the VVAW chose to make so visible through the film. Updates are to be expected. -- (SEWilco 04:56, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC))
        
        They didn't exactly "choose to make him so visible..." They filmed the event - he was at the event - therefor he is on film. Of course updates are to be expected, if there is an initial entry. FALSE TESTIMONY doesn't seem to fit, since there isn't any. Just basic testimony. We can exerpt that, as we did with several others. As a side note - I fixed Camil's name. Bangert is already listed among the film credits. Whom worked on who's campaign years later isn't really relevant to a Winter Soldier discussion, is it? I am sure many of the participating veterans maintained varied relationships with each other subsequent to the Winter Soldier event.

Lesser known

Jim Weber

Jim Weber [40]
- Winter Soldier Testimony - 24, Sgt. (E-5), "A" Co., 1/6 and 1/46, 198 LIB, Americal Division (November 1967 to November 1968)
- Jim Weber confirms Ronald Palosaari's testimony. Palosaari confirms Weber's statements.
- Transcript of full testimony: http://lists.village.virginia.edu/sixties/HTML_docs/Resources/Primary/Winter_Soldier/WS_50_Americal.html
  - might as well delete this, since it is not authentic. -Rob
    - For someone who complains about stuff being deleted, you delete that document a lot. --(SEWilco 08:28, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC))
    - I comment my deletions. -Rob
      - "Comment" has two meanings: Hide from public view with comment delimiters (you didn't do that, you removed the source text), or explain an action. You repeatedly claim it is not accurate and then hide it from view rather than letting people judge for themselves. Why, is he using body language which your culture finds extremely offensive? -- (SEWilco 07:28, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC))
        
        Exactly. -Rob
    - Also, no longer needed since Hopewells source is now apparently the transcript. -Rob
      - Hopewell's article still refers to the film clip. --(SEWilco 07:28, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC))
  - Removed propaganda clip after WinterSlander.com verified it was indeed generated by one of its activists, and doesn't reflect accurate testimony of Weber. I'm looking for an accurate film segment of Webers testimony now. -Rob
    - Who at WinterSoldier said what? -- (SEWilco 15:57, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC))
      - Weber at Winter Soldier said he was resocialized. -Rob
        
        I can also ignore the context: There is no information at http://www.winterslander.com/ so who verified what? -- (SEWilco 08:28, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC))
  - Note the film clip is edited to the point of being deceiving and non-factual, and omits much of the testimony which is in the actual transcript. -Rob
  - Note the film omits much of the testimony which is in the transcript.-- (SEWilco 17:21, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC))
    - WinterSoldier.Com says they have not modified the contents of the clips in any way from the originals. -- (SEWilco 08:34, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC))
  - Note the clip omits much of the testimony which is in the transcript.-- (SEWilco 06:35, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC))
  - Note the film omits much of the testimony which is in the transcript.-- (SEWilco 17:21, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC))
    - Removed Propaganda film clip that is non-factual. Please supply a clip that has not been edited for propaganda (does not have pertinent qualifying statements removed, lending to different or opposite meanings). Thanks much. - Rob
    - WinterSoldier.Com says they have not modified the contents of the clips in any way from the originals. -- (SEWilco 08:34, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC))
      - Isn't that a clip from the documentary Winter Soldier? The film maker presented that. Is the new notation above satisfactory? -- (SEWilco)
        
        The film maker presented what? According to the first paragraph of your source, the film maker takes issue with his film being shown in edited (read: deceiving) form. Is that what you mean? As for the above notation, yes, it is satisfactory.
        
        The film maker takes issue with "short educational clips". No mention of editing having been done to the clips. I'll ask. -- (SEWilco 06:35, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC))
        
        No, the film makers (there are several) take issue with the mis-editing. It's your "expert source" that qualifies them as "short educational clips." Yes, do ask. -Rob
        
        WinterSoldier.Com says they have not modified the contents of the clips in any way from the originals. -- (SEWilco 08:34, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC))
        
        There were no "original" clips. Just the film. Are you saying they obtained "clips" somewhere? Please name the source. Thanks. -Rob
        
        That's right, just the film. -- (SEWilco 06:13, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC))
        
        Then you are saying WinterSoldier.com did the clipping of the film segments from the film? -Rob

Ronald Palosaari

Ronald Palosaari [41]
- Winter Soldier Testimony - 24, Sgt. (E-5), "A" Co., 1/6 and 1/46, 198 LIB, Americal Division (November 1967 to November 1968) [42]
- Jim Weber confirms Ronald Palosaari's testimony. Palosaari confirms Weber's statements.

Sam Schorr

Sam Schorr [43]
- Winter Soldier Investigation - Miscellaneous Panel testimony [44]
- Donald Donner states they served together.

Russ Vaughn

Russ Vaughn
- Says John Kerry and others perpetrated lies.
Letter from a Russ Vaughn to WinterSoldier.Com points out veterans are "ragtag bunch of scumbags." http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/staticpages/index.php?page=20031118064232940
- "Reading that made me wonder how many seriously injured Vietnam veterans were denied this kind of community support because of the vicious and calculated lies perpetrated by John Kerry and that sorry-ass, ragtag bunch of scumbag, pseudo-soldiers he led. How many sacrificing, honorable warriors were left alone, isolated and embittered with their grievous wounds, rejected by an ungrateful nation, because of the manipulative, purposeful deceptions of a scheming, ambitious politician."
- "And now this shameless jerk, who, more than any other single person, created this unwarranted image of Vietnam veterans, wants us to join his Band of Brothers? Band of Brothers my ass! More like Band of Mothers to this veteran who will never, ever forgive John Kerry’s contemptible, destructive use of good and honorable soldiers to further his own selfish ambitions."
- "This brave young noncom was recently honored by his hometown community when he and his family came home from Walter Reed, where he had been convalescing for many months and getting fitted with prosthetic limbs."
- Was Vaughn involved with WSI? --(SEWilco 03:51, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC))
- Well, he does offer expert commentary on it. Still researching. He might end up in a section with Hopewell. -Rob

Kim Phuc

Kim Phuc, later Kim Phuc Phan Thi
- Vietnamese in photo made famous by Anti-War activists. Visits with VVAW
- Kim has commented, "I am not famous, my photo is. If the photographer had taken it two minutes earlier or two minutes later, there would have been no photo. Millions are hurt in war, they just don't have their photo taken, so they don't exist. I must speak for them. Why fight? For what? People who are fighting are just destroying. We live in love and we should live in peace." [45]
  - Event and photo did not become famous until the year after WSI. (Scot?)

Lisa Boucher

Lisa Boucher
- VVAW National Staff member
- Lisa Boucher was seen singing at a VVAW Meeting. As proof, Joe Miller admits, "The remainder of the afternoon festivities included more songs from Jim Walktendonk, a surprise song from my daughter, Lisa Boucher, and an even more surprising song from Bill Davis. Other speakers included Bud Sauk, a founding member of Business Executives Against the War in Vietnam; Ray Parrish, VVAW member and Director of the Midwest Committee for Military Counseling (MCMC); John Zutz, a Midwest Regional Coordinator for VVAW (see a printed version of his remarks elsewhere in this issue); and Dong Tizon, of the Philippine Workers Solidarity Committee, among others. This afternoon was filled with memories, good and bad, with images of struggle, past and present (see Oscar Lopez-Rivera's letter below), and with determination to continue the fight for peace and social justice for all peoples everywhere. We came together in celebration of the victory of the people of Vietnam and in celebration of the contributions we made in helping that victory along. The struggle goes on!"
- [46]

Gordon Stewart

Gordon Stewart [47]
- Winter Soldier Investigation - 3rd Marine testimony [48]
- Christopher Soares "correlated with Gordon Stewart".
- Says he was wounded at same event as Robert Clark mentioned.

Christopher Soares

Christopher Soares [49]
- Winter Soldier Investigation - 3rd Marine testimony [50]
- Refers to Gordon Stewart: "My testimony will consist of the invasion of Laos, correlated with Gordon Stewart, Operation Dewey Canyon"

Robert Clark

Robert Clark [51]
- Winter Soldier Investigation - 3rd Marine testimony [52]
- Gordon Stewart says he was wounded at event described by Robert Clark.

Kenneth Campbell

Kenneth Campbell [53]
- Moderator, Winter Soldier Investigation - 3rd Marine testimony
- Corroborates William Hatton's testimony as to Sgt. _____. [54]

William Hatton

William Hatton [55]
- Winter Soldier Investigation - 3rd Marine testimony [56]
- Kenneth Campbell corrobates testimony as to Sgt. _____. [[57]]

Mark Lenix

Mark Lenix [58]
- Participated in creation of Winter Soldier film.
- Winter Soldier Investigation - 1st, 4th, and 9th Infantry divisions testimony [59]
- Mark Lenix and Scott Moore were in same unit and corrobate each other's testimony. [60]

Scott Moore

Scott Moore [61]
- Winter Soldier Investigation - 1st, 4th, and 9th Infantry divisions testimony [62]
- Mark Lenix and Scott Moore were in same unit and corrobate each other's testimony. [63]

Franklin Shepard

Franklin Shepard [64]
- Winter Soldier Investigation - 1st, 4th, and 9th Infantry divisions testimony [65]

Summary of mention of cut off ears

- - Never saw cut off ears: "I never witnessed anyone cutting off an ear, for example, and bringing it in"
  - Unidentified panelist: "... ears drying in the sun. This was right behind the battalion TOC"

Mention of cut off ears in context

- - - "These badges were given when someone could prove that he had killed a Viet Cong, or Vietnamese. There are many ways of doing this. One is to have somebody verify that you did in fact see him kill a Vietnamese. Another way is--and this a common way--to cut off the ear of the dead Vietnamese and bring it in. You could exchange it for one of these badges. The badges were created on a battalion level; I have the order here that created this badge, and the sick individual that signed it. ... As for myself, I never witnessed anyone cutting off an ear, for example, and bringing it in; I don't know that these were Viet Cong. It just seems that if you have something like this you're going to get instances where people take civilians to get one of these badges."
    - Unidentified panelist: "We never really had that much incentive for body counts. But this is slightly related. You know, everybody likes souvenirs. That's sort of like an American pastime. I went to visit a friend. There was a Connex--it's a metal box that they ship goods over to Vietnam in, and they're big enough for a man to walk in. On top of it was a set of ears drying in the sun. This was right behind the battalion TOC, which is Tactical Operations Center. They could not help but see a set of ears on Connex, you know, drying in the sun. I thought at first that it was revolting, but after a while I thought, you know, hey man, maybe I want a souvenir. One of these days when I come across a body I'll get myself a finger or an ear. When I went over there, it was a revolting idea. But then, you know, once you did kill a body, you could bring back the souvenir that you did kill it."

Larry Rottmann

Larry Rottmann [66]
- Co-moderator, 25th Infantry Division and Public Information Office Panel [67]
- Larry Rottmann showed Vernon Shibla's photo of two MPs carrying a Vietnamese suspect.
- Mike McCusker and Larry Rottmann met "in Chicago and we both got gassed together." (context implies years of protesting, so probably refers to the 1968 Democratic National Convention)

Vernon Shibla

Vernon Shibla [68]
- Winter Soldier Investigation 25th Infantry Division and Public Information Office Panel testimony [69]
- Larry Rottmann showed Vernon Shibla's photo of two MPs carrying a Vietnamese suspect.

Paul Olimpieri

Paul Olimpieri [70]
- Winter Soldier Investigation 1st Marine Division testimony [71]
- Paul Olimpieri was leader of Fred Nienke's squad.

Fred Nienke

Fred Nienke [72]
- Winter Soldier Investigation 1st Marine Division testimony [73]
- Paul Olimpieri was leader of Fred Nienke's squad.

People without apparent involvement in WSI

These entries need more information. Are these people WSI participants?

Gaetano Puglisi

Gaetano Puglisi
Letter from a Gaetano Puglisi to WinterSoldier.Com points out how John Kerry obtained VVAW letterhead and forged letters to Veterans before joining VVAW. http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/staticpages/index.php?page=20031118064232940
- "The Brave men and women who gave the ultimate sacrifice should not have their Brave deeds forsaken by J. Kerry. Best Regards and God Bless AMERICA."
- "I was encouraged to return my Purple Heart [with cluster -- I have 2] and my Bronze Star w/ V device [Valor] and join his protest against the war."
- "I would like to say something about Mr. Kerry. In 1968 or 1969 I received a letter from Kerry and the Vietnam Veterans Against the War...He went to Nam to help his own political future and had his own agenda and never wanted to help the guys who were spilling their blood for AMERICA and FREEDOM! This Kerry should have been stripped of all Veteran Benefits."
- Was Puglisi involved with WSI? --(SEWilco 03:54, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC))
  - He received a letter from the organizers. -Rob
    - Why is he considered "Well Known"? --(SEWilco)
      - Technically, he's not. He's been sitting in that catagory since before the reorganization. -Rob

References

David Cline

David Cline, worked for VVAW as National Coordinator. [74]
David Cline is believed to have reviewed a VVAW guide to organizing protests, written by Jan Barry.

[75]

- Cline is quoted as saying of Barry, "Jan Barry is one of the unsung heroes of the Vietnam war era. Born in Ithaca, New York during World War II, his childhood ambition was to attend West Point. He joined the Army in 1962 and volunteered for Vietnam where he was a radio/navigation operator for planes supplying Special Forces units. After his return, he received an appointment to West Point, the first cadet there who had already served in Vietnam."

[76]

Nancy Saunders

Nancy Saunders, Durham, worked with VVAW for four years in the early 1970s. [77]
L.A. Times refers to filmmaker Nancy Miller Saunders, the girlfriend of Arkansas-Louisiana coordinator Don Donner [78]
- "Here in Fayetteville there was Michael Damron, a tank commander and sniper with the 3rd Marines who was at Khe Sanh. He died a few years ago from exposure to Agent Orange. There was Don Donner, an Army engineer and now a lawyer and associate justice of the Arkansas Supreme Court. He was VVAW's Arkansas and Louisiana regional coordinator.
- "There was Marti Jordan who served a tour with MAGV and another with Tropical Lightning. He was VVAW's Arkansas state coordinator and is now a minister. He and Don did draft counseling together in the basement of the University Presbyterian Church. There was Randy, a lieutenant with the Airborne Rangers whose unit was wiped out in Operation Ripcord and Leroy who came home a paraplegic. There was Clint whose parents disowned him for his antiwar activities and Tom whose career dreams were dashed by his involvement with VVAW.
- "Elsewhere there was John W. Kniffin who spent 34 months in Vietnam as a tank commander. He earned two Purple Hearts, both the Bronze and Silver Stars and the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry. He was VVAW's Texas regional coordinator. He recently died from exposure to Agent Orange. There was Bill Patterson an Army door gunner and the West Texas and New Mexico coordinator. He also died from Agent Orange exposure. There was Scott Camil who spent two tours in country as a forward observer with the 1st Marines. He was the Florida regional coordinator.
- "Scott, Bill and John had a lot worse than insults hurled at them. They were three of the seven seasoned combat vets and one conscientious objector, known as the Gainesville 8, who were tried on the word of FBI informers for conspiracy to take on police, the Secret Service, the 82nd Airborne, etc., at the 1972 GOP convention armed only with slingshots and a crossbow. The jury saw the absurdity of the charges and quickly acquitted the eight."

Winter Soldier Investigation verification processes

"Each veteran's authenticity and testimony were checked before the hearings by Investigation organizers. Who better to authenticate Vietnam service than other Vietnam vets (Brinkley, 349; Hunt, 66-68). Each veteran's authenticity and testimony were checked after the hearings by Nixon's "plumbers". Charles Colson was assigned the task. In a CONFIDENTIAL "Plan to Counteract Viet Nam Veterans Against the War", Colson wrote, "The men that participated in the pseudo-atrocity hearings in Detroit will be checked to ascertain if they are genuine combat veterans." At one point, the Nixon team suggested in a memo about VVAW, "Several of their regional coordinators are former Kennedy supporters." With the exception of the attack on Al Hubbard, nothing worse was ever produced (Brinkley, 356-357;Hunt, 73-84; Wells, 489-490).
From Guenther Lewy's "America in Vietnam," (Pg. 316): 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.
"Those who wanted to testify were carefully screened by Oliver, Hubbard, Scott Moore, and other officers of VVAW, as well as by Fonda and her associates, to make sure that they were who they said they were, that they had served where they said they did, and that only the strongest testimony went before the microphones. All veterans participating in Winter Soldier were required to bring their discharge papers (DD-214's). Moreover, Oliver and Moore had fashioned a special "atrocity room" in a nearby house, with hundreds of papers taped to the walls---lists of troop movements and unit assignments which they correlated with the individual claims of war crimes that were being brought before them every day." [79] -- (SEWilco 06:41, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC))

Related Source Information

Citizen Soldier records, 1966-1994, Document collection at Cornell University. Records cover period when the Citizens' Commission of Inquiry on U.S. War Crimes (CCI) began organizing what became the Winter Soldier Investigation. Division of Rare and Manuscript Collections, Cornell University Library, Collection 7033. http://rmc.library.cornell.edu/EAD/htmldocs/RMM07033.html
- Could be an interesting source for support documents regarding events of that era - Too bad they don't have all 25 cubic feet of boxed material on the net. Where did you get the idea that CCI organized the Winter Soldier Investigation? The only connection I see is that some of the founding VVAW members may also have been involved with CCI. -Rob
  - WSI began as a project of CCI, supported by Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW) cofounder Jan Crumb, attorney Mark Lane, and actress Jane Fonda. ... The Citizen's Commission of Inquiry had contacted VVAW to find witnesses to atrocities. After months of increasingly disharmonious work together, VVAW decided that the public event that was growing out of gathering this testimony would have more credibility as an all-veteran project. Vietnam Veterans Against the War took over the Winter Soldier Investigation in late 1970. http://lists.village.virginia.edu/sixties/HTML_docs/Texts/Narrative/Crandell_Winter.html -- (SEWilco 06:43, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC))
  - Note: If someone integrates a reference to the Citizen Soldier records in an article, use proper citation for the off-line document collection. --(SEWilco)

NPOV September-October 2004

The NPOV tag gets deleted a lot. -Anonymous The NPOV tag gets inserted a lot. -Rob

The latest page with dispute annotations also got deleted: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Winter_Soldier_Investigation&oldid=6268141

WSI Steering committee

By late September the WSI Steering committee was composed of Duncan, Fonda, Ensign, Lane, Hubbard, Rifkin, and Fernandez, and issued a call for participation by 1,000 Vietnam veterans by October 10. Origin of this info? -Rob

Found it. WSI leaflet "Call to the Winter Soldier Investigation (An Inquiry into U.S. War Crimes in Indo-China)" Page 173+, FBI file Section 01.pdf. -- (SEWilco)

Al Hubbard references

Updates with information about VVAW founder Al Hubbard are being removed. -- SEWilco

Updates with unsubstantiated or refuted statements about Hubbard are being removed -Rob

Regarding the fabrication by Hubbard:

From historian and author of Home to War: A History of the Vietnam Veteran's Movement, Gerald Nicosia: "Although Mr. Burkett has certainly done some good work outing fake vets, he ignores one critical factor -- that service people doing covert missions, such as rangers going across the border in Laos, into North Vietnam, etc., never had those actions put into their records. Al Hubbard was on similar covert missions, flying in a supply plane to the French when they were fighting the Viet Minh in the fifties. It doesn't surprise me that those flights were not in his record. He did lie about being an officer, when he was a career sergeant, because the press kept paying more attention to his co-leader John Kerry, a decorated officer. Also, Hubbard never claimed to have been wounded in combat; his back was hurt when his plane crashed on a runway. When I interviewed him in 1992, he was on medical disability from the Air Force."

Overend also noted that claims that he had served for two years in Vietnam and been wounded there were not justified. His injuries are also discussed. --(SEWilco 19:38, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC))

Never claimed to have been wounded in combat? Overend says that at the time "The way it was later explained to me at the Washington "camp-in" was that Hubbard had been flying a transport plane into Danang one day in 1966 when he "caught some shrapnel in the spine."

Overend also states, "I talked to several members of the VVAW at their headquarters in Manhattan. They still remembered the Danang story, although some now emphasized that they had never really heard Hubbard tell it." We're looking for first-hand accounts here, please. -Rob

" "Meet the Press" was given Hubbard's intro, and Hubbard did not dispute it. In The New Soldier, although listed with the rank of Sgt, his poem implies Vietnam service. His record shows no service, which is quite different from "two years". -- (SEWilco 19:45, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC))

The poem can "imply" anything. We're referring specifically to his intro on "Meet the Press" - do you have a transcript? Did they introduce him as a Vietnam Vet? Did they specify war wounds, wounds in action, wounded while in the service? It is quite likely that whatever error the introduction contained was insignificant, didn't require correction, or didn't exist at all. -Rob

Perhaps you should read the Overend article again. He first got the Danang description when he met Hubbard at the "camp-in" on the Mall. CBS reporter, when CBS was a top news organization. First-hand. Also a contemporaneous source for the "Meet the Press" description. -- (SEWilco 07:40, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC))

I am not questioning that is where he first got the Danang description - I am doubting that he got it from Hubbard. Note that he specifically says, "He said he had been an Air Force Captain." The problems I have are with this text from his article, "Hubbard had been introduced on that show by Lawrence E. Spivak as a former captain who had spent two years in Vietnam, and who had been decorated and injured in the process. The way it was later explained to me at the Washington "camp-in" was that Hubbard had been flying a transport plane into Danang one day in 1966 when he "caught some shrapnel in the spine." The problems are: He doesn't quote Spivak directly, he is most likely paraphrasing. Why? Because in the subsequent days, everyone agrees he embellished his rank - see Kerry's statement; see VVAW executive's statements; see Hubbard's admission - yet not one of them claims he embellished war injuries. Further, Nicosia and Hubbard both refute war injury embellishment story (see quote above). Info about his rank and injuries would be obtained from the same source, so it wouldn't make sense to admit lying, yet still try to carry on part of that lie. I'd like to see the actual Meet the Press introduction, otherwise we have 1 allegation of injuries, and many refutations of injuries. -Rob

Read Overend yet again. "They still remembered the Danang story, although some now emphasized that they had never really heard Hubbard tell it." That is from people in NY. Whether those are same people from DC or not, the story certainly had spread around. Hubbard had been working with NY office enough that it seems a tad unlikely for significant confusion. And Al Hubbard is labeled "Vietnam Veteran" in "The New Soldier", because he was presenting himself as one. -- (SEWilco 17:47, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC))

Sure the stories spread around - but that still doesn't make Hubbard the source of that story. That was my initial point. As for Hubbard being a Vietnam Vet, that was never in dispute. What was under dispute was whether he ever claimed to serve IN Vietnam. -Rob

Hubbard at least pretended to have served in Vietnam, even to the VVAW Executive Committee. At the Kansas City meeting, Kerry said he did not think Hubbard had ever served in Vietnam or even in the service (apparently Kerry had attempted to verify Hubbard's veteran status and could not find a 201 file). -- (SEWilco 19:38, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC))

Can you provide a quote of Hubbards wherein he asserts he served IN Vietnam, instead of just DURING Vietnam? Also, there is already a notation in the article that Hubbard lied about his rank. Now you are trying to clutter the "credibility of participants" section with info about a non-participant? He appears to be one of the original organizers, at most. Also, you can not attribute a source to the "Danang crash" story from Overends article. -Rob

It also is improper to connect Hubbard to Nixon, and not correct that "nothing worse" than the wrong rank was discovered. -- (SEWilco 19:45, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC))

Where do you think NBC got the "anonymous tip?" Is it just coincidence that Colson cited Hubbard's rank exxaggeration in his reports? -Rob

Did Colson learn of the rank exaggeration from NBC, point it out to NBC, or find it independently? -Anonymous?

Rob, you're using the Nixon reference to remove all the other details which were not from that anonymous tip. -- (SEWilco 07:40, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC))

Not really - I'm removing unsubstantiated assertions, period. The Nixon reference is added simply to consolidate information. Colson did find Hubbards rank issue independently, but I'm not 100% sure Colson provided the "anonymous tip" to NBC - I'm still looking for corroboration on that. -Rob

Tod Ensign, of CCI, also writes that he was aware of Hubbard's war stories of serving in Vietnam and that they were found to not be true. http://lists.village.virginia.edu/sixties/HTML_docs/Texts/Narrative/Ensign_War_Crimes.html

Actually, he writes, "Al was to have some additional credibility problems later on when it was disclosed that, despite his war stories, he'd never served in Vietnam." Just to keep things factual. It was also disclosed that Hubbard allegedly served in Vietnam and Laos covertly (Nicosia); and disclosed by the Pentagon that Hubbard could have been in Vietnam during cargo pick-ups and drop-offs, and during recreation time; and it has also NOT been disclosed that Hubbard claimed to serve in Vietnam (still waiting for that quote source). -Rob

I've given several references from then, including John Kerry and the VVAW's "The New Soldier" referring to him as "Al Hubbard Vietnam Veteran". -- (SEWilco 16:59, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC))

I am not disputing that Hubbard was a Vietnam Vet, are you? I thought the question was whether he served IN Vietnam, or more specifically, whether he ever claimed to serve IN Vietnam. Whether a Vietnam Vet serves his country in the jungles of 'Nam, or on a ship off the coast of 'Nam, or in a plane over 'Nam, or patching up the men in a base hospital in Okinawa, or at a logistics depot in North Carolina sending supplies to the troops - if they were serving actively, and the ongoing conflict was called the Vietnam War, then they are all Vietnam War Vets. You might be able to make a case against calling reservists or inactives Vietnam Vets if they didn't actively "serve," but Hubbard is in neither of those catagories. -Rob

In context, "Vietnam veteran" obviously means someone who served in Vietnam. Are you claiming that the "Vietnam Veterans Against the War"" were being deceptive by labeling Hubbard as "Vietnam veteran" rather than "Vietnam-era veteran"? At the time, "recent veteran" was the type of term used for someone who had not served in Vietnam. -- (SEWilco 12:43, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC))

No, I am not. -Rob

WSI Problems

Information about problems with WSI are being removed. -- SEWilco 14:55, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Correct. False information, uncorroborated information, inflammatory POV information and misinformation are indeed being removed. -- -Rob

Halfway through the event, Mark Lane is blocked from speaking for the group.

- You haven't said why that was removed. -- (SEWilco 06:40, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC))
  - Most likely a source dispute. What is your source for the "Mark Lane gagged" info? -Rob
    - "Young Vets Oppose Viet War", Detroit Free Press, Feb 4, 1971. In previously referenced page 61 of http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/fbifiles/100-HQ-448092/Section%2002/Section%2002.pdf -- (SEWilco)

::* Note: It has been pointed out that among the oddities of Bangert's testimony is that he should not have been able to hitchike on that dangerous highway, as his unit used helicopter transport. -Anonymous? ::* Bangert was involved in creating the Winter Soldier film about this VVAW event.  ::* Bangert has worked for several of John Kerry's campaigns since 1984, including as a veterans' organizer in 2004.

::* Note: "Camile" in transcripts is Scott Camil, a VVAW leader.

Yeah, that was mentioned in the article, I believe. -Rob

- Bangert is already listed among the film producers. Edifications about one particular veterans career decades later (i.e.; Campaign Worker) don't seem particularily relevant to this topic. Proceeds from both the film and the book were to go to VVAW, so I don't see what you are implying with the "financial interest" notation. As for oddities in testimony, I can easily google up a dozen refutations of testimony, as well as a dozen corroborations of testimony from sources "dat wuz in da armed forcez during da time in question." Let's see if we can stick with verifiable facts and sources that aren't likely to be motivated by political impetus for now. (Note that I'm not saying factual information can not come from biased sources - but the burden of proof might be a little heavier.) -Rob

- - Well, that is why Bangert's political activity is relevant, as well as testimony by VVAW leaders: Let's see if we can stick with verifiable facts and sources that aren't likely to be motivated by political impetus for now. -Anonymous?

- - - Why is Bangert's later political activity relevant, again? -Rob

Steve Pitkin references

Other mentions of Pitkin:

Stuff that just vanished

The CBS television crew that showed up were themselves deeply impressed, but only three minutes made it to the nightly news on the first night.

It has been re-inserted. However, I'd be interested in seeing the source that verifies "3 minutes" made the nightly news. -Rob
- VVAW newsletter about WSI. It was widely known then. Page 162 FBI file Section 02 (January / April 1971, 323 pages, 17.6 MB): http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/fbifiles/100-HQ-448092/Section%2002/Section%2002.pdf

American and allied war crimes

You have changed certain "war crimes" references to "American war crimes." That is technically incorrect, since many of the war crimes described were committed by our Vietnamese allies, while the U.S. military leaders turned a blind eye. - Rob

Changed to include allies, yet still references are being removed. -- (SEWilco 05:33, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC))

Inconsistent press coverage

Which are these "many" organizations which devoted so many resources? It doesn't make sense to claim there was much effort expended, without their producing stories about WSI either as real or fake. -- (SEWilco 18:40, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC))

Despite this meticulous documentation, many of the Midwest papers and news organizations, such as the Detroit News, tried to discredit the hearings by questioning the authenticity of the veterans who testified; with all their digging, not one fraudulent veteran was discovered.

Good question. I'm going to tone-down the statement by changing "many" to "several" for now. I have a copy of "Winter Soldier" being delivered, along with some footage that was cut from the final production, and I hope to gleen some interesting factual tidbits from them regarding the media coverage present, and the interactions that occured during the event. -Rob

See FBI "Section 02" file (link above) last half of page 61. FBI daily descriptions do not mention press, but also do not mention CBS and Winterfilm cameras, with crowds 250-600 daily. VVAW estimate is 3400 total. Film does not show photographers jostling for position either. Hotel said 10 attending the conference stayed at the hotel. Implications: Some Press known to be there, but there must not have been enough to create a crowd worth mentioning. Based on appearance of room, I'd guess if there were more than 50 they definitely would have been mentioned. From the few papers who published and the location, probably at least six reporters with notebooks were present. Assuming some more stringers who didn't get published, 12-18 members of the press took a look the first day. -- (SEWilco 06:40, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC))

Multiple edits by anonymous editors

One anonymous editor removed a lot of POV fluff.
One anonymous editor tuned phrasing.
One anonymous editor reverted a pile of stuff.

Exerpted Testimony From Veterans

Annotations to the testimony are being removed. -- (SEWilco 06:05, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC))
- Annotations about Bangert's relationships which can affect the interpretation of his statements are being removed.
  - Bangert was a member of the anonymous group producing the film of the event.
  - Bangert has had an ongoing relationship with Kerry, who publicized this testimony.
- It is a myth that it is illegal to use a .50 caliber weapon against people.
- Annotations that Camil/Camile is also a leader of VVAW are being removed.
- New use of tear gas was of interest due to controversy over whether it was an illegal poison gas.

WSI Support

Confirmation or Duplication?

How much confirmation should be reported in support of WSI? It is assumed they support what they earlier said, so at some point such information is redundant and can be summarized. -- (SEWilco 18:46, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC))

That's a valid question. However, I see in Beitzel's recent statement more than just confirmation that the testimony was true and the testifiers were vets. He touches on a couple of lesser discussed aspects of the conversation, such as motivation of the participants and the lack of motivation of "official" investigators, such as the Navy. There is no shortage of people that scream, "the testimony is a pack of lies!" because it is too painful for them to believe otherwise - yet not one of those screamers offers a plausible motivation for lying. There was no fame or monetary gain to be had by concocting such elaborate lies, and it certainly was not politically expedient to present false representations. There is also very little discussion about how the military institutions stone-walled at every opportunity to further investigate the claims, specifically or generally, raised at WSI. -Rob

Motivation of participants

The VVAW repeatedly published a list of goals, you might start with that list. -- (SEWilco)

Help me out here... got a source? -Rob

http://www.vvaw.org/veteran/article/?id=317

Thanks. That source appears to be goals for the VVAW, not the WSI. It also appears to be from late 1972, not January, 1971 at the WSI. I can see some cross-over possible motivations, however. -Rob

You've quoted from Lewy's "American in Vietnam", so you also have access to his suggestions. -- (SEWilco)

True, I have his book. And "Stolen Valor," and both of Nicosia's books, among others. What am I looking for? Motivations of the participants? I have plenty - but none that you'd like to hear. None of them support your desire to uncover phonys or false testimony at WSI. -Rob

I'm aware of possibilities. You're the one who thought their motivation should be introduced to the article. -- (SEWilco)

Are you speaking of the motivations of the participants, or the motivations of the organizers of this war crimes hearing? -Rob

You have no "desire to uncover phonys or false testimony at WSI"? You're satisfied to blindly accept all that was said without question? This is a document about history, not a frozen snapshot of January 1971. -- (SEWilco)

You might wish to re-read my statement. I don't understand the source of your assertions about my intentions. Perhaps you'd care to explain? As for the document in question, it is not about history - it is about the Winter Soldier Investigation, and I'd prefer that it remain factual. -Rob

Not surprisingly, motivation of an assortment of people is also in Burkett/Whitley's "Stolen Valor" -- (SEWilco)

See previous comment by -Rob

Lack of motivation of "official" investigators

Depends whether they got orders to investigate or some evidence. -- (SEWilco)

Should they need "orders to investigate" if someone volunteers to confess?

Military stone-walled further investigations

Investigations were blocked? Who was investigating what? -- (SEWilco)

It is my belief that investigations were AVOIDED, because the armed forces knew they would be openning a can of worms. -Rob

That's a nice belief you have there. -- (SEWilco)

"The Pentagon" was at least issuing brief information at the time, as the Detroit Free Press was the next day at least confirming that some people were veterans. It is possible that this information was obtained from inquiries based on the ten-day premeeting summary, so the time scale was days rather than hours. -- (SEWilco 04:34, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC))

John Beitzel messages

Has any of this been confirmed as being from the participant? -- (SEWilco 18:46, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC))

I have been in contact with the participant. Perhaps he should be invited to participate in this discussion? He is legit, as far as I can tell - but I have to admit I haven't been in his physical presence. -Rob

Anonymous editor "Rob": anyone can participate. As you say, it is hard for him to prove anything here. WinterSoldier.Com has been collecting affidavits, so he might contact them. -- (SEWilco 17:31, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC))

Online messages

Online msg 1

On September 23, 2004, another veteran recalls: I testified at the Winter Soldier investigation in 1971. I told the truth and to my knowledge not a single statement has ever proven to be false. I have heard a lot of false claims that the people at winter soldier were not veterans. If so many people were frauds at the Winter Soldier Investigation, why hasn't someone released the names of the vets who falsely testified? Wouldn't this be front page news? Maybe one or two frauds slipped through but I doubt it. The truth of the matter is no one was allowed to testify at the Winter Soldier Investigation unless they had DD214 military seperation papers. For years I tried to tell everyone who was willing to listen, about the official and defacto policies of our government that were against the Geneva Convention. They were in fact war crimes. I testified before Congress, before the U.N. Human rights Commission, at the Winter Soldier Investigation, at public hearings, at the Philadelphia Naval Base Criminal Investigation Department, and at the Pentagon. We spoke out against the POLICIES of our government, that were in violation of US law as well as International law. We never spoke out against our fellow soldiers. After all they were our friends, family members and neighbors. I went to the Naval Criminal Investigation Division and told them if they were interested in pursuing those responsible for the policies that resulted in war crimes, I would give them a sworn statement including pictures of war crimes that I personally took. They said they would get back to me but they never did. No one has ever challenged my statements, nor has anyone ever proven that I have made any untruthful statements. From my experiences as an infantry veteran, I was deeply concerned about my fellow soldiers in Vietnam being killed, or coming home severly injured. I wanted the war to come to an end, so that the destuction and madness in Vietnam would also come to an end. I lost many friends in Vietnam. Some were fellow soldiers and others were friends that I grew up with and knew from an early age. Earlier this year (2/2004), I returned to Vietnam and visited the old basecamps and battlefields from my year in Vietnam 35 years ago. It was reassuring and very healing, to experience the peace, that is the reality of today's Vietnam. Almost no one in Vietnam talks about the "American War." To them it is ancient history. It is certainly sad to see so many of the old wounds being reopened and the old debates argued once again. In 1971, the members of VVAW were looking for a way to help put an end to the war, and bring peace to this country, as well as Vietnam. The members of VVAW that I knew were good people, with good hearts, that were trying to do the right thing. I have no regrets about working for peace. I still know many VVAW members today. All of them are very proud of their efforts in working for peace. It's time to put the Vietnam debate behind us. It's time to debate the current issues of today. And, let the chips fall where they may.

Hoa Binh
John Beitzel, Vietnam Veteran
4/21 Infantry, 11th Bde, Americal Division. 1/1969 - 1/1970
Member - VVAW 9/1970 - 9/1971
Winter Soldier - Jan/Feb-1971

Msg 1 commentary

I testified at the Winter Soldier investigation in 1971.

No proof of identity yet. -- (SEWilco 05:31, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC))

I'm satisfied of proven identity. What would you require for your satisfaction? -Rob

I told the truth and to my knowledge not a single statement has ever proven to be false.
I have heard a lot of false claims that the people at winter soldier were not veterans. If so many people were frauds at the Winter Soldier Investigation, why hasn't someone released the names of the vets who falsely testified? Wouldn't this be front page news? Maybe one or two frauds slipped through but I doubt it.

Did anyone investigate? -- (SEWilco)

Guenter Lewy claims an investigation was done by the Navy, but admits not actually seeing a report - and he dances like a whirling dervish when pressured to produce a source contact. And then there is the Judge Advocate General's denial that such an investigation took place. Got any ideas? -Rob

Maybe nobody cared. WSI info was part of history until it went on the Internet, and it still had to be looked for. You can see in Google Groups what comments Bangert began to get when the WSI transcripts became available on the Internet. -- (SEWilco 05:31, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC))

Didn't Senator Hatfield "demand" investigations be launched after reading the testimony into the Congressional Record? I can see why investigations would be avoided, but surely there is something, right? -Rob

The truth of the matter is no one was allowed to testify at the Winter Soldier Investigation unless they had DD214 military seperation papers.

Documentation of being in Vietnam and a time period. The VVAW has not published their copies. -- (SEWilco)

I doubt copies would exist. They sought enough proof to satisfy themselves that frauds weren't sneaking in, but I doubt they collected proof to show to other people that might question the participants. That burden of proof or disproof would rest with the questioners. However, it was noted that the press was actively "spot checking" various participants credentials throughout the event. -Rob

For years I tried to tell everyone who was willing to listen, about the official and defacto policies of our government that were against the Geneva Convention. They were in fact war crimes.

Telling about policies, not the details of war crimes? -- (SEWilco)

The "policies" he mentions are indeed the criminal policies. -Rob

I testified before Congress, before the U.N. Human rights Commission, at the Winter Soldier Investigation, at public hearings, at the Philadelphia Naval Base Criminal Investigation Department, and at the Pentagon.

Were enough details of the war crimes given so they could be investigated? -- (SEWilco)

He makes clear that he offered details to the Naval Base CID. -Rob

He offered details if his restrictions were met. -- (SEWilco)

He offered details if they wanted to pursue those responsible - hardly sounds like a restriction. -Rob

We spoke out against the POLICIES of our government, that were in violation of US law as well as International law. We never spoke out against our fellow soldiers. After all they were our friends, family members and neighbors.

So there were not names and details given so incidents could be investigated? -- (SEWilco)

At the Winter Soldier Investigation, the participants were specifically instructed NOT to give names, because they were not there to indict and accuse individual soldiers. They could give their own names, because as ex-military they were immune to military prosecution, but they were forbidden to mention anyone elses names. -Rob

The military did not announce they were immune until after WSI. WSI had announced they had a bunch of lawyers to protect participants. -- (SEWilco)

All of the participants were immune to military discipline because they were no longer in the military. This was verified prior to anyone testifying. I have no idea what "announcement of immunity" by the military that you are referring to - I don't believe they ever did such a thing, because it wasn't necessary. (And yes, Lewy's mention of immunities in his book are indeed in error.) -Rob

I went to the Naval Criminal Investigation Division and told them if they were interested in pursuing those responsible for the policies that resulted in war crimes, I would give them a sworn statement including pictures of war crimes that I personally took. They said they would get back to me but they never did.

The phrase has a qualification: if they were interested in pursuing those responsible for the policies; who decided if that restriction was satisfied and how? -- (SEWilco)

By the sound of his statement, it appears they never got around to satisfying that statement, or not satisfying that statement. It appears they blew him off, regardless of that "restriction." -Rob

Thus he never gave enough details for any war crimes to be investigated. Without identified war crimes, the policies which caused those crimes can not be investigated. So it is hardly surprising there was no investigation of policies. -- (SEWilco)

However, there was indeed wholesale revamping of policies subsequent to the WSI. -Rob

On the other hand, if he was indeed investigated for war crimes then contact with him might have been avoided because he was the subject. Did he ever seek his own file at the agency? -- (SEWilco)

He was honorably discharged; no longer in the military, and immune to military disciplinary action. I have no idea if he has a file, or is he sought it. -Rob

No sworn statement and pictures given at the above-mentioned testifying at the Philadelphia Naval Base Criminal Investigation Department? -- (SEWilco)

Doesn't appear to have gotten that far - but not for lack of trying. -Rob

No one has ever challenged my statements, nor has anyone ever proven that I have made any untruthful statements.

When could someone investigate? -- (SEWilco)

I would guess they were open to investigation once they became public. -Rob

From my experiences as an infantry veteran, I was deeply concerned about my fellow soldiers in Vietnam being killed, or coming home severly injured. I wanted the war to come to an end, so that the destuction and madness in Vietnam would also come to an end. I lost many friends in Vietnam. Some were fellow soldiers and others were friends that I grew up with and knew from an early age.

Ending the war was his goal. -- (SEWilco)

No argument here. That much is self-evident. -Rob

Earlier this year (2/2004), I returned to Vietnam and visited the old basecamps and battlefields from my year in Vietnam 35 years ago. It was reassuring and very healing, to experience the peace, that is the reality of today's Vietnam. Almost no one in Vietnam talks about the "American War." To them it is ancient history.

To us it also was. -- (SEWilco)

I'm guessing moreso for them. -Rob

Or less so. They have to live under the resulting government, and deal with their relatives who fled. -- (SEWilco)

Actually, they don't. They can leave if they so desire, and their relatives have been shuttling back and forth between our two countries for many years now. -Rob

It is certainly sad to see so many of the old wounds being reopened and the old debates argued once again. In 1971, the members of VVAW were looking for a way to help put an end to the war, and bring peace to this country, as well as Vietnam. The members of VVAW that I knew were good people, with good hearts, that were trying to do the right thing. I have no regrets about working for peace. I still know many VVAW members today. All of them are very proud of their efforts in working for peace. It's time to put the Vietnam debate behind us.
It's time to debate the current issues of today. And, let the chips fall where they may.

So were enough details given so those old issues could be investigated, then "let the chips fall where they may"? -- (SEWilco)

I do believe he said it is time to debate the CURRENT issues, and let the chips fall where they may. -Rob

Msg 1 summary

Someone claiming to have testified told the truth and to his knowledge not a single statement has ever proven to be false. He wanted the war to end and complained about our government at many places, yet did not give details to investigators. He made no mention that anyone investigated his statements. -- (SEWilco 05:31, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC))

I testified at the Winter Soldier investigation in 1971.

Someone claiming to have testified -- (SEWilco)

I told the truth and to my knowledge not a single statement has ever proven to be false.

told the truth -- (SEWilco)

I have heard a lot of false claims that the people at winter soldier were not veterans. If so many people were frauds at the Winter Soldier Investigation, why hasn't someone released the names of the vets who falsely testified? Wouldn't this be front page news? Maybe one or two frauds slipped through but I doubt it.

to his knowledge not a single statement has ever proven to be false -- (SEWilco)

For years I tried to tell everyone who was willing to listen, about the official and defacto policies of our government that were against the Geneva Convention. They were in fact war crimes.

complained about our government -- (SEWilco)

I testified before Congress, before the U.N. Human rights Commission, at the Winter Soldier Investigation, at public hearings, at the Philadelphia Naval Base Criminal Investigation Department, and at the Pentagon.

at many places -- (SEWilco)

We spoke out against the POLICIES of our government, that were in violation of US law as well as International law. We never spoke out against our fellow soldiers. After all they were our friends, family members and neighbors.

without giving details -- (SEWilco)

I went to the Naval Criminal Investigation Division and told them if they were interested in pursuing those responsible for the policies that resulted in war crimes, I would give them a sworn statement including pictures of war crimes that I personally took. They said they would get back to me but they never did.

a single time complained about our government to investigators and gave them no details about war crimes -- (SEWilco)

From my experiences as an infantry veteran, I was deeply concerned about my fellow soldiers in Vietnam being killed, or coming home severly injured. I wanted the war to come to an end, so that the destuction and madness in Vietnam would also come to an end. I lost many friends in Vietnam. Some were fellow soldiers and others were friends that I grew up with and knew from an early age.

I wanted the war to end -- (SEWilco)

Copyright infringement Ensign_War_crimes.html

Infringing section removed per: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights#If_you_find_a_copyright_infringement

Beginning paragraphs are similar to introductory section from http://lists.village.virginia.edu/sixties/HTML_docs/Texts/Narrative/Ensign_War_Crimes.html

SEWilco 15:25, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Please review Fair Use stipulations. There are no violations here. -Rob

I believe you're under the impression that Fair Use means "a little plagiarism" is OK.

Not at all. I am under the impression that certain works protected by Copyright may be reproduced in full or in part if certain stipulations of Fair Use are met. I also prefer to err on the side of caution, rather than cause any unnecessary legal questions. -Rob

Creating a chapter from someone else's phrasing, structure, and information seems to exceed the bounds. The same material would more clearly be Fair Use if we were analyzing it in an article on Tod Ensign's work. -- (SEWilco 03:59, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC))

You are correct that Fair Use stipulations might be met if we were analyzing that brief text in an article on Tod Ensign's work -- or more accurately, the compilation by Viet Nam Generation, Inc. However, that segment of text, very similar to the text cited above, is not being used for that purpose. That is also not the only stipulation under which Copyrighted text may qualify for Fair Use. -Rob

American veterans were first given a forum to testify about war crimes committed by Americans and their allies, in the obscure venue of Roskilde, Denmark in November 1967. The first three veterans to testify, Peter Martinsen, David Tuck, and Donald Duncan, were heard at the second session of the international tribunal organized by Bertrand Russell and other antiwar activists. Although the Russell Tribunal received wide attention in Europe, they were largely ignored by the American media. While the hearings were known within the American peace movement, two more years passed before anyone began documenting supposed U.S. war crimes policies by gathering testimony from Vietnam veterans.

In November 1969, Jeremy Rifkin and Tod Ensign, both antiwar activists, responded to a public call from the Bertrand Russell foundation in New York to organize Citizens Commissions of Inquiry (CCI) to document war crimes in Indochina. This proposal was stimulated by the disclosure that American troops had killed more than four hundred Vietnamese civilians at My Lai (Son My) eighteen months earlier. The CCI, organized with the support of clergy, veterans, Quakers, and lawyers, had presented the testimony of a few veterans in 1970 as a means to expose the alleged brutality of the Vietnam war.

During the next few months, citizens commissions of inquiry were held in Richmond, Virginia; New York City, Buffalo, Boston, Minneapolis, Los Angeles, and Portland, Oregon. In some cities, the commissions were co-sponsored by antiwar coalitions, in others they were organized independently. The desire on the part of antiwar activists to demonstrate a broader pattern became clear, and a large scale event was considered. The CCI had contacted Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW) to find witnesses to atrocities. The VVAW steadily gained membership and visibility as the citizens commissions took place. However, after months of increasingly disharmonious work together, VVAW decided that the public event that was growing out of gathering this testimony would have more credibility as an all-veteran project. The Winter Soldier Investigation (WSI) would grow out of the moral outrage of some American soldiers who claimed they had committed acts in response to official orders and policies that they believed were criminal in nature. Vietnam Veterans Against the War took over the Winter Soldier Investigation in late 1970.

Kerry swore to committing war crimes?

Not that I know of. -Rob

Kerry also claimed in sworn testimony to have taken part personally in committing war crimes, though he was aware they were war crimes at the time.

I am aware he admitted to war crimes on Meet the Press and The Dick Cavett Show, and in print to shooting villages (and villagers). Did he admit such in sworn testimony rather than only repeating WSI testimony? -- (SEWilco 16:40, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC))
- He has admitted to participating in war crimes, such as firing in free-fire-zones, using interdiction fire, etc. (Coincidentally, John O'Neill has made a similar admission.) As for "sworn testimony," just when would that have been? He wasn't "sworn in" at the Fulbright hearings - nor anywhere else, that I am aware of. Oh - and I think it's "burned villages" - if ya want to be picky. -Rob
  - The anonymous editor who referred to sworn testimony seems to not have further explanations. And I think it's "firing at sampans and villages along the banks" in the Washington Star. -- (SEWilco 18:56, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC))
    - A drive-by editor. Your quote is correct, as is mine - depending on the source interview. It was the "at villagers" part that I questioned. -Rob
      - "we were butchering a lot of innocent people" further in the article. -- (SEWilco)
        
        Yup. I can recite that article verbatim, almost in its entirety. That's why I questioned the "at villagers" part. -Rob

.50-caliber question

SEWilco, the site you pointed me to on my Talk page is a JAG document that includes this passage:

Sniper rifles, .50 caliber machine guns, and shotguns. Much "mythology" exists about the lawfulness of these weapon systems. Bottom line: they are lawful weapons, although rules of engagement (policy and tactics) may limit their use.

Therefore, that doesn't support the assertion you've added to the article that the laws of war permit using such weapons against people. Furthermore, regardless of what JAG says, it could be there's a disagreement on the point. If there's a JAG publication saying it's OK to use these weapons on people, and if we assume that policy now is the same as it was in 1971, then we might write "The U.S. armed forces authorized the use of such weapons against people" or "The U.S. armed forces did not consider the use of such weapons against people to be a violation of the laws of war", but at this point I'd still need to see support for even that much, let alone the more sweeping statement you've inserted. JamesMLane 19:36, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Here are a few facts I think might pertain to this discussion. During the Winter Soldier Investigation, two veterans made specific mention of the use of .50 caliber machine guns against personnel as against the laws of warfare. One of the veterans testifying even showed slides of what a .50 caliber round did to a Vietnamese person hit by it. In addition, a moderator at the WSI specifically explained to the "audience" that, "Just for general information, the .50 caliber machine gun is specifically forbidden to be used against people. It's an anti-vehicular weapon." Subsequent to the Winter Soldier Investigation, John Kerry also referred to use of .50 caliber machine guns against personnel as against the laws of warfare.

SEWilco is correct in calling the notion that use of .50 caliber weapons against personnel TODAY is a myth. There is nothing in current revisions of military manuals, or in the treaties of international law that specifically prohibits such use. However, in the early 1960s and 1970s, it was a controversy, not a myth. Presumably, the expansions of the Geneva conventions between 1977-80 has laid the issue to rest. The .50 caliber machine guns were originally designed as anti-aircraft and anti-vehicle weapons. International law had made illegal the use of small exploding ordnance, poisoned ordnance and "dumdum" rounds - not because they killed more frequently, which they did, but because of the catastrophic injuries and suffering it left in the victims they failed to kill. Use of weapons such as the shotgun, flare guns and .50 caliber machine guns against personnel came under heavy question. The fact that the use of the .50 caliber machine guns in response to guerrila attacks would often subject civilians and property to indescriminate fire was also in breach of international laws. Use of such weapons against people was construed to violate the spirit of several international laws such as:

use of "arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering" from article 23 of the Geneva Conventions located here.
the use of "arms which uselessly aggravate the sufferings of disabled men, or render their death inevitable; that the employment of such arms would, therefore, be contrary to the laws of humanity" from the St. Petersburg Convention of 1868, a copy of which is located at this site.
"wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, ..., taking of hostages and extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly," as noted in Geneva Conventions IV, article 147.

It was generally held during the Vietnam war that use of the .50 caliber machine gun against personnel "might" be in violation of St. Petersburg, Hague and Geneva laws - however, it was never formally addressed until 1977. In 1977, while avoiding the particular issue of "excessive wounding and suffering" that may be caused by .50 caliber machine guns, the Geneva conventions did add wording to address the other concerns: "...an attack shall be cancelled or suspended if it becomes apparent that the objective is not a military one or is subject to special protection or that the attack may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated..." in Article 57. This new wording, rather than prohibit the use of such weapons, merely requires that you stop using it once you realize you might be messing up property or hitting civilians. -Rob

The .50 caliber machine gun was in wide use as an anti-personnel weapon, and the Law of Land Warfare at the time does not mention the issue. Describing the interest in .50 caliber weaponry is not relevant? See paragraph 34, page 18 http://www.vietnam.ttu.edu/star/images/137/1370113001a.pdf --(SEWilco 20:11, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC))

You will note in the first few pages of the manual, under the purposes of the Law of War, it is stated that the law of land warfare "is both written and unwritten." It further lists as the first of several purposes of these laws of war as, "Protecting both combatants and noncombatants from unnecessary suffering." You will further note that "the Law of War is derived from two principle sources: Lawmaking Treaties (or Conventions), such as the Hague and Geneva Conventions, and by Custom." With regards to "customary law," it is written: "Until a more complete code of the laws of war has been issued, the High Contracting Parties deem it expedient to declare that, in cases not included in the Regulations adopted by them, the inhabitants and the belligerents remain under the protection and the rule of the principles of the law of nations, as they result from the usages established among civilized peoples, from the laws of humanity, and the dictates of the public conscience."

In other words, you have pointed to a regulation in a manual that doesn't specifically outlaw the use of .50 caliber machine guns (or shotguns, for that matter). However, that same manual specifically states that when specific regulations don't address the issue, you are still bound by customary law, including the laws of humanity, and the dictates of public conscience. It was most definitely a matter of public conscience during the Vietnam conflict. You have basically re-worded what I posted the other day. As for "describing the interest in .50 caliber" machine gun use, it seems rather trivial to the WSI topic. Besides, while you claim "wide use" of the .50 caliber machine gun against personnel, the legality of such use was equally "widely" disputed. -Rob

The moderator highlighted the interest in such weapons, and the reasons for the interest are worth including for readers who are not familiar with the history -- and in case other sources fade in the future. Please include your own description of the situation. -- (SEWilco 17:45, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC))

The moderator merely clarified that use of the .50 caliber machine gun on personnel was criminal - a comment that in itself was not false (although it can be argued that the legality at the time was open to interpretation). What is the intended purpose of including your remark? -Rob

Truth. What is the relevance of a purpose to NPOV? Please include your description of the situation. -- (SEWilco 18:51, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC))

You lost me. Situation? -Rob

Your reluctance to elaborate on what you mean by "situation" is noted. Moving on then to a similar topic now: CS gas. You inserted a notation that "Interest in CS" was because it was poison? Incorrect. The interest was because it was allegedly used on civilians, which is against the laws of warfare. Will you also be adding a note such as: "Note - the interest in the 'massacre of women and children' was because it was believed to be against the laws of warfare..." ? -Rob

I already described the situation. And the section starting with Nienke describes several uses of CS. The VVAW had invited testimony on all "chemical agents used". -- SEWilco

No argument from me about that. My previous comment remains valid. -Rob

Tiger Force relevance

An edit comment suggested a connection between the Toledo Blade articles on Tiger Force and investigation of WSI testimony. Which of the several articles contains reference to investigation of WSI? -- (SEWilco 06:00, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC))

Any of the articles concerning the 101st Airborn, for instance, post May, 1967. I would assume any of the articles that uncovered "search and destroy" missions, relocations of whole villages and civilian casualties due to misconduct would also qualify. Are you asking me to tie their investigations specifically to the individuals in WSI? That's not likely to happen, as the WSI participants remained intentionally vague regarding the specifics of exactly who did what, to protect the identity of the servicemen. They gave details of the crimes and conduct, not the perpetrators. The result is the same: WSI veterans alleged specific criminal conduct - the Armed Forces denied same conduct - Toledo Blade investigated and verified same conduct, as well as concerted effort by Armed Forces to bury it. -Rob

The article presently claims that no fraudulent testimony has been discovered, which is accurate. You are trying to change that statement to reflect that no investigation of the testimony was ever done, which is not only inaccurate but false. The testimony was about conduct, and such conduct has indeed been investigated, as shown above. You need look no further than the investigations by several papers regarding the previously illegal incursions into Cambodia and Laos, which were testified to at WSI. Allegations of inter-military racism were corroborated by internal investigation and eventual policy change. "Search and Destroy" practices and terminology was removed from military combat manuals. Several expansions to the Geneva Conventions were implemented in the years subsequent to the Vietnam conflict, specifically to address misconduct such as that alleged at the WSI. Bottom line: Criminal conduct alleged at the WSI has been investigated - many allegations have been proven true during subsequent investigation. Implying that no review was ever done of these allegations is false. -Rob

Even before Tiger Force was reported, other atrocities were known. You can not use investigation of other atrocities to claim that WSI atrocities were either investigated or true. If the WSI participants were intentionally vague and did not encourage investigation, you certainly can't claim that lack of investigation is evidence of anything other than that they succeeded in not having their testimony investigated.

The article's claim that no fraud was discovered carries an implication that investigation was done. You're claiming "If an investigation was done then any fraud would be known; No fraud is known, thus none was found by investigators." You can't claim "an investigation was done" so the existing phrase is unsupported. -- (SEWilco 20:24, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC))

The biggest error in the above two paragraphs is your assertion that investigations weren't done. Various war crimes were alleged by veterans at WSI. The INVESTIGATIONS done by Toledo Blade showed some of those war crimes were indeed being perpetrated exactly as described at WSI. The INVESTIGATIONS by the Washington Post and others showed that the illegal incursions into Cambodia and Laos were indeed being perpetrated exactly as described at WSI. When the documents (later to be called the Pentagon Papers) were thoroughly INVESTIGATED, ... you get the idea. Your insertion of statements indication no investigation of the allegations put forth at WSI is misleading and wrong. -Rob

You can not use investigation of other atrocities to claim that WSI atrocities were either investigated or true. "I say I was in a car crash. Car crashes have been proven to occur. Therefore I am telling the truth." -- (SEWilco 17:38, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC))

If the WSI testimony alleges that car crashes occur, and a seperate investigation uncovers that car crashes do indeed occur, then it can be accurately stated that investigations of (at least one of) the allegations made at WSI have been done. It is irrelevant whether the investigation of the allegation was prompted by a witness at WSI, or a witness outside of WSI - it was still the same allegation(s) that were investigated and proven. -Rob

Proof of other events does not prove the specific WSI events. Proof of your car crash does not prove my car crash, unless they are the same crash. Proof of one UFO event being a weather balloon does not prove anything about other UFO events. -- SEWilco

Please ask yourself the following two questions: 1) Did participants at WSI allege the criminal deaths of civilians due to American policies such as free-fire zones, "Strategic Hamlet" relocations, and search and destroy missions? 2) Did subsequent investigations reveal that those allegations were accurate? If you answered yes to those questions, as you must, then you can not infer that investigations were never done. -Rob

Irrelevant generalization. You can't generalize from investigations of all car crashes to prove that my car crash occurred. Try: 2) Did subsequent investigations of the specific events described at WSI reveal that those descriptions were accurate? -- SEWilco

On which occasion was Pitkin lying?

We don't know for sure. What we can say is that it's not NPOV to say "In 2004 it was reported [Kerry] and others had coerced false testimony." That's one person's allegation. We don't say it was "reported" as if it were an established fact, and if we mention the making of the allegation (which of course is a fact) then we also mention the facts on the other side. JamesMLane 04:42, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I was trying to modify the improper "it was reported" statement, along with clarifying the reference to Kerry and war crimes, but I see another revert war has broken out, so I won't bother. My experience is that other edits under such circumstances get lost in the shuffle while people revert without reading what they're reverting. For future use, my first draft of a rewrite of the paragraph was as follows:

Future Senator John Kerry, a member of the VVAW executive committee, interviewed some participants and co-moderated the Miscellaneous Panel. He later spoke at a session of the Fulbright Hearings about WSI. He did not provide testimony at WSI, but later that year he contended that some of the U.S. military's practices in which he had participated, such as free-fire zones, were violations of the laws of war. In 2004, one Winter Soldier participant alleged that Kerry had attempted to coerce false testimony; see below.

Added above to Winter_Soldier_Investigation/Temp -- SEWilco 19:20, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The unadorned statement that Kerry "later stated at least three times to the press to have taken part personally in committing war crime" is misleading in the context of disputes about whether U.S. troops committed particular actions. Kerry was referring to actions that indisputably took place, such as free-fire zones, and expressing his opinion on the issue whether those actions violated the Geneva and Hague Conventions. JamesMLane 04:58, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Kerry not providing testimony is qualified by his later public statements. There are implications that he had nothing to report at WSI, which is altered by his later public statements. He did not participate with the WSI group in disclosing own atrocities, but later did so. This summary of his involvement is also incomplete without reference to his later statements, which took place within context of related events. -- SEWilco

Disputed

Numerous items are disputed in article.
Winter Soldier Investigation/Talk Rewrite was reverted, as have previous dispute indicators.

Transcript is not complete: Names and words have been removed, moderators and audience members are not identified when they speak, and at least one transcript ends in mid-sentence. -Anonymous
- The transcript is, however, identical to that read into the record by Hatfield. Perhaps Hatfield didn't have "complete" information? Would you have a more complete source? In checking the "Winter Soldier" film made of the event, even the Winterfilm Collective do not have film footage of the more than 30+ hours of the event. I'll implement a word change to reflect this. - Rob
Russell Tribunal is not identified as being only about the activities of the U.S. and its allies, and not about enemy activities, having members friendly to enemy of the U.S., and having participation of enemy forces. -Anonymous
- No, it is not. It is also not identified as ignoring the holocaust, the attack on Pearl Harbor or the slaughter of Native Americans by colonial settlers. Sounds like this could get lengthy. Perhaps the Russell Tribunals should have its own article? -Rob
Origins and Organizers sections plagiarized from two sources. Phrasing is not neutral, but that is irrelevant if text is removed. -Anonymous
- I've checked the sections you mention, and they are well within the requirements of Fair Use stipulations. Please specify which phrasing is not NPOV, and we'll work to correct that. -Rob
- Talk:Winter_Soldier_Investigation#Copyright_infringement_Ensign_War_crimes.html
  - Rewritten and phrasing fixed. -- SEWilco
Explanation of term winter soldier is from VVAW source, including irrelevant emotional phrases. -Anonymous
- Please cite exact phrasing that you feel is inapropriate. "Emotional phrases" are not always inappropriate, as long as they are accurate and NPOV of the content is maintained. -Rob
Verification section full of phrasing implying thorough verification...
- - Correct, it is. -Rob
... and investigation. -Anonymous
- - No, I don't believe so. Can you please specify? -Rob
- Participants were told to omit details, such as names, needed for investigation of their claims. -Anonymous
  - Yes, they were. -Rob
- Phrasing that there has been no evidence of thorough investigation has been removed.
  - Correct, it has. As you mentioned before, investigation of individuals was made impossible by ommission of names. However, while individuals could not be investigated, many of the events and war crimes described were indeed investigated (see notations and discussion elsewhere on this page). -Rob
    - Provide evidence that the following events and war crimes were investigated (SEWilco)
      - Uh, no. As I noted above, "many" of the events and war crimes described were investigated - I didn't say "all" of them. Nor do I say every allegation made at WSI has been verified. I don't believe anyone can rightfully claim that. -Rob

Excerpted testimony from veterans

Kogut: (MODERATOR asks, Russ, I believe you were a helicopter pilot and participated in dropping Special Forces teams in Cambodia. I think at this time we might show your slides and you can explain that operation.) "In July of '68 I worked with the Special Forces unit, B-50, out of Ban Me Thuot. Their main support were these air force helicopters here, the UH-I, and you'll notice there are no markings on the aircraft. We were just being used as backup because they were running more missions than they had aircraft for. And we supported them like this, on and off, for the whole year I was there and it continued after I was there.

Should be easy to confirm B-50 in Ban Me Thuot.
Over what period did these operations run, and does that include his "whole year"?

Our company took over a good deal more of this mission, as I was told by a friend of mine who came back. We worked out of a base camp at Duc Lap down on the border. We put recon teams in consisting of two or three Americans and two or three hired, well, I can't swear that they were hired, but they were Cambodes or Montagnards, sympathetic with the U.S. --either for money or other reasons and we put these teams in. We went anywhere from one to three miles inside of Cambodia and, in the briefing that we received, they told us that their mission over there was to gather information on a known NVA unit that operated out of that area.

Was there a base camp at Duc Lap?

The NVA had a base camp there of approximately 15,000 of them by the estimates gathered from these reports, from these spies that we took in. These missions were secret. The President had knowledge of these. I am informed that a copy of what goes on, goes to him. I can't verify that so I shouldn't say it, I guess. But, these missions continued up until the time of our going into Cambodia on the legitimate side and now they're no big thing.

Did the President get "a copy of what goes on"?

Other testimony I have would be corroboration of these "mad minutes." These things took place in our compound. They were quite common. Also, evacuation of villages. On occasion in Da Lat, a village southwest of Da Lat, we evacuated all the inhabitants and the ARVNs went through afterward and burned the whole village. The livestock that they didn't kill, they stole and brought back for themselves. It was on a similar type operation at Tuy An on the coast. A whole peninsula on the coast was said to be uninhabited and we went out there on these little search and destroy things.

What about these "mad minutes"? What were they and what was their purpose?
Confirm the village near Da Lat which was evacuated and destroyed.
Confirm Tuy An.

On one occasion they found a woman. We took her prisoner and she had a whole basement full of rice. They destroyed the house and I believe they destroyed all the houses in the village. On one of these operations, as we were leaving the pickup zone, which is where we operated out of, somebody gave the okay for all the crew members to load rocks aboard the helicopter. Apparently, the province chief, who is like God in these areas, said that it was okay for the gunners and crew chiefs to play bombardier by dropping rocks in the bay. He said anywhere over in this one part of the bay was okay to drop rocks. We took off to go pick up the troops.

Confirm all the houses in this village were destroyed.

On the way we passed over this place, and all the crew members were throwing these rocks out. One sampan I know of was hit and sunk. There were two people in it. They swam to shore and another old man was hit by an ARVN captain. He threw the rock out and hit this old man right in the chest and at that speed there's little doubt of what happened to him. The ARVNs burned the villages whenever they found rice because these missions were strictly one-day things and they didn't have time to haul rice out or investigate. The province chief decided where everybody was going to live, so if they didn't live where he wanted, they took the risk of having their houses burned. Free fire zones are all over the place, wherever somebody decides to have one."

Confirm rocks were thrown on this mission.
Confirm injury of old man.

Bangert: "I can cover a couple of these at the same time. The first day I got to Vietnam I landed in Da Nang Air Base. From Da Nang Air Base I took a plane to Dong Ha. I was picked up by a truckload of grunt Marines with two company grade officers, 1st Lts.; we were about 5 miles down the road, where there were some Vietnamese children at the gateway of the village and they gave the old finger gesture at us. It was understandable that they picked this up from the GIs there. They stopped the trucks--they didn't stop the truck, they slowed down a little bit, and it was just like response, the guys got up, including the lieutenants, and just blew all the kids away. There were about five or six kids blown away and then the truck just continued down the hill. That was my first day in Vietnam. As far as the crucified bodies, they weren't actually crucified with nails, but they would find VCs or something (I never got the story on them) but, anyway, they were human beings, obviously dead, and they would take them and string them out on fences, on barbed wire fences, stripped, and sometimes they would take flesh wounds, take a knife and cut the body all over the place to make it bleed, and look gory as a reminder to the people in the village.

Confirm Bangert's activities.
Confirm treatment of these bodies.

Bronaugh: (MODERATOR asks, Mr. Bronaugh, I believe you mentioned something earlier of the massacre of women and children in late March, early April of 1968. Could you go into that a little bit please?) Yes. Well, I was with the 2nd Battalion, 27th Marines, attached to them with Battalion FSEC. (MODERATOR asks, Which is the Fire Control Center?) Right. It coordinates everything for the Battalion Artillery and troop movement and everything. I had some spare time this particular day so I left the compound and went to a bridge where people usually go and swim and they had a detachment on this bridge, in total about two platoons of people. A 2nd Lt. in charge of the bridge and a gunnery Sergeant that was staff NCO of the bridge. There were people from mortars platoon, weapons platoon, there was a tank, there were a couple of mules with 106 recoilless rifles, two snipers, and assorted machine gun crews. This particular day I was going to go swimming and I was at this bridge and they had sent a patrol out from our battalion CP. They had gone north of the CP for about a half a mile or a mile. There was a few huts that comprised a small village north of the compound.

The bridge got a radio call that they had supposedly received a sniper round from this village. So the Lt. on the bridge told them to sweep the village. They swept the village and they called back that there was nothing found. There was nothing found, I mean, there were just people in the village and so the Lt. told them to burn the village. From my position, which was about 150 to 200 yards away, and there was a tree line in the way, smoke started coming up over the tree line and about this time, I guess about three minutes after the smoke started showing, there was a lot of screaming and just chaos coming from the direction of the village and a lot of people started running out of the tree line. From where I was standing, I saw maybe two or three male villagers and the rest were women and children--some of the children walking and some of them young enough to be carried, I would say under a year, maybe. The last thing I heard as a command was the gunnery sergeant told them to open fire to keep them back. Their village was on fire and they were in panic; they didn't stop, so they just cut down the women and children with mortars, machine guns, tank, snipers were... (MODERATOR asks, There was a tank there also?) Yes. Well, the tank, the 90 millimeter gun wasn't used because, I mean, it was too close a range, but they used the .50 and the .30 off the tank and all the troops that were at the bridge with M16s. The officer, a Lt., a few got close enough to where he used his .45. They used a few frag hand grenades. (MODERATOR asks, The fifty caliber. That was used specifically against the people?) Yes...Yes. (MODERATOR states, Right. Just for general information, the .50 caliber machine gun is specifically forbidden to be used against people. It's an anti-vehicular weapon.) Yes, it was used in automatic and single fire, against human beings."

Confirm burning of village at location relative to battalion CP.
Confirm treatment of villagers.
Confirm .50 caliber as only being anti-vehicular weapon.

Camil: (Ed.: Camil is misspelled Camile in some transcripts) (MODERATOR asks, Mr. Camile, you have testimony here of napalm being dropped on villagers. Could you go into this and kind of let us know what napalm is and how it was used and any of the results?) "I really don't know that much about what it is or what it's made of. I just know that when it gets on you it burns and when they drop it from the planes, they usually drop two big canisters of napalm at a time. It just burns everything up, including the people. Many times we've called in air before we'd go into a village, or if we had a village where we'd lost people because of booby traps, we'd call in napalm and it just burns down the village and the people. (MODERATOR asks, Wasn't it usually normal, or so-called operating procedure, you don't fire until fired on, and on these villages, did you usually receive a lot of fire from them of the type that would say, we can't take the village, you'll have to call in napalm?) No, most of the time it was for safety. We'd napalm it first before we'd even go in just to make sure we wouldn't lose any men without any fire whatsoever. It was just for our protection, supposedly."

Confirm events when napalm was used in this way.

Nienke: (MODERATOR asks, Mr. Nienke, it says here that you used CS grenades clearing bunkers and hootches. Could you tell us if these were enemy bunkers or hootches or if they were civilian bunkers or hootches? Just exactly what was the incident?) "I think every person who was in Vietnam who was in the infantry used CS, which is a gas, chemicals, Willie Peter--that's White Phosphorus -- and we used these sometimes to clear bunkers and other times to destroy a hootch. We used to think that was kicks; there would be people in a hootch or something like this and we'd throw in a gas grenade and they'd cough and then we'd leave. And other times we used to use -- we had mortar squads in the infantry used to avoid going into a village or something if we thought it might be VC infested or something like this, we'd send in Willie Peter mortars, 60 millimeters, and this would burn up the hootches -- that explode--throwing white phosphorus on different hootches in the village. Start the hootches burning and also kill people. It's probably one of the worst sights I've ever seen is a person that's been burned by Willie Peter, because it doesn't stop. It just burns all completely through your body. The only way you can end this burning is to cut off the air."

Confirm these events.

Olimpieri: (MODERATOR asks, Mr. Olimpieri, you were in the same unit. You were Mr. Nienke's squad leader. Who was in charge of calling in on the mortars or ordering of the throwing of the CS grenades?) "Well, it was usually the officers, but I can remember times where we'd be sitting up on a hill, Nick and myself, and they used to have these things called "Pop-ups." You hit them on the bottom and it shoots like a green star cluster up in the air. It's used for location when somebody wants to find out where you are and we used to shoot them down into the village that was below and watch the people run around and we used to get big kicks out of it. (MODERATOR asks, Were there usually any officers present around this or was it usually known that this was done, wasn't it?) Yeah, it was pretty well accepted. I mean, everybody did it. (MODERATOR asks, But nothing was said about it. The Vietnamese were considered...They were gooks, right?) Right, nothing was said about it at all."

Confirm those flares fired into village.

Bishop: (MODERATOR asks, Mr. Bishop, we were told that you were in Vietnam from '68 to '69. I believe this was before President Nixon said we had any troops in Laos or Cambodia at all. It says here that you entered Cambodia in pursuit of enemy between '68 and '69. Is this a true fact?) "That's correct. We were on Operation Taylor Common. We were up in the mountains. We were operating just above the Laotian border where Laos and Cambodia meet. We were making heavy contact up there. We had quite a few losses and most of the operations we were holding were usually squad type or platoon type because the area was so thick and we couldn't send big units in there. We were very close to the border and very many times we were fired upon and we would chase the enemy back and you wouldn't know really how many grid squares you would go. We would come back to the unit and even though we knew we were close to Cambodia, we'd come back and the skipper would kind of get us all together and say like, "That was really a far out thing we did today and just for your own information we were in another country." This was general knowledge at the time that we were going back and forth into Cambodia. (MODERATOR states, So you could say in effect that Mr. Nixon might possibly have been guilty of untruths in a matter that it was your company commander or platoon commander who told you that you had been in another country.) That's correct. The platoon commander didn't really tell us to go in there but once he found out that we were in there, because we report grid squares and our operations as we're moving, it was kind of a neat thing to do because we were in Cambodia and I'll admit that about the Nixon thing, really. (MODERATOR asks, Was there no distinction between the borders?) No, there's no distinction at all. It's on your map. You can't tell, like your border could be a tree line away and you just don't know. You can't tell. (MODERATOR asks, So you could have gone into Cambodia more than once then?) Oh, that's correct. We could have held patrols there and if we weren't informed about exactly where we were, then we wouldn't have known.

Confirm Bishop's activities in Taylor Common.
Confirm activities during Taylor Common.

Disputed, continuation

- Lack of evidence of fraud is being presented as proof of there being no fraud. This implies there has been thorough investigation. -Anonymous
  - Incorrect. Lack of evidence of fraud is being correctly presented as lack of evidence of fraud. To wit: "To date, no records of fraudulent participants or fraudulent testimony have been produced." -Rob
    - Fallacious. That implies that there have been attempts to create such records. "To date, no records that Rob is not Superman have been produced." -- SEWilco 18:57, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      - Incorrect again. You are reading implications where none exist. (As a side note, it is already common knowledge that some level of investigation of frauds was done - see Colson comments to Nixon; see Detroit Free Press examining discharge records and contacting Pentagon; etc.) -Rob
References to Hubbard pretending to have served in Vietnam have been removed, despite numerous contemporaneous sources. -Anonymous
- Still waiting for a valid source for this one. -Rob
  - Talk:Winter_Soldier_Investigation#Al_Hubbard_references
    - I checked there - nothing at that location confirms that Hubbard "pretended to have served in Viatnam." Do you have an actual source? -Rob
Efaw's statement is confusing opinion. He is repeating old claims without being clear what combination of "testimony", "men" and "veterans" he is referring to. Says testimony was startling to Nixon and military, although WSI claims their policies made the atrocities be standard operating procedure. Refers to attempt to discredit them without details. -Anonymous
- I just re-read Efaw's statement. I find nothing confusing in it. He clearly explains why the testimony was "startling" to the military. Perhaps this is just a reading comprehension issue. Get a third opinion? -Rob
First public presentation about Agent Orange toxicity was actually in December 1969. -Anonymous
- It was first raised as an issue to be studied there, however, the first public testimony about the potential toxicity of Agent Orange was given by Dr. Bert Pfeiffer of the University of Montana. -Rob
What purpose is served by the partial Opening Statement? Are the claims in it going to be supported later in the article? Did the text come from a source without copyvio?
- It is the segment that summarizes the testimony about to be presented, and the conclusion to be drawn from that testimony. It is part of the Congressional Record, and as such, is generally considered to be Public Domain. -Rob
The section with excerpted testimony is full of unverified claims. -Anonymous
- Probably true. Many of the claims were neither proven nor disproven. And this is an issue... why? -Rob
  - Section moved above until verified. Still looking for a valid source to support the claims. -- SEWilco 18:57, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    - Well, you let me know when you find it. It should remain until then. -Rob
- Notations about the chosen testimony have been removed. -Anonymous
  - - True. They don't seem appropriate for this section. -Rob
  - Talk:Winter_Soldier_Investigation#Exerpted_Testimony_From_Veterans
  - Suggested theories about the interest in and legality of .50 caliber weaponry have been removed.
    - Talk:Winter_Soldier_Investigation#.50-caliber_question
    - Correct. The interest is self-evident, and additional "theories" are extraneous. -Rob
  - Suggested theories about the interest in CS gas have been removed.
    - Correct. The interest is self-evident, and additional "theories" are extraneous. -Rob
  - Notations about Bangert's involvement with the film for which he was providing material, and involvement with Kerry, have been removed. -Anonymous
    - Incorrect. Bangert is already noted as being involved with the film. His involvement with things outside of Winter Soldier would be more appropriate elsewhere - perhaps his own Bangert article? -Rob
  - Notations that Camil was also a leader of VVAW have been removed. (also note that "full" transcript misidentified him) -Anonymous
    - There were 77 chapter "leaders" of the VVAW, I'm not sure what you mean here. The spelling error in his name has already been noted in the article, and it is understandable since his name is pronounced: ka-meel -Rob
Winter Soldier controversy section has more implications that because no evidence of fraud has been found that everything is true. -Anonymous
- Phrasing has been removed that there is no evidence that the atrocities described at WSI were investigated. Instead claim is made about lack of results of such investigation. -Anonymous
  - Talk:Winter_Soldier_Investigation#Tiger_Force_relevance
    - Incorrect. Read it again. -Rob
- The long Beitzel section contains little information and should be summarized. -Anonymous
  - Talk:Winter_Soldier_Investigation#WSI_Support
    - I disagree. Perhaps you can offer an accurate summarization? An editor named SEWilco tried, and failed miserably. -Rob

Accuracy dispute procedures

As I read Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute, the choices are:

for a few disputes here and there, label the specific points with a {{dubious}} tag; or
for more pervasive disputes, put a single {{disputed}} tag at the beginning of the article.

Here we have, by my approximations, a {{disputed}} notice (covering the entire article) at the beginning of the article, half a dozen reiterations of it at various points later on, plus half a dozen specific points that are flagged in varying formats. This seems completely unjustified. Correct format appears to be the single legend at the beginning, with a link to the talk page, and then an elaboration on the talk page of the specific points at issue (which you've already provided). I will change it to that format unless you can explain to me that I've misinterpreted Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute. JamesMLane 19:30, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I tried {{dubious}} but it came up as "Template:dubious" rather than a message about a phrase being dubious. SEWilco 19:48, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The first several dubious markers look OK, later ones fail. I see that's a problem with the Wiki templating system. I was aware that only a few such markers are requested by procedure, but it has also been shown to be necessary to mark as many such items as possible so they can be found more easily. See Winter Soldier Investigation/Temp for the rewrite which was anonymously reverted. SEWilco 19:59, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The copyvio sections are marked both with the template and with an explanation, because the copyvio template is oriented toward an entire article rather than several paragraphs. SEWilco 19:49, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It's certainly necessary to identify which specific points are disputed, but the way to do that is with the listing on the Talk page. (By the way, I appreciate your being so specific with that listing. I've seen accuracy or neutrality disputes where people just say "it needs a total re-write" or "it's pervasive" or something absurd like that.) The scattering of multiple tags throughout the article makes it very hard to read. It's OK to let the reader know up front that there's a dispute, with a link to where you've set forth the details, but I don't think that the article can be turned into such a hodgepodge as a result. Unfortunately, some of the disorganization can't be helped, because it arises from the copyvio tags. I didn't challenge your use of those. Given that, as you say, the template is oriented toward an entire article, I didn't see any way around it. Nevertheless, as to the accuracy dispute, I think it should be a single notice right at the beginning. JamesMLane 20:13, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It appears the article in question is being edited primarily by just 2 people, despite attempts by both to bring in others to the discussion. The reasoning behind issues being marked 'Dubious' or 'Disputed' are well known to SEWilco and Rob, despite being vague to the average reader. Most of these issues can be resolved easily, such as "the date the effects of Agent Orange was first testified to in public - given by Rob" and "the date Agent Orange effects were first raised as an issue to be studied - by SEWilco." Other issues, however, will be somewhat more difficult to resolve - such as SEWilco's charge of copyright violations, when Rob insists there is no violation under the Fair Use stipulations. I agree that the article is virtually unreadable in its present format - I'm cleaning it up, but leaving the Accuracy tag. -Rob

It is an odd way to bring others to the discussion to immediately and repeatedly delete the invitations, and to consistently slipstream significant changes under trivial or frivolous edit summaries. -- SEWilco 04:41, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"There you go again" SEWilco 06:22, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Folks, this isn't working

We have endless reverts of the main article, and so many different issues raised on this Talk page that it's hard to see any significant progress toward resolution of any of them (although, somewhere in the preceding 200+ kb, I think there may be a couple points where some agreement has been reached).

I admit that part of my problem is that both of you (Rob and SEWilco) know much more about WSI than I do. To that extent, though, I can speak for the average Wikipedia reader. Let's think about someone who comes here seeking an encyclopedia article about WSI -- a clear presentation of the salient points. Right now, that person will find some valuable material but it could be a lot better.

I'd be interested in hearing your opinions on how the article can be made better for the average viewer. -Rob

Copyright violation

A few days ago, SEWilco created Winter Soldier Investigation/Temp. Creating a "sandbox" to address editing disputes is often a good idea, though it should be done in the User namespace, not the article namespace.

You'll note I have not edited under Winter Soldier Investigation/Temp, nor have I been invited to. I assumed SEWilco wanted space to test his edits, so I have stayed out of the way while I've continued to refine the WSI article. -Rob

The copyvio procedure and template both indicate that a new version should be created in Winter Soldier Investigation/Temp. Rob chose to disrupt the copyvio process with an immediate reversion, which might explain little participation. Rob chose to not participate and to instead only copy details back out to the main article while ignoring the big issues. SEWilco 04:29, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There will be "little participation" regarding copyvio issues because there aren't any issues. As for accuracy issues, you'll note that I have left the Accuracy flag up for several days now while issues remain. Participation is welcome. -Rob

You're not supposed to have "left up" the markers. They are not yours to remove. The copyvio and other markers should have stayed as invitations for others to participate. You preferred to delete the invitations. I had to rewrite the sections, which removed the copyvio problem. SEWilco 16:58, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

They are as much mine to remove as they are yours to install, but obviously there are conventions associated with each action that should be followed. Among them, you should have clear and reasonable substantiation for the markers on a discussion page. The "copyvio" markers are completely unsubstantiated, and appear to be merely an excuse to make wholesale deletions of blocks of text - perfectly allowable text, by any interpretation of copyright laws. Accuracy markers, as I mentioned before, remain. I hope you will entertain reasonable discussion regarding the issues you feel are inaccurate. -Rob

One idea that occurs to me, because of the plethora of issues on this page, is to build the consensus article from the ground up. For example, we could create a sandbox with just the first paragraph, and deal with any currently known problems with that passage. Then go section-by-section. The plan would be to reach consensus on one section before adding the next. Other participants could be actively solicited, for example through a Request for Comment concerning any particularly intractable disputes. At the end, the new article would be substituted for the main one. (Parts might be inserted along the way.)

Maybe both of you, with your more detailed knowledge of WSI, can follow these mammoth posts that cover a dozen different significant issues. If the two of you think it will be helpful to continue in that fashion, fine, I'll mostly stand aside and watch. But it appears to me that both of you are spending a lot of time without much to show for it. The disputes need to be narrowed and focused if they're ever to be addressed productively.

Present vs History

Don't let the length of this discussion page give you the wrong idea. What appears to be hundreds of disagreements can really be boiled down to just a few conflicting philosophies. Basically, SEWilco is using a handful of related articles for the dual purpose of history revision and political mudslinging. I prefer to keep the articles relevant and factual. If SEWilco discovered an obscure web page alleging the WSI was the cause of skin cancer, he would find a way to insert that allegation - as well as a complete history of skin cancers - then all other cancers - followed by related diseases - with links to self-proclaimed "experts" showing the undeniable correlations between those various diseases and John Kerry. At which point I would revert the article to a version that just dealt with WSI. I expect SEWilco's zeal to fade significantly in just under 3 weeks. -Rob

Rob is the revisionist, trying to lock the article in a 1971 viewpoint based on the VVAW's public presentation, while pasting in large pieces of text without analysis. He obviously is also not aware that my first edits in VVAW/WSI were while ensuring that a fake Fonda & Kerry picture was not presented as reality...and noticing a lot of missing facts here. The Kerry references are merely due to his visibility, and have been limited to summaries suitable for junior high school researchers to go find details if they need them. There certainly is no shortage of material which could have been mentioned in Kerry/VVAW/WSI. Off the top of my head are the election telephone arrests, Wall Street demonstrations, active-duty anti-war flight, several Swift task changes, DC housing, medals details, military record analysis, mother's involvement... SEWilco 16:58, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"There certainly is no shortage of material which could have been mentioned..." Agreed, as you make me aware on almost a daily basis. I reiterate, "I prefer to keep the articles relevant and factual." -Rob

Uh... You sort of missed the meaning of could. If my goal were to sling mud on Kerry, I could have been doing that for thirty years, and you'd have seen plenty of that. Didn't you notice that I yanked the #Kerry_swore_to_committing_war_crimes? comment that some anonymous editor dropped off? I already improved the VVAW-AI reference in the VVAW article, and I see that in a few minutes I'll have to do so again -- go see Talk:VVAW and follow the clues, because I created my own text so I can't point you at a cut-and-paste source. Meanwhile, over in Russell Tribunal, I'm trying to show that as the fortnight-long public relations stunt which it was; such presentations to the media were an old method at the time, so of course Telstar was not feeding live TV across the Atlantic; and that is hardly any more relevant to Kerry than the U.S. coverage it was given. You already chopped up my details about the VVAW founding, and you can see in that, in War Resisters League, and in Fifth Avenue Vietnam Peace Parade Committee that process facts and I didn't use "Norma Becker, a member of a Communist front group called the War Resisters League (WRL)" [80]. -- SEWilco 06:50, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No, Scot - I rarely miss meanings. I have no doubt there is a lot more mud you could sling, if you put your heart into it. As for the contributions of the drive-by editor, I believe I reverted them along with some of yours in one fell swoop, so no I did not notice. If you had also addressed them before I made my rounds, then kudos to you - but one good deed does not an innocent man make. You may think your mud is a little more subtle, but mud is mud to me. Take your insertion of the Fifth Avenue Vietnam Peace Parade organization into the origins section of the VVAW. You and I both know the shady connotations associated with that group, and you and I both know that group had nothing to do with the origins of the VVAW - yet you had to slip it in there. 6 vets march in an anti-war rally, they see the need for a Vietnam Vet organization, so they form one. Now tell me what significant contribution to that event your addition made? You refer to the Russell Tribunal as a "publicity stunt" and an "old method" ... a method of what, if I might ask? -Rob

The significant contribution was in showing that rather than founders merely happening to march together in a parade, Crumb passed through an amusingly complex simple situation in one parade which triggered both the name and the founding of VVAW due to Crumb's intentional actions. My phrasing made clear that all that Fifth Avenue contributed was the banner which labeled the individuals as "Vietnam Veterans Against the War". The situation inspired Crumb. Actually, if Crumb attended a later parade with the founders after he had the concept of creating VVAW then his gathering founders at the event should not be described as being accidental. My phrasing certainly did not link FAVPPC to VVAW. And your phrasing both directly links the VVAW founding to FAVPPC while being wrong about the founders being recruited at the April parade. -- SEWilco 19:49, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

A few problems with the "facts" you assert above. Fifth Avenue didn't contribute the banner, a VFP participant did, although it was hastily drawn up (with other banners) in the parade committee office. The original marchers under the VVAW banner weren't with the VFP. Fifth Avenue wasn't the organizer of the march in April, and it didn't happen on the 7th (although there was almost a week of demonstrations). Barry's idea to create the VVAW was inspired by the first meeting of the six veterans, not subsequent meetings, even if they may have met again before June 1. The gathering on May 30th wasn't "a later parade" as you state above, it was a demonstration, but you seem to have corrected that in your proposed version. And I don't believe my phrasing "directly links the VVAW founding to FAVPPC" as you suggest. This is what happens when you cite a 2nd hand source (wintersoldier.com) that cites a 3rd hand source (books by Stacewycs and Nicosia) which are based on 4th hand sources (interviews with Barry and Romo) which are based on a 5th hand source (20 year old hearsay from a VFP member present during the formation of VVAW). -Rob

VVAW was founded by Jan "Barry" Crumb after he marched in the April 7, 1967 anti-war Fifth Avenue Vietnam Peace Parade behind a banner labeling the individuals as "Vietnam Veterans Against the War". After talking to the Veterans for Peace group he realized there was no such organization. After a May 30th peace demonstration in Washington, DC, he gathered six people in his New York apartment to start the VVAW on June 1. Founders included Mark Donnelly, and David Braum.
VVAW was founded by six Vietnam veterans, including Jan "Barry" Crumb, Mark Donnelly, David Braum, in New York City in June 1967 after they marched together in an April 1967 Fifth Avenue Vietnam Peace Parade anti-war demonstration with over 250,000 other protesters. After talking to members of the Veterans for Peace group, Barry realized there was no organization representing Vietnam veterans. On June 1, 1967, the six men gathered in Barry's apartment to form Vietnam Veterans Against the War.

Sandbox, again

I'll create the sandbox if both of you think this approach is worth trying. Other constructive ideas are also welcome. By the way, Rob, it might help if you set up an account, because then you'd have a User talk page, which sometimes facilitates communication. JamesMLane 21:11, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

With all due respect, JML, I'll forfeit the slight added convenience of a User talk page in favor of a more stalker-resistant approach, at least during the remaining few weeks of campaign season while I am contributing to the more volatile topics. Rest assured that I closely monitor the discussion pages associated with any article to which I contribute. -Rob

As for the sandbox idea, I'm game - but I don't see how that would get around the "intractable disputes" that we presently have. The solicitation of help from others is equally applicable to the current situation as it is to the "sandbox" situation. -Rob

If you'd been following Rob's antics, you'd see that he prefers drive-by anonymous actions. He hides reversions behind comments of minor changes. He moves stuff to Talk so he can demand endless proofs, while pretending ignorance of material which he already drew upon elsewhere. He deletes text while pretending he's moving it. He calls changes by others vandalism (Talk:Fulbright_Hearing#Charges_of_vandalism. He pretends ignorance of other things which he is doing (see his recent reference to the need for a Russell Tribunal page as if he hasn't been wreaking havok also in that already existing page). SEWilco 04:29, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Translation: Rob won't let SEWilco insert extraneous POV tripe. -Rob

Translation: Rob doesn't understand that NPOV means several points of view can be analyzed; that NPOV does allow topics which are critical of an original source. -- SEWilco

I see, Scot. You feel it's mainting NPOV when you insert a statement like, "It has been alleged that George Bush is a child molester." as long as a counterpoint statement like "These allegations have been proven false." exists to balance it. I tend to disagree with your definition of what qualifies as NPOV - hence our frequent disagreements. -Rob

Translation: Both of you are devoting too much energy to sniping at each other. JamesMLane 17:37, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No comment. ;) -Rob

NPOV is a starting point

James, and others, you can start by just picking a section and give some feedback here on NPOV. You don't need to know all details to spot some things (such as if there are only references to Vietnam, in support of North Vietnam's opinion that there was no South Vietnam even though in 1960-1971 there may have been significant evidence that both existed). SEWilco 04:45, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Why don't you kick it off then, SEWilco? Pick a single POV issue, quote it here with a brief explanation of your position, and let's pick it apart. -Rob

Rob, perhaps you can explain why you find the /Temp link so offensive that you keep removing it -- SEWilco

I do not find it offensive. Care to rephrase your question? -Rob

Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute The factual accuracy of this article is disputed: see Talk:Winter Soldier Investigation and Winter Soldier Investigation/Temp

Verification of participants' credibility

Each veteran's authenticity and testimony were checked before the hearings by the investigation event organizers. To prevent the Detroit hearing from being tainted by 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.

Pitkin's statement removes certainty of "were checked". Try "were said to be checked", to fit what was claimed at the time. -- SEWilco
- The statements from several others directly refuting Pitkin's statement re-establishes that certainty. However, we are dealing with two different subjects being "checked." Veteran identities, by all accounts (Even Pitkin's), have been thoroughly checked. Veteran testimonies, by their very nature, could not be as thoroughly checked. The organizers did do what they could to corroborate events by camparing accounts between members of the same units, but that is explained elsewhere. How would you feel about simply removing "and testimony" from that sentence? -Rob
"To prevent" implies that the following has some certainty of avoiding irregularities. (were the limits in the following due to what was mentioned in source material?) -- SEWilco
- "all ... fully identified ... served" has completeness, certainty, yet restricted to units in which they served, limiting how useful this was for detecting irregularities in testimony. Only useful for verification of veteran's authenticity. -- SEWilco
- "geographical descriptions ... atrocities" omits other details for verification of testimony, such as who, what, and when. -- SEWilco

I suggest changing "To prevent" to "To help prevent" instead. Let me know what you think. -Rob

- - You don't appear to be contesting the suggested changes, nor have you raised additional issues of accuracy. I'll remove the "accuracy" tags from the main article. -Rob
    - You don't appear to have raised additional issues of accuracy. Reverted to more accurate version. -- SEWilco 18:47, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      - I don't have any more issues with the accuracy. Do you? -Rob
        
        You have many unresolved issues. See above and the corrections. -- SEWilco 21:37, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
        
        I don't see them. Can you cite one or two here, as you did with the last two, and we'll see if we can't get them resolved? -Rob
        
        So you have no issues with the above discussion and the corrections? -- SEWilco 07:27, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
        
        That is correct. I have no issues with the above discussion about "were checked" and "To prevent" and the corrections made to them as stated. I don't have any more issues with the accuracy. Do you? -Rob

3.3 C. Alan Hopewell on Jim Weber's Testimony--Summary

I enlisted in the U.S. Coast Guard on 15 September, 1969, while the Coast Guard was still actively involved in Vietnam. I underwent Basic Training at the USCG Training Center in Cape May, N.J. for 8 weeks. During that time, my barracks-mates and I were constantly challenged by our "superiors" with the question, "What are you, maggot?" Any answer other than, "Sir, I'm a maggot, sir!" would be punished with anywhere from 20 to 50 pushups. Those who outwore the "superior's" patience were transferred out of the company to the "red hats" whose treatment was harsher, in the hopes that they might see the wisdom of The Coast Guard Way. Basic Training in the Coast Guard at that time was nothing more nor less than an attempt to completely break down the individual's identity, and, by punishing the entire company for the transgression of a single member, to socialize us as members of a military unit.

If this is what it was like for people whose primary mission was Search & Rescue and Lifesaving, I can only imagine what it was like for the Air Force, The Navy, the Army and (God help us) the Marines.

Gregory B. Gregory, Service Number 391 209, Honorably Discharged 14 September 1973

October 2004 protection

This article and Vietnam Veterans Against the War are the subject of an edit war between one or two logged-in users (I see User:TDC and User:SEWilco) and a series of anonymous IPs, which I have good reason to suspect are the same person or coordinated persons. User:165.247.204.75's second edit was a comment on my protection of the VVAW article. To see more of my reasoning and brief back and forth with -Rob see the bottom of User talk:Cecropia. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 06:41, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I am still awaiting Cecropia's suggestion on how I am to procede with a user that refuses to enter discussion about his vandalism. -Rob

I have already given Rob suggestions on my talk page. Basically, appeal to other admins to get their input or possibly unprotect and/or explain what his changes should be here and request comment from other editors at RfC. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 07:22, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Addendum: Open-ended protection is against policy. If there is no movement here in 24 hours, and no one else has unprotected, I will and see what happens. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 07:24, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ceropia don't unprotect the page just yet. As a completely disinterested party who knows nothing about the subject, I can hopefully have a crack at reaching a compromise solution. I'd like to give it a go anyway, before we let the edit wars return. (I'm off to read the article now) Theresa Knott (Not the skater) 13:29, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

OK I've read it through quickly once. I have to say, that at a first read through parts of the article are not all that well written. For example I found the large number of TLA's confusing, plus I don't like the fact that the quotes are not clearly seperated from the main text, parts of the commentry are dull, parts are repeated, maybr I'm being too harsh, but if people spent more time in writing a good article and less in editwarring think how brilliant the article would be by now. What I propose to do is this:

The disputed tag stays on the article. It's clear that the factual accuracy of the article is disputed by someone at least, so we keep the tag in place until everyone is satisfied that the article is factually correct.
We go through the article paragraph by paragraph here on the talk page. Once we reach a compromise wording that everyone is happy with - (and only then) we correct that paragraph on the article. Everyone will need to agree not to edit the article in the meantime.
Once we have gone through the entire article, and everyone is happy with it, we remove the dispute tag.

Is the above idea acceptable? Theresa Knott (Not the skater) 14:23, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The above idea is not only acceptable, but appears to be very close to the standard procedure followed up until very recently. The only addition I would make to your suggestion is that we start with the most complete NPOV version, and work through paragraph by paragraph. Presently, over a third of the document appears to be missing. -Rob

Rob we can start with any version you like. Let's work on a temporary verion Winter Soldier Investigation (temp).I'll put you preferred version there. Then we can compare you preferred version with the current version, and we can hammer out the details on the temporary versions talk page. Theresa Knott (Not the skater) 20:10, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

OK I've done it. Please check that the version I've put there is the one you wanted, then we can begin. This page is getting too long, we can iether archive this page and discuss the temporary version here or we can move the discussion over to talk:Winter Soldier Investigation (temp). I'm happy with either solution. Theresa Knott (Not the skater) 20:16, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The version you put up as a temp looks OK, and we can use the Talk page associated with that version for now, since this page is indeed cluttered. But I have a hunch I'll be citing old discussions here from time to time. So what is the first editing issue on the agenda? -Rob

I started Talk:Winter Soldier Investigation (temp) with a comment about the Russell Tribunal discussion. Rob's preferred version has more detail than does TDC's preferred version (the one that received protection). I've muddied the waters by preferring less detail than either. JamesMLane 21:26, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Reasoning behind TDC's deletions

TDC - can you tell me why you have deleted the "November" date from the portion of the article that references the Russell Tribunal? -Rob

Ed Poor's Additions

Ed, I believe the organizer's stated intent of showing the relationship between the cause of war crimes and the policies of the administration and military is more accurate than the shorter and more inflammatory statement that they intended to blame the leaders. Please let me know if you disagree. -Rob

I'm not going to revert - mostly because I'll do almost anything to head off an edit war. But I don't understand the difference between "showing the relationship" and "blaming". -Ed

Obviously you do see a difference, or you would not have deemed it necessary to replace the phrase "showing the relationship" with the similar but different word "blaming." Both phrases indicate the intent to indict the administration, but the word "blame" also carries with it a strong connotation of censure, and I seek to avoid such vehement POV words. -Rob

My dim historical recollection of the event was that it was almost literally an indictment of the US goverment for intervening in Vietnam: an assertion that America did not have any good reason to support South Vietnam's government against a Communinist takeover, whether by invasion by the North or local insurrrection; and that the result of this misguided action inevitably caused all sorts of war crimes; an assertion that murder, rape, etc. were not a by-product of the US military campaign but an inevitable consequence: (not aberrations of individual soldiers committing crimes against military law but agents carrying out policy). -Ed

Your recollection of the event differs slightly from my recollection. The WSI was indeed an indictment of the U.S. government -- but not of its reasoning behind its interventions in Vietnam, whether on behalf of the French, or any of the subsequent competing factions of government. In fact, the reasoning behind America's participation in that conflict hardly rose to even secondary consideration status, as far as the objectives of the WSI was concerned. The primary focus was on the prosecution of that war, regardless of what brought the U.S. there in the first place. I do not see any correlation between the U.S. "misguided action" or reasoning and the "cause" of war crimes as you suggest, nor do I see an attempt by the Winter Soldier Investigation to establish that correlation. -Rob

I think that your bland phrasing sweeps the meat of the thing under the rug, where it can only rot. (Hope I'm not stating this too forcefully...). A former US soldier, --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 13:33, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I disagree. Perhaps you should define "the meat of the thing" in a little more detail. I get the feeling you may be referring to "meat" that I am simply not seeing. As for stating things too forcefully, set all your fears aside - I doubt there is much you can do to through the printed word to scare or offend me, and if forceful communication will serve to make your point, by all means use it. (Note: I can't speak for other viewers, however.) I see that you signed your comment with the indication that you have served - just like the participants and organizers of the WSI. Very well. I'll see your claim to military service, and raise you 1 degree in American History and 1 militantly strong conviction to fight revisionist history. -Rob

I fold ;-) I'm not a combat veteran. I served 1982-84 & 1986-89 in the "peacetime army", 85% of the time sitting at a desk.

Was the WSI really (a) ignoring America's motives and (b) only protesting its methods of fighting the war? Were they exposing atrocities only to stimulate the US military to clean up its act and battle the enemy more humanely? I find that hard to believe. My impression of the entire "anti-war" movement of the sixties and early seventies was that they had only one aim: make the US pull out of Vietnam, so that the Communists could win.

I talked to a lot of college students in Boston during 1967-1973, and I never found one who asserted both A & B points (as expressed above). Oh, I'd run into the occasional 'hawk' who wanted the US to conquer the "whole damn country" and didn't care how many civilians "had to die" for this. But I'm talking about those holding the VVAW mindset.

If we can clear this perspective thing up, I bet we can end the edit war. Most user conflicts I've mediated have been resolved once the different points of view (POV) were clarified and stated explicitly in the article. --user:Ed Poor (dope rouser) 14:13, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)

Your self-deprecating manner is a little disarming. Rather than brandish your military service as proof of the superiority of your perspective, you wave it off as a "desk job." Rather than bludgeon me with your opinion as if it were fact, you instead qualify it as merely "dim historical recollection." Even your nickname (El Dunce) is something less than strident. Good traits for a mediator. :^)

This WSI article has been a six-month long edit war, which isn't a bad thing in itself. Each edit was usually accompanied by discussion, agreement and disagreement, substantiation and ultimately concession. Until a few days ago, when a particular editor arrived and took it upon himself to do massive reverts coupled with obstinate refusal to discuss - that wasn't an edit war. That was just a juvenile attack against the Wikipedia way of doing things. The instigator appears to have lost interest and moved on, so now the normal give & take of article development can resume.

As I read your two paragraphs of perspective above, I think I see a major obstacle to the productivity of our little discussion here. Perhaps we can remove the obstacle. In those two paragraphs, you appear to mesh concepts together, when I clearly see them as seperate: The VVAW is not the Anti-war movement of the 1960s and 70s. The WSI is not the VVAW. The reason of "so that the communists could win," is not the reason Americans desired an end to the war. Such blurring of distinctions could only hinder productive discourse. Do you honestly believe every one of the millions of Americans that protested the war during that decade "had only one aim" of a communist victory in a foreign country?

"(Disputes) resolved once the different points of view (POV) were clarified and stated explicitly in the article" is one method, I agree. However, sometimes it is better to just leave all points of view (POV) out of the article, and just stick with facts -- especially when one or more of the points of view directly controverts the facts. In answer to your specific questions posed above:

Yes, the WSI mostly ignored America's motives, and instead focused on its methods and policies regarding the war. In fact, some of the participants were multi-tour veterans that supported Americas war effort, yet still attended the WSI. This does not mean that the VVAW didn't question the motives of the administration, for they most certainly did, but this was not what they were doing through the Winter Soldier Investigation.

Was the WSI exposing war crimes only to make the U.S. clean up its act? Of course not - the time had already passed for that. The ultimate goal was to speed the U.S. extraction from Vietnam. (Important note: I said "speed the extraction" because by that time the U.S. had already conceded to end its participation in Vietnam, having already withdrawn more than half the troops, and continuing to withdraw the rest through "vietnamization" of the conflict.) It was hoped that by raising public awareness of the brutality and destruction of that war, additional public pressure would be put on the government to act more expediently.

During my research this week, I stumbled upon this point of view regarding the issue of war crime hearings like the WSI and the issue you raised about questioning the American government motives for being in Vietnam. I must admit that I find myself in agreement with the majority of that point of view, even if I disagree with much of the other content at that website. I am of the opinion that the United States is strong enough in its morals and ideals to withstand a little soul-searching and truth regarding a somewhat darker period in its history. -Rob

Thank you for your polite and thoughtful remarks. Next chance I get, I'll read the pnews.org article. I'm interested in facts AND points of view, so I hope you don't mind if I lobby for some explanation of motives to be added to the article. I know more about the military history than about the internal politics of the various "anti-war" groups. I even met a man who bribed his way out of Communist Vietnam after the end of the war: Doan Van Toai, author of Le Gulag Vietnamien.

I did a bit of editing of the My Lai massacre article as well, since William Calley and his crew were the subject of a very interesting TC (training circular) on ethics the army put out in the 1980s. --user:Ed Poor (porous reed) 22:44, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)

I see on another page your comment: "...I think I'll leave the tropical heat of this issue and return to the relatively cooler Middle East." I don't envy you your preference -- you are a braver man than I. Regarding adding "explanation of motives" to the article, of course I don't mind such additions. The article does appear, however, to contain quite a few explanations already. At just a cursory glance, I see the following elaborations on the motives and intents behind the WSI and the testimony given there (please do add more to the list, along with sources):

Motives, Intents and Objectives

...intended to publicize war crimes and atrocities by Americans and allies in Vietnam, while showing their direct relationship to American administration and war policies.

The purpose of the Winter Soldier Investigation was to show that American policies in Vietnam lead to war crimes.

In the words of one participant veteran, Donald Dzagulones, "We gathered not to sensationalize our service but to decry the travesty that was Lt. William Calley's trial for the My Lai Massacre. The U.S. had established the principle of culpability with the Nuremberg trials of the Nazis. Following those principles, we held that if Calley were responsible, so were his superiors up the chain of command — even to the president. The causes of My Lai and the brutality of the Vietnam War were rooted in the policies of our government as executed by our military commanders."

The veterans giving testimony were also instructed not to reveal the specific names of others involved in war crimes. The goal of these hearings was not to indict individual soldiers, but instead to expose the frequency of criminal behavior and its relationship to U.S. war policy.

"...we could be quiet; we could hold our silence; we could not tell what went on in Vietnam, but we feel because of what threatens this country, the fact that the crimes threaten it, not reds, and not redcoats but the crimes which we are committing that threaten it, that we have to speak out." -- John Kerry

"A recurrent theme running throughout the testimony is that of institutionalized racist attitudes of the military in their training of the men who are sent to Vietnam--training which has indoctrinated them to think of all Vietnamese as "gooks" and subhuman. Further, the thrust of the allegations made in the 3-day testimony is that such actions were the consequence of reasonable and known policy adopted by our military commanders and that the knowledge of incidents resulting from these policies was widely shared." -- Senator Hatfield

"We as a Nation must find the proper way to honestly confront the moral consequences of our actions, and to corporately turn ourselves from the thinking and the policy that has degraded our moral posture and to recognize that out of contrition and self-examination can come a genuine rebirth of the ideas we hold as a people." -- Senator Hatfield

"In effect, the veterans were asking America to listen to its own much-touted morality, and to begin to practice what it had spent two centuries preaching. At the same time, though, the veterans were careful to point out that the war crimes the United States was committing in Vietnam did not stem from the misconduct of individual soldiers -- which the government had tried to establish by scapegoating Calley and a handful of his fellow officers -- but resulted rather "from conscious military policies... designed by the military brass, National Security Council, and major universities and corporate institutions, and passed down through the chain of command for conversion into Standard Operational Procedures (SOPs) in the field." -- Gerald Nicosia

From the opening statement given prior to the WSI procedings, describing the intent and objectives of the event:

We went to preserve the peace and our testimony will show that we have set all of Indochina aflame.
We went to defend the Vietnamese people and our testimony will show that we are committing genocide against them.
We went to fight for freedom and our testimony will show that we have turned Vietnam into a series of concentration camps.
We went to guarantee the right of self-determination to the people of South Vietnam and our testimony will show that we are forcing a corrupt and dictatorial government upon them.
We went to work toward the brotherhood of man and our testimony will show that our strategy and tactics are permeated with racism.
We went to protect America and our testimony will show why our country is being torn apart by what we are doing in Vietnam...

But we intend to tell more. We intend to tell who it was that gave us those orders; that created that policy; that set that standard of war bordering on full and final genocide.
We intend to demonstrate that My Lai was no unusual occurrence, other than, perhaps, the number of victims killed all in one place, all at one time, all by one platoon of us.
We intend to show that the policies of Americal Division which inevitably resulted in My Lai were the policies of other Army and Marine Divisions as well.
We intend to show that war crimes in Vietnam did not start in March 1968, or in the village of Son My or with one Lt. William Calley.
We intend to indict those really responsible for My Lai, for Vietnam, for attempted genocide ... You who hear or read our testimony will be able to conclude for yourselves who is responsible.
We are here to bear witness not against America, but against those policy makers who are perverting America.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/n/Talk%7EWinter_Soldier_Investigation_Archive_1_816d.html"

Category: Talk archives

Talk:Winter Soldier Investigation/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

First entry in this Talk page

Related links

Winter Soldier (film)

July 2004 Protection

Talk: Disputed allegation of phonies in the Winter Soldier Investigation

Quick addition by Rob

C. Alan Hopewell on Jim Weber's Testimony

Summary

Rob asks Scot to prove Hopewell reviewed relevant files - Unresolved Questions

Rob points out Scot's source has alterior motives - Unresolved Questions

Rob requests proof of Hopewells and Webers location and work - Unresolved Questions

Discussion of qualifications as a legitimate "source." Strike 1: Hopewell's dual agendas

Strike 2: Hopewell document has unsubstantiated POV

Strike 3: Hopewell misquotes subject with intended reversal of meaning

Strike 4: Hopewell: wrong time, wrong place

Strike 5: Misedited video clip distorts meaning

Film clip authentic?

Scot asks if there is more than one Basic training facility in South Calrolina

More of Rob's observations on Hopewells propaganda article

Video is doctored, edited, has qualifying statements snipped out - so scrap it

Hopewell only saw doctored film clip, not transcript

Hopewell is not an expert

Hopewell falsifies testimony, and makes multiple false statements

Hopewell article on WinterSoldier.Com modified by unnamed editor

Hopewells reminder that present day training is reviewed, overseen and irrelevant

Basic Training comments from Webers era of training

Awareness of TRADOC; unaware of reality - Hopewell comments on wrong camp

Rob's recommendation

Scot's recommendation

Winter Soldier Investigation - Participants and Relationships

Well known

John Kerry

Teresa Heinz Kerry

Barry Romo

Pete Zastrow

Scott Camil

Donald Donner

Marti Jordan

John W. Kniffin

Bill Davis

Bill Patterson

Joe Miller

Michael Damron

David Cline

Peggy Kerry

Mike McCusker, Michael McCusker

Joe Bangert

Steve Pitkin

FALSE TESTIMONY?

Lesser known

Jim Weber

Ronald Palosaari

Sam Schorr

Russ Vaughn

Kim Phuc

Lisa Boucher

Gordon Stewart

Christopher Soares

Robert Clark

Kenneth Campbell

William Hatton

Mark Lenix

Scott Moore

Franklin Shepard

Summary of mention of cut off ears

Mention of cut off ears in context

Larry Rottmann

Vernon Shibla

Paul Olimpieri

Fred Nienke

People without apparent involvement in WSI

Gaetano Puglisi

References

David Cline

Nancy Saunders

Winter Soldier Investigation verification processes

Related Source Information