Hmmm I wonder if Maomar will ever get brought to trial for crimes against humanity? At least someone had the sense to execute Saddam.

 They can put Russell Williams in there too. Bonus. BOGO deal.

Saddam had to be executed before he could talk. He was put in place by the US, supplied with poison gas by the US, and turned lose on Iran by the US in a war that killed a million. How soon we forget.

graeme,

Are you deliberately misleading with the Calley details or just vague, uninformed, taking creative license to make a point or what?

Calley was sentenced to life imprisonment at hard labour at Leavenworth for his involvement in the My Lai massacre.

People were outraged for various reasons. Some felt he followed orders, was the only one convicted (out of 26 defendants you did not mention), that the government wanted kill numbers and he was a scapegoat and patsy. I personally know of war protesters and vetrans who found common ground in Detroit who protested his conviction. Even protest songwriters like Pete Seeger spoke of how Calley was not alone.

Public outrage led Pres. Nixon to have him placed under house arrest pending his appeal. The army said his sentence was reduced to 20 years. The sentence was, with clemency, then that he would only serve a confined 10. ( Was this trying to not have info come out that the people now wanted?)

His appeal remained.

He served 3 1/2 years of house arrest at Fort Benning, Georgia before a federal judge found that Calley's trial had been prejudiced by pretrial publicity, a failure by the US govenment to release info, denial of subpoenas, etc. The Army overturned the judge's habeas corpus decision... another court martial made a decision... it was determined a habeas corpus ruling needed addressed... the powers that be decided to let his court martial conviction stand and his dismissal from the service, but say his time was served. Why? 

It was not and is not simple, since we still do not know all the details,  and it was not serving just three days.

I agree Omar Khadr is being treated inhumane and that it is wrong. I do not believe he likely should not have served a single day. That does not mean I am willing to smear individual people like Mr. Calley, court martial boards, etc.... the American people who protested Calley's conviction, those who oversaw his house arrest..... to say it or that I will, in fact, try to rewrite history to suit me, my political beliefs, or Mr. Khadr.

Well, I didn't think a page of even wondercafe was a suitable place for a 300 page book on Calley.Nor would I so quickely jump into accusations of falsification on such a long story - particularly if I, like you, I knew so little about it.

1. The army and the American government covered up the story as long as it could. Only the persistence of a reporter got it out. (This tradition of covering up seems to be continuing with Obama - the one who promised whistle blowers would be protected. I guess that's why Manning has been in military prison and reduced to a vegetable - and why Obama so badly wants Assange back for frial.)

1a. If you want a fuller story of My Lai and the govrnment cover-up, read "The First Casualty". It's a history media and government lying since the 1890s.

2. Calley was sentenced to life. He did no serve it. He was under house arrest at a large military base. That's not exactly the same as breaking rocks. His total served time in a jail cell was three ccount them - 3  days. Then he was given a full pardon.

3.' There was no examination of similar mass murder in two nearby villages.

4. There have been few charges in the many cases of muder and torture by Americans in every war in American history.. There are only guesses how many millions of civilians were killed in Vietnam. Do you seriously think Calley was one of the big killers?

5. His men got off with no convictions at all. Do you know that's it's a crime to follow an illegal order? We imprisoned Naziis for it.

6. Whether you recall it or not, his jail time was three days. Why was he pardoned? Well, partly because the US is an extremely aggressive and brutal and racist country. They don't give out hard time to soldiers who murder babies with slant eyes. Check the record.

7. There was a soldier in Iraq who murdered members of her family in front of a girl (thirteen, it I recall) then raped her. I can't remember the sentence. but it was far, far less than he would have received if he had done it to an American family.

8. I take it from your final sentence you feel my views are based on political prejudice. It's true. I h ave a political prejudice against people who order mass murder of whole families down to babies.

And the facts remain. Calley served three days in jail for murder. The more recent one got sixy days for murdering and then mutilating the bodies of an undisclosed number of people who had the misfortune to be of the wrong religion.

If you're going to write indignant accusations, try to do a litlle reading up first.

graeme, there is not one person who cannot spot your deep dislike of the US.

How aware are you of what I may or may not know? I take it you guess or have a crystal ball or are really Sylvia Browne incognito.

Yes, I was aware that there was a government cover-up. There usually whenever something puts a negative light on any government or any country. It is also done by companies... heck, it is done by individuals in extra-marital affairs.

The media or an insider contacting the media usually blows the cover off the cover-up. It is why journalists like Hersh win Pulitzers.

Calley serving three days in jail is accurate. Yet, it is also misleading.  He served three days at Leavenworth and was transferred to house arrest in Georgia. Yet, three days was not his sentence. He was sentenced to life, 20...(his sentenced changed).  It also ignores that he served three and a half years of house arrest in quarters and it counted as time served.

My Lai was horrible. So too was the "Somalia Affair". Want to check who got off and what time was served when it came to the murder of Shidane Arone? One conviction of nine and a year served on a five year sentence for murder. We have photographs of that.

Hear about the whistleblower who alleges Canadian Special Forces are encouraged to kill civilians and commit war crimes in Afghanistan?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/01/18/military-jtf2-probe.html?ref=rss

There are civilians killed in ALL wars. There are few tried for killing them even when it is intentional and the Americans are not the only guilty ones. War is ugly. War is not just about defeating enemies one a battlefield it is also psychological and it is ugly at the top and at the bottom. What matters in war is winning or the illusion of winning.... body counts. There is no honour in war, there is winning. You cannot look at any nation or any conflict and not find ugliness. Who faces war crimes are only those who are not on the favourite list at the UN, plain and simple.

My, you must be terribly anti-American to say such things.

See  how simple-minded an accusation that is?

I'm also opposed to Ghadaffi. Does that make me anti-Moslem? I'm critical of Israel. Does that make me an anti-semite? I'm not enthusiastic about the government of China. Does that make me a racist?

Let's stay with facts. I said Calley spent three days in jail. You agree. case closed. I know what his sentence was. The point is he never had to serve it. He was pardoned - by the president. Tell me how many serial killers within the US are let off like that?

I said American soldiers routinely get gentle treatment for killings that are pure murder and have nothing to do with winning the war.  You mix this up with a claim (true) that war is about. So it is. Now tell me what that has to do with deliberately murdering babies.

I never said Americans are the only guilty ones. I do seem to be the only one not making excuses for Americans when they do it.

Oh - and the media don't usually expose a cover-up. They usually leave it out of the news - or they deliberately lie about it. I have already suggested an excellent book oon that very subject "The First Casualty". It wasn't the media that broke the torture story - though they all knew about it. It was a careless photo put on the net by a torturer.

You are right, graeme. You are pretty much anti-everyone and anything that is on your list. That has been fairly well established. You also have your fingers on the pulse of the world.... and hold the opinion that makes most sense to everyone with half a brain or anyone who is anyone.

I am pretty anti-establishment, so I think I will take my leave.

No. I will happily yield to your half a brain.

graeme,

after a while, when enough people disagree with you, it stops being aboot them not being intelligent enough, or having the right information (or other iterations of not being a 'True Christian'), but really being aboot they do not share your particular BS (belief system).

So, bad show on the insult to SG.  Keep at what you are doing, but please, the ad homenims are you protecting your ego and not aboot the truths/facts behind what you are writing.

I insult people who insult me. Check SG.s posts.

I have long since given up on trying to use truths/facts with people who refuse to read or even consider the possibility of things they don't want to believe. I sent SG sources on the subject. She never read them.

SG has written post after post of abuse and accusation.

She accuses me of being anti-American - without even knowing what the term means. As I pointed out to another correspondent, I have been accused of being anti-American because I oppose the AFghanistan war. The last polls show two thirds of Americans oppose it, and want to get out of Afghanistan. So that makes me pro-American and makes SG anti-American.

Good thing I wasn't expresseing views on the US a century ago. I'd be anti-American for demanding equal rights for Blacks. And all you "pro-Americans" would be holleriing for more lynchings.

graeme,

You and I agree on many matters. What we do not agree upon is approach.

I support public trial and not war tribunals or court martials. Holding that position though means I must also support the public aspect over the court martial in Calley's case... Yes,  even if I think he should have served a long sentence along with others and that the chain of command was also responsible.

I am also sadly aware that government and chain of command encourages things that they then deny and let soldiers take the fall for... Somalia, My Lai, Abu Graib, Gitmo....

I never used the word "anti_American", you did. 

 Anti just means against, last time I checked. Anti-American would mean opposed to the US and its policies. Correct?

Maybe, I have no idea what it means....

I am however not against the country or the people, just policy and things that happen. I do not dislike the country. If I started that route, there is not one nation I could like or live in. I would be then just be forced to be a miserable, bitter person seeing only what was wrong everywhere.

The source on the topic of Calley that you cited is "The First Casualty: The War Correspondent as Hero, Propagandist and Myth-Maker". It is a book on war reporting and war propoganda and not I have not read it. You told me yesterday and you are bitching to InannaWhimsey and mad that I do not have it read yet? Seriously? Seriously?

I seriously complain that you have strong opions on this subject and others without having bothered to learn anything about it. For example, you would pobably take umbrage at the following:

1. Which army in World War One was considered the worst of the allies in treatment of prisoners in the view of the Britich military?    The Canadian army.

2. When did the US begini using torture?  It has always used torture. Waterboarding as a tortture, for example, was developed in the invasion of The Phillipines over a century ago.

3. Which country has been the world's most aggressive for the last couple of centuries - with and without declaring war at the time?This US. The figure is at least 175 times.

If you have opposition to American foreign policy, then you are anti-American foreign policy.  General Grant was anti-US slavery. That scaccely justifies calling him anti-American.

I am opposed to The Church of Jesus Christ (Christian) because of its Nazi beliefs. That does not make me anti-Christian.

To be anti-anything means to be opposed to all of it. To be anti-American means to be opposed to all Americans, all American values, all American government, all American leaders. Obviously, to do that one would have to be suffering delusions - as the Naziis did about Jews. The opposite extreme would be to be pro-everything based on race or nationality. It's a knee-jerk reaction, usually based on complete ignorance of the subject.

One finds, for example, people who are anti-any criticism of hockey. It's a knee-jerk reaction that leads to tortured reasoning to maintain it - and to accusing anyone who disagrees as being anti-hockey.

Do you think that a sshort period of jail - like 60 days or three days - are an adequate punishment for deliberate mass murder of large numbers of people?

I'm sure you don't. (nor is a period of home arrest.) What the judge's decision was is irrelevant since it was never enforced.

We agree with each other. So why do you keep making excusss for it and arguing about it. There's a reason for what you're doing,I'm sure. Do you know what it is?

graeme,

I will have to do a Rev John on this one.

You said, "I seriously complain that you have strong opions on this subject and others without having bothered to learn anything about it."

Again, are you Sylvia Browne? You seem to take wild guesses or be psychic about what someone's opinions even are and what they know about or do not know about.

For clarity, did I say Calley deserved less time? More time? No, I did not. My strong opinion was that many folks will read what you typed and say he spent "three days jail" and not know he also spent "three and a half years under house arrest".

You said, "For example, you would pobably take umbrage at the following:"

I take umbrage at none of the facts in 1-3. That does not mean I support using them for any or all motives.

You said, "If you have opposition to American foreign policy, then you are anti-American foreign policy.  General Grant was anti-US slavery. That scaccely justifies calling him anti-American."

I would agree and will reiterate that I never called you anti-American. That is a word you ACCUSED me of calling you. Saying someone dislikes America is not the same as calling them anti-American.

You said, "I am opposed to The Church of Jesus Christ (Christian) because of its Nazi beliefs. That does not make me anti-Christian.

I would agree.

You said, "To be anti-anything means to be opposed to all of it. To be anti-American means to be opposed to all Americans, all American values, all American government, all American leaders. Obviously, to do that one would have to be suffering delusions - as the Naziis did about Jews. The opposite extreme would be to be pro-everything based on race or nationality. It's a knee-jerk reaction, usually based on complete ignorance of the subject."

You have distinct views on what anti and pro means and I do not agree with those views or those as definitions. I am not going to quote dictionary entries. It does not work with some folks. Does antiaircraft means all aircraft or some meaning hostile aircraft? Is antiart rejecting all art or some aspects or types meaning traditional forms? Is antibusing rejecting all forms, types, occasions of busing or is it some meaning busing children to schools beyond their residential neighbourhoods? Is antiestablishment all estabishments or some meaning ruling group?

You said, "One finds, for example, people who are anti-any criticism of hockey. It's a knee-jerk reaction that leads to tortured reasoning to maintain it - and to accusing anyone who disagrees as being anti-hockey.'

You addressed sigh as SG in the hockey thread, a thread I never posted on. You are apparently bringing that hockey thing into this thread, partly because you have me mixed up with sigh.

 You asked, "Do you think that a sshort period of jail - like 60 days or three days - are an adequate punishment for deliberate mass murder of large numbers of people?"

I never said I did. So, you are accurate in saying

"I'm sure you don't. (nor is a period of home arrest.)"

You said, "What the judge's decision was is irrelevant since it was never enforced."

Uhm, maybe I am confused, but the not enforced life sentence decision was that of a court martial. The decision of 20 years was from the conveneing authority of that court martial the Commanding General of Fort Benning. The Secretary of the Army recommended clemency. The only judge's decision was kind of relevant for me, since it was a habeas corpus decision. I thought that was a safeguard to liberty, but if you think it is irrelevant.... What do I know anyways?

You said, "We agree with each other. So why do you keep making excusss for it and arguing about it. There's a reason for what you're doing,I'm sure. Do you know what it is?"

I really do not agree with you that I have half a brain or am abusive or am uninformed about something my step-dad took very seriously as a Vietnam vet who was a member of VVAW (Vietnam Veterans Against the War) . He opposed the war and in doing so was not anti-American. He stuck his neck out along with many others publicizing war crimes and atrocities and pointing fingers back at the policy makers. He still does, after Hodgkin's disease from agent orange exposure and a bout with West Nile. He thinks about the longest wars in US history and modern day soldiers and he knows what they are being called and also forced to do.

Calley was served up as a scapegoat. In large part, because nobody liked him. he had no "old boy's club" to help him as many others did. His own men did not like him. He was a scapegoat. The President knew it, the Army knew it and the American people knew it.

Did it make it right? No. Punishing him alone for the crimes of a country 's war policy were not either.

Of course, Calley was a scapegoat. But he did it. The army and government did not start out by scape-goating him. They started by trying to cover up for him. Only when pressure came from publicity did they scapegoat him. Calley was genuinely guilty all on his own. He was not an innocent babe in the woods.

If you check the records of military prosecutions of American soldiers for killing, raping or stealing from enemy civilians over the last sixty years, you will find no significant penalties handed out - and very few cases in which charges were even laid. That is despite a great many records of rapes, klling for the fun of it, mutilation, and theft.

I'm sorry I can't weep for Calley having to spend three and a half years under a house arrest. That is something quite different from jail time. Andt he only jail time was, as I said, three days. My point was in my first note that the US military and government are amazingnly lenient even in well proven cases. More commonly, they hush it up. I cannot understand why you're so excited that ai dreadfully misled people by not mentioning the court sentence or the three and a half years of "house arrest". My point was that treatment is lenient. If we accept all of your claims as being an ordeal for Calley, they are still pretty pale stuff. Why is it so important for you to argue this?

As for the antis, you appear to be wrong on all of them. Anti-art is anti all art. If it'smodernism you dislike, then you are enti-modernism. I think all of your samples are like that.

(Dictionaries, by the way, do not tell you what words mean. They tell you how people use them. that's why the OED gives a historical oferview of the meanings of each word. That's not a small point. There is a wonderful book touching on this. It's the OEC definitions contributed by an American doctor imprisoned for life in Britiain for murder. Can't remember thename of it. Bitch, for example, originally meant female dog; but it is now rarely used in that meaning. Sometimes it is used to describe a disliked woman. Sometimes, it is a verb meaning to complain. Sometimes, it is an intolerable job. and thus a noun.

I recognize where you're coming from, and I admire your step-father's responses to his experiences. Yes, war has always been unspeakably cruel. Now, the idea of war faces crises it cannot respond to. Technology has now made war so expensive and so destructive, we cannot much longer survive with it. Combined with that, technology has not been able to compete for decades now with even primitively equipped enemies.