phl@drusd.UUCP (LavettePH) (02/19/85)
A question for you legal experts: Is it too late for the army to court-martial General William Westmoreland for issuing false estimates of vc strength during the war? According to the 2/18 Rocky Mountain News he has withdrawn his suit against CBS. This is quite probably due to the overwhelming evidence presented against him by his own staff officers while under cross examination as plaintiff's witnesses. Now that there appears to be substance to CBS's allegations isn't the next logical step a general court-martial for this officer who allegedly submitted falsified reports to his commander-in-chief, the congress and the American people in order to further his political ambitions and, in so doing, is dir- ectly responsible for the unnecessary deaths of thousands of GI's and countless Viet Namese civilians. Does General Westmoreland's retired status put him beyond the reach of mil- itary justice? Can a retired officer be recalled to active duty and court- martialed for crimes committed prior to his retirement? Can he still be tried under Art. 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice? (I might have the wrong article. The one I'm thinking of covers conduct which discredits the honor and reputation of the armed forces.) - Phil
renner@uiucdcs.UUCP (02/20/85)
> Is it too late for the army to court-martial General William Westmoreland > for issuing false estimates of vc strength during the war? According to > the 2/18 Rocky Mountain News he has withdrawn his suit against CBS. This is > quite probably due to the overwhelming evidence presented against him by his > own staff officers while under cross examination as plaintiff's witnesses. > - Phil (phl@drusd) You must be getting your information about the Westmoreland case from the CBS news. The evidence presented to support CBS's version of the facts was distinctly *underwhelming*. The most CBS has ever been able to show is that there was a difference of opinion about the effectiveness of the VC auxillary forces, and (imagine this!) that the commander's opinion won. The fact that Westmorland dropped his suit has no bearing on the substance of the CBS story; it merely illustrates the near-impossibility of winning a libel suit. We need to do something about libel laws. I think Westmoreland should have had a good case. CBS obviously manipulated and distorted their reporting to support their pre-determined conclusion. This represents great power with no corresponding responsibility, which is wrong. Is it really such a burden to the press that they should have to try to print the truth? Let me produce a few episodes of 60 Minutes -- let me choose which parts of interviews are shown, and which are suppressed -- and I can make Mother Teresa look evil. Scott Renner {ihnp4,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!renner
ndiamond@watdaisy.UUCP (Norman Diamond) (02/21/85)
> A question for you legal experts: > Is it too late for the army to court-martial General William Westmoreland > for issuing false estimates of vc strength during the war? > - Phil I'm not a legal expert but... Why should military personnel be any different from politicians, police, bureaucrats, etc... ? Their professions depend on lying. -- Norman Diamond UUCP: {decvax|utzoo|ihnp4|allegra|clyde}!watmath!watdaisy!ndiamond CSNET: ndiamond%watdaisy@waterloo.csnet ARPA: ndiamond%watdaisy%waterloo.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa "Opinions are those of the keyboard, and do not reflect on me or higher-ups."
inc@fluke.UUCP (Gary Benson) (02/22/85)
These questions were raised: > Is it too late for the army to court-martial General William Westmoreland > for issuing false estimates of vc strength during the war? > > Does General Westmoreland's retired status put him beyond the reach of > military justice? > > Can a retired officer be recalled to active duty and court- > martialed for crimes committed prior to his retirement? > Can he still be tried under Art. 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice? (Honor of the military) 1) It's never too late. Military justice is retroactive, so even though logic would say that Westmoreland is a private citizen, and thus would be treated as such, the UCMJ applies in the same way that you as an American citizen are subject to US law when travelling abroad. UCMJ sees offenses as timeless; in fact there is no such thing as a "statute of limitations". 2) Absolutely not. Retirement is a "state" that officers enter. There are certain perquisites and responsibilities tied to entering this state. One is that the officer can still sign his name with his rank, so long as he puts the notation (Ret.) behind it. Other notable points: Retired military personnel sign an oath swearing not to divulge any secrets they may be privy to; they receive a wage amounting to (usually) better than 50% of their military pay; they are classified for the draft before women and children, but of course not before healthy young men. 3) There is no need to bring him back to active duty. He is liable to UCMJ for his actions while on active duty. Cf, Mengele. 4) Probably 134 would work, but more than likely it will be Article 15, the catch-all. Maybe both. Personally, I think the crimes should be pinned on JBJ posthumously. -- Gary Benson {allegra microsoft ssc-vax telematic uw-beaver wavetek} fluke!inc John Fluke Mfg Co MS 232-E PO Box C 9090 Everett WA USA 98206 (206) 356-5367 + This is the day which the Lord hath made; let us rejoice and be glad in it! +