RE: BW Controversy

["Vernon A. Choate" <vchoate@wdeuille.com>]

Note how you must "evade" ..."to the utmost of your ability." but it is unequivocal as to "I will make no....".  Disloyal being a legal term as opposed to just saying you shall not lie (orally or in writing). Then swearing to it (an oath not to lie) by your God puts it beyond man.  So signing a statement as being true under duress is always argumentative in the law.  This is the problem in succumbing to a lie to belie it. What harm came from the confessions.  This discussion now?  and to what purpose? Some think whipping a dead horse is fun.  My mother taught me "sticks and stones break bones but words will never hurt..".  So find a stick or a stone if you want to whip the Live Horse now.  I agree.  move way on!!

 

 

 -----Original Message-----
From: owner-KOREAN-WAR-L@raven.cc.ku.edu [mailto:owner-KOREAN-WAR-L@raven.cc.ku.edu]On Behalf Of AMPSOne@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2001 8:22 PM
To: KOREAN-WAR-L@raven.cc.ku.edu
Subject: Re: BW Controversy

Article V. When questioned, should I become a prisoner of war, I am bound to give only name, rank, service number, and date of birth. I will evade answering further questions to the utmost of my ability. I will make no oral or written statements disloyal to my country and its allies or harmful to their cause.


The only "smoking gun" which came out of the BW claims was Article V which theoretically DOES make it a courts-martial offense to willingly sign confessions.

The first one I remember from Viet Nam was loudly touted by the NVA as "proof" of American perfidity -- right up to the point that they found out who "Clark Kent" and "Bruce Wayne", the guilty pilots, really were...

This is a dead horse and not worthy of further discussion. Move on.

Cookie Sewell
AMPS