Why Samply, McCain and Kerry can't get along.

maluckey

Platinum Member
Jan 31, 2003
2,933
0
71
The following are excerpt from U.S. Ambassador Says Vietnamese Torturers Were "Just Doing Their Jobs," by Ted Sampley, U.S. Veteran Dispatch.

PLEASE NOTE which so-called American war hero [i.e., Senator John McCain] stood in the way of seeing to it that those responsible for the torture and death of real American war heroes (such as Rocky Versace) were appropriately punished under the War Crimes Act of 1996.

Pete Peterson, [Clinton-appointed] US Ambassador to communist Vietnam, appointed in 1995, told the press in Hanoi that the Vietnamese who held U.S. prisoners of war for years of torture and isolation were "men just doing their jobs." Peterson said his return to Vietnam in 1995 was a personal search for reconciliation and that he wants the American public to understand how important it is to the security of the United States for the two sides to put the war behind them and be friends.

Peterson's shameful embrace of the communist Vietnamese responsible for the torture and murder of hundreds of U.S. POWs is an obvious example of Washington's indifference and disrespect for the sacrifices of United States war veterans, particularly those who stood and died on the side of freedom against Vietnam's Marxist/Leninist/Ho Chi Minh war machine.

In fact, if Peterson's statement was meant to be a declaration of the Clinton administration's position on war crimes, then the United States has committed a serious breach of the Geneva Convention. Ratified by the United States in 1955, the Convention states that prisoners of war are "victims of events," who merit "decent and humane treatment" and that the "willful killing, torture or inhuman treatment" of POWs are flagrant violations.

Communist Vietnamese policy on prisoners was brutally simple. They ignored all international laws and freehandedly used humiliation, threats, deprivation, torture and execution to manipulate any prisoners that resisted. A captured American would either violate the U.S. military Code of Conduct and collaborate or endure Hanoi's deadly torture.

Retired Air Force Colonel Ted Guy, a former POW held for five years, and a former Senior Ranking Officer (SRO) in the Hanoi prison camp, expressed shock at Peterson's contention that Vietnamese torturers were "only doing their jobs."

"The people of Vietnam are still ruled by the same communist government that treated the POWs as common criminals, in direct violation of the Geneva Accords concerning POW treatment. And this is the government that we are falling over backward to appease. It seems to me that this is another chapter in the book of "America is at blame," Guy said.

Guy raises a relevant question. Why is the United States not pursuing the war criminals who brutalized prisoners of war during the Vietnam War? Congressman Walter B. Jones (R-NC), one of a handful in Congress who still cares about veterans and their issues, pushed a bill through Congress in 1996 making it legal for the U.S. government to seek out and prosecute in U.S. courts anyone who commits war crimes against U.S. military personnel. Although the Geneva Convention granted all "Contracting Parties" the authority to prosecute individuals for committing war crimes as defined by the Convention, the authority was not self-enacting in each participant's country.

In its original form, Jones' bill, the War Crimes Act of 1996, was retroactive to the Vietnam War. But, before he could push the bill through the House and Senate, some of Hanoi's friends on the Hill, including Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and John Kerry (D-MA), blocked the bill, holding it hostage until it was stripped of all language making the bill retroactive to the Vietnam War.

Congress has never investigated the countless atrocities, torture, and mass murder ordered by top communist Vietnamese officials such as Prime Minister Vo Van Kiet during and after the Vietnam War.

In some prison camps in the South, over which Kiet was responsible, the death rate of U.S. prisoners was as high as 40 to 50 percent. U.S. prisoners under Kiet's deadly control suffered a higher casualty rate than the U.S. prisoners who were held in the infamous Andersonville POW camp during the Civil War. The U.S. government tried, convicted and hung the Confederate commander of Andersonville after the war.

Capt. Humberto "Rocky" Versace, U.S. Army Special Forces, of Norfolk, Va., was held prisoner for two years before, according to a National Liberation Front radio broadcast, he was publicly murdered in September 1965.

Fellow prisoner Lt. Nick Rowe said Versace, who the Viet Cong had labeled a "reactionary," was being tortured by guards in an indoctrination hut a few feet from Rowe's cage when Versace defiantly told a Viet Cong guard, "I'm an officer in the United States Army. You can force me to come here, you can make me sit and listen, but I don't believe a damn word of what you say!" Rowe said those were the last words any American ever heard from Versace.

Soon after, according to a U.S. government report, Versace was marched to Central Committee headquarters and forced to kneel and apologize for his "crimes" before he was shot in the back of the head.

According to reports, Kiet, ordered executed at least three of the American heroes listed above -- Capt. Rocky Versace, Sgts. Kenneth Roraback and Harold Bennett.

Ambassador Peterson deals with Kiet on a daily basis and nearly every high ranking U.S. government official who travels to Vietnam meets with and shakes the hand of Prime Minister Vo Van Kiet.

Transcript of entire article:

Ambassador says Vietnamese guards just doing a job



As you can see, the good Senators Kerry and McCain were in bed together on this one. Why McCain wasn't wanting to support the original bill, is still vague to me though. After this article, McCain went public about his dislike for Sampley.

 

chess9

Elite member
Apr 15, 2000
7,748
0
0
I wouldn't trust anything coming out of Samply's mouth.

He's a liar and I see no quote from a reputable source about the U.S. Ambassador's comments.

Regardless, even if he made such a bone-headed comment, why does it matter today?

-Robert
 

maluckey

Platinum Member
Jan 31, 2003
2,933
0
71
He was bone-headed, and he IS and asshole, but he was also the driving force, for returning the remains of the Unknown Soldier to his home in the U.S., when nobody else seemed to care. McCain and Kerry wanted to ignore Sampleys claims of information about the remains, so that normalization of relations with Vietnam could progress, and Sampley began shooting off his mouth (as he frequently does).

Perhaps McCain wanted to just bury the past and move on, and Sampleys in-your-face bad attitude and soap box lecturing pissed him off.

Kerry is quite another matter. He seems to have some sort of war-guilt (and profit) on his mind. Being a Forbes, profit can never be far off though. Just look at the Vietnam deep harbor contracts and Kerry's cousin to see some insight into Kerry and Vietnam. I think it's a twisted relationship at best. Kerry should bury Vietnam, and tell us how he will fix tomorrow, not waht he did 30 years ago, especially when he is not supported by an overwhelming majority of Veterans, and Veterans groups anyways.

Just check this out to see cheese in action.

I keep hearing Vietnam Veteran everytime this joker makes a speech. Below adds some perspective.

As Sen. John Kerry, Massachusetts Democrat, considers a bid for the White House, Americans should know a few things about him that he might prefer go unmentioned - and I don't mean his $75 haircuts.

When Mr. Kerry pontificated at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial on Veterans Day, a group of veterans turned their backs on him and walked away. They remembered Mr. Kerry as the anti-war activist who testified before Congress during the war, accusing veterans of being war criminals. The dust jacket of Mr. Kerry's pro-Hanoi book, "The New Soldier," features a photograph of his ragged band of radicals mocking the U.S. Marine Corps Memorial, which depicts the flag-raising on Iwo Jima, with an upside-down American flag.

Retired Gen. George S. Patton III charged that Mr. Kerry's actions as an anti-war activist had "given aid and comfort to the enemy," as had the actions of Ramsey Clark and Jane Fonda. Also, Mr. Kerry lied when he threw what he
claimed were his war medals over the White House fence; he later admitted they weren't his. Now they are displayed on his office wall.

Long after he changed sides in congressional hearings, Mr. Kerry lobbied for renewed trade relations with Hanoi. At the same time, his cousin C. Stewart Forbes, chief executive for Colliers International, assisted in brokering a
$905 million deal to develop a deep-sea port at Vung Tau, Vietnam - an odd coincidence.

As noted in the Inside Politics column of Nov. 14 (Nation), historian Douglas Brinkley is writing Mr. Kerry's biography. Hopefully, he'll include the senator's latest ignominious feat: preventing the Vietnam Human Rights Act (HR2833) from coming to a vote in the Senate, claiming human rights would deteriorate as a result. His actions sent a clear signal to Hanoi that Congress cares little about the human rights for which so many Americans fought and died.

The State Department ranked Vietnam among the 10 regimes worldwide least tolerant of religious freedom. Recently, 354 churches of the Montagnards, a Christian ethnic minority, were forcibly disbanded, and by mid-October,
more than 50 Christian pastors and elders had been arrested in Dak Lak province alone. On Oct. 29, the secret police executed three Montagnards by lethal injection simply for protesting religious repression. The communists are conducting a pogrom against the Montagnards, forcing Christians to drink a mixture of goat's blood and alcohol and renounce Christianity. Thousands have been killed or imprisoned or have just "disappeared." The Montagnards lost one-half of their adult male population fighting for the United States, and without them, there might be thousands more American names on that somber black granite wall at the Vietnam memorial.
As Mr. Kerry contemplates a run for the presidency, people must remember that he has fought harder for Hanoi as an anti-war activist and a senator than he did against the Vietnamese communists while serving in the Navy in Vietnam.

MICHAEL BENGE Foreign Service officer and
former Vietnam POW (1968 to 1973)

Washington
 

chess9

Elite member
Apr 15, 2000
7,748
0
0
I find it hard to believe McCain would somehow interfere with the return of remains or any attempt to do so. I don't really know why Kerry would do so either. I think Samply is a bit off his rocker so I really don't know what to make of his claims.

I can't stand Kerry, but admire McCain even though he's sounding more like a neocon puppet every day. His support for this war in Iraq troubles me.

-Robert
 

maluckey

Platinum Member
Jan 31, 2003
2,933
0
71
Well, McCain did, and apparently over a personal grudge with an asshole named Sampley.

I do not excuse Sampleys outrageous behavior, nor do I condone grudges. Both parties in this particular fued are childish and self centered, hurting all sides involved. There are plenty of snipes from McCain and Sampley towards each other that are well documented. It goes both ways. There are plenty of outsiders to both parties claiming that McCain and Sampley can't get near each other without both of them turning into asses.

 

CaptnKirk

Lifer
Jul 25, 2002
10,053
0
71
Sampley is coming on against anyone who he thinks hasn't done enough for what he (Sampley) thinks
should be done for those soldiers who are MIA from 'Nam - directed against other Vetrans of that era.

In the past he used his websites to attack McCain, similary, same motive - hatred.
 

maluckey

Platinum Member
Jan 31, 2003
2,933
0
71
That's pretty much the crux of the problem. McCain has a chip on his shoulder as well, and is similar in his attitude towards those he disagrees with. That's why they hate each other so much. They see themselves in the other, and don't like what they see.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Both sides engaged in atrocities during the war, just the way it was. That was part of the reason the American public turned against the war- we weren't prepared to engage in more of the same in order to win, and that's what it would have taken.

I firmly believe that the North Vietnamese returned all the prisoners at the end of the war, they had no reason not to- they wanted us out, and giving as full an accounting as possible only served that end. To think otherwise is to enter tinfoil hat territory. Those still missing 30 years later must be presumed dead if we're to have any sanity on the subject at all.

Sampley is apparently caught in the past, believing things that never were true. If McCain can forgive his tormentors, why can't Sampley?