ok, finished the paper. if you guys wouldn't mind reading over it and proofreading it, i'd appreciate it
The events of the My Lai massacre are some of the most horrific events to taint the US Military, yet some people of the time would revere Lieutenant Calley and the other members of Charlie Company as war heroes. However, many others speculate that, and even accuse the soldiers of Charlie Company of committing war crimes during their tenure in Vietnam. The evidence and testimonies brought up during the investigation initiated by Lieutenant General William Peers shed light on the actual events that took place at My Lai, but the question remains one of morality rather than technicality. It is to be discerned that Lieutenant William L. Calley was guilty of murder. Captain Ernest Medina and the rest of the soldiers of Charlie Company were merely acting under orders.
Lieutenant William L. Calley, leader of 1st platoon in Charley Company under command of Captain Ernest Medina, is guilty of the war crime of murder of unarmed civilians. There is numerous evidence and testimony supporting this conviction. The most prominent of these evidences is the official report of the events at My Lai describing the conflict. This report shows that 128 members of the VietCong had been terminated, while only recovering one rifle, two carbines, and several hand grenades, along with various enemy documents. Transversely, only two US soldiers were killed and eleven wounded. (Olson and Roberts, 30-31) This should throw up a red flag to immediately indicate that something did not proceed correctly. Many of the soldiers of Charlie Company, when questioned about the incidents at My Lai, voluntarily explained his orders. Lieutenant Calley himself was also interviewed and gave a testimony to his actions.
The Peers Commission, assembled and coordinated by Lieutenant General William Peers, interviewed and received testimony from multiple soldiers of Charlie Company relating to the events prior to and at My Lai and of the orders given to them by superior officers. When questioning Michael Bernhardt, there was mention of repeated incidents before My Lai in which civilians were unnecessarily shot and killed. While referring to a time when he ordered a woman to stop in Vietnamese, he mentioned that Lieutenant Calley instructed him to shoot them if they don?t stop. (Olson and Roberts, 55) It was also noted that Bernhardt was not entirely sure if the commands they were giving in Vietnamese were the correct terms. Herbert Carter, a ?tunnel rat?, one who went down into the VietCong tunnels to search for enemy infantry and supplies, testified to the U.S. Army CID. The following is an excerpt from the testimony:
?After this briefing, Calley told me to double my ammunition supply. This wasn?t at a briefing: he came around to all the bunkers. When I left Medina?s briefing I knew it was going to be a slaughter of civilians in the village the next day. Stanley and I talked about this before MyLai and we agreed then that it would be a slaughter. . . I got along with Calley until MyLai, but after he killed all those people I couldn?t take any more of that.?
(Olson and Roberts, 67)
and shows that Calley went into the mission prepared to decimate the village. Under normal circumstances, extra ammunition is not carried due to the weight, but Lieutenant Calley apparently was ready to use it. In combination with the testimony given by Dennis Conti to the Peers Commission, Calley was clearly ready to eliminate every Vietnamese in the village, regardless if they were VietCong or not. In it, he stated that Calley told him ?any men there will have a weapon, any women will have a pack, any cattle is VC food, and to destroy it. . . there were no if?s, and?s, or but?s. They will have a weapon.? (Olson and Roberts, 73)
Calley himself even says that he executed the villagers during his testimony to the Peers Commission. When questioned about firing upon the Vietnamese in a ditch, Calley told the commission that he also fired into the ditch, and when asked who had ordered them into the ditch, he said ?Indirectly, I did, sir.? Calley even repeats himself when asked if he ordered anyone to push people in the ditch, saying ?Like I said, sir, I gave the order to take those people through the ditch?. (Olson and Roberts, 110-112) Ron Ridenhour, member of the aviation branch of the 11th Infantry Brigade, acquired many rumors of the My Lai massacre throughout his interaction with the soldiers. In his letter to military and government leaders, he writes ?When the first group was put together Kally ordered Pfc Torres to man the machine-gun and open fire on the villagers that had been grouped together. . . He simply manned it himself and shot down all villagers in both groups.? (Olson and Roberts, 150) Both Calley?s personal testimony and Ridenhour?s accounts of the massacre via the soldiers give credit to the actual events, showing that Calley was prepared for and carried out his mentality that the civilians were to be killed, thus he is guilty of murder.
However, Captain Ernest Medina, commanding officer of Charlie Company at the time of the My Lai massacre, is not guilty of murder. Many of the soldiers under his command swear that Medina did not order the killing of civilians, but was in fact against it and disgusted by it. In Gregory Olsen?s testimony to the U.S. Army CID, in response to being asked if Medina ever ordered the killing of civilians in the briefing, he replied ?Negative. He did not. Captain Medina, was in my opinion an outstanding Commander. . . Captain Medina would never have given an order to kill women and children.? (Olson and Roberts, 64) In Medina?s testimony to the CID, it was stated that he did have authorization to burn the village, but did not order the destruction of the inhabitants. (Olson and Roberts, 63) According to another soldier?s testimony, Michael Terry, the soldiers had asked Medina if they could shoot anything they saw. Medina never said they could. (Olson and Roberts, 72) These three testimonies show that Medina had never ordered the execution of the villagers. That order rests solely on Lieutenant Calley?s shoulders at this point. There was even one noted incident where Captain Medina even tried to get one of the villagers to escape. In Herbert Carter?s testimony to the CID, he states that Medina told a seventeen or eighteen year old boy with a water buffalo to make a run for it, trying to get him to run. (Olson and Roberts, 80)
Once the investigations had started, several of the officers had heard about it. Captain Medina called his soldiers up to the command post to give them instructions and reassuring them that everything would be fine. Michael Bernhardt told the Peers Commission that this gave the impression that Medina would accept responsibility for what happened. (Olson and Roberts, 123) Medina knew that what had taken place was a mistake, a violation of the Rules of Engagement, and he wanted to make sure his men understood that anything they said could jeopardize their standing. He looked after his men and would make sure that if anything was to happen, it would happen to him. The testimonies involving Captain Medina showed that he did not give the order to execute the civilians.
The rest of the soldiers of the 1st Battalion, 20th Infantry of the 11th Brigade, are also not guilty of murder. Any soldier that took part in the My Lai massacre that day was acting under strict orders from their commanding officer. No soldier willingly took up his rifle after the initial contact with the village was made and fired upon the unarmed civilians. Captain Eugene Kotouc, a combat intelligence officer, attended the briefing of the Brigade company commanders given by Colonel Barker, along with Captain Medina. When questioned by the Peers Commission, Kotouc stated that there were specific instructions given to destroy the village, with Barker wanting it ?cleaned out, he wanted it neutralized?. (Olson and Roberts, 59) Being an intelligence officer and Colonel Barker?s staff aide, Kotouc?s testimony has substantial weight upon the origin of the order to eliminate the civilians. The order had come from higher up, higher than the company commander, thus relieving the soldiers of the responsibility of creating the situation.
During the assault, several soldiers had tried to save several villagers from being executed. Dennis Conti, disgusted by the needless slaughter, offered to guard the tree line. When a group of villagers began running towards the tree line, Lieutenant Calley yelled ?Get them; kill them?, and Conti gave them a chance before firing four rounds. He did not pursue. (Olson and Roberts, 78) By the time the investigations had begun, the soldiers had been notified through their commanding officers. In Herbert Carter?s testimony to the Peers Commission, he stated that he heard that if anybody asked around or questions about My Lai came up to say that they were fired upon and a sniper round had come in. (Olson and Roberts, 125) These testimonies from the events before, during, and after the assault on the village show that the orders and situation resulting from them were above and beyond the soldiers? control. They were merely acting under orders, doing as they were told, as good soldiers do.
In the end, the only guilty party from the massacre at My Lai is Lieutenant Calley for his rampant and inhumane executions of the unarmed Vietnamese civilians. Lieutenant Calley repeatedly ordered his soldiers to round up and execute the civilians. Captain Medina did not give an order to eliminate the civilians. The soldiers of Charlie Company were merely acting under orders. In A Code for the Government of Armies in the Field, the code?s guiding principle was as follows: ?Men who take up arms against one another in a public war do not cease on this account to be moral beings, responsible to one another and to God.? (Olson and Roberts, 34)
I should go to law school or sumtin but I'm going into something not even close to that.
