My Lai Massacre You and your group will read information about the…

Question Answered step-by-step My Lai Massacre You and your group will read information about the… My Lai MassacreYou and your group will read information about the My Lai Massacre and answer the following questions.Part I: Background1. When did the My Lai Massacre occur?2. What events occurred prior to the My Lai massacre that are helpful to know as context for what emotions/tensions were prior to the attack at My Lai?3. Who was involved in the My Lai Massacre?Part II: Events4. Describe what happened during the My Lai Massacre?5. From what you have read, who do you hold accountable for these actions by C-Company? Explain Part III: The Trial6. When was the trial for those accused in this massacre?7. Who was on trial?8. What were the accused charged with? (explain what this is)9. After reading some of the testimonies, do you think that Calley was guilty of murder? Explain your answer10. What was the defense these men used for their role in the massacre?11. Do you find Calley’s defense acceptable or not? Explain your answer12. What were the verdicts and sentences for those accused? Part IV: The Aftermath13. What was the opinion of Americans on this trial and verdict?14. What is YOUR opinion on the trial and verdict? Explain My Lai: BackgroundU. S. military officials suspected Quang Ngai Province as being an enemy stronghold. Military officials declared the province a “free-fire zone” and subjected it to frequent bombing missions and artillery attacks. By the end of 1967, many dwellings in the province had been destroyed and nearly 140,000 civilians left homeless. Not surprisingly, the U. S. operations led some within the native population of Quang Ngai Province to distrust Americans. But the situation was complicated. Other natives detested North Vietnamese Army regulars, and in some native villages, children would gather around American jeeps and try to sell Cokes or offer to polish boots. Soldiers entering a village didn’t know quite what to expect.Two hours of instruction on the rights of prisoners and a wallet-sized card “SEE The Enemy is in Your Hands” seemed to have little impact on American soldiers fighting in Quang Ngai. Military leaders encouraged and rewarded kills in an effort to produce impressive body counts that could be reported to Saigon as an indication of progress. GIs joked that “anything that’s dead and isn’t white is a VC” for body count purposes.Charlie Company came to Viet Nam in December, 1967. It was located in Quang Ngai Province in January, 1968. Its mission was to pressure the VC in an area of the province known as “Pinkville.” Charlie Company’s commanding officer was Ernest Medina, a thirty-three-year-old Mexican-American from New Mexico who was popular with his soldiers. One of his platoon leaders was twenty-four-year-old William Calley. Charlie Company soldiers expressed amazement that Calley was thought by anyone to be officer material. One described Calley as “a kid trying to play war.” [SEE CHAIN OF COMMAND LINK] Calley’s utter lack of respect for the indigenous population was apparent to all in the company. According to one soldier, “if they wanted to do something wrong, it was alright with Calley.” The soldiers of Charlie Company, like most combat soldiers in Viet Nam, scored low on military exams. Few combat soldiers had education beyond high school.Seymour Hersh wrote that by March of 1968 “many in the company had given in to an easy pattern of violence.” Soldiers systematically beat unarmed civilians. Some civilians were murdered. Whole villages were burned. Wells were poisoned. Rapes were common. On March 14, a small squad from “C” Company ran into a booby trap, killing a popular sergeant, blinding one GI and wounding several others. The following evening, when a funeral service was held for the killed sergeant, soldiers had revenge on their mind. After the service, Captain Medina rose to give the soldiers a pep talk and discuss the next morning’s mission. Medina told them that the VC’s crack 48th Battalion was in the vicinity of a hamlet known as My Lai 4, which would be the target of a large-scale assault by the company. The soldiers’ mission would be to engage the 48th Battalion and to destroy the village of My Lai. By 7 a.m., Medina said, the women and children would be out of the hamlet and all they could expect to encounter would be the enemy. The soldiers were to explode brick homes, set fire to thatch homes, shoot livestock, poison wells, and destroy the enemy. The seventy-five or so American soldiers would be supported in their assault by gunship pilots.Medina later said that his objective that night was to “fire them up and get them ready to go in there; I did not give any instructions as to what to do with women and children in the village.” Although some soldiers agreed with that recollection of Medina’s, others clearly thought that he had ordered them to kill every person in My Lai 4. Perhaps his orders were intentionally vague. What seems likely is that Medina intentionally gave the impression that everyone in My Lai would be their enemy My Lai: The EventsAt 7:22 a.m. on March 16, nine helicopters lifted off for the flight to My Lai 4. By the time the helicopters carrying members of Charlie Company landed in a rice paddy about 140 yards south of My Lai, the area had been peppered with small arms fire from assault helicopters. Whatever VC might have been in the vicinity of My Lai had most likely left by the time the first soldiers climbed out of their helicopters. The assault plan called for Lt. Calley’s first platoon and Lt. Stephen Brooks’ second platoon to sweep into the village, while a third platoon, Medina, and the headquarters unit would be held in reserve and follow the first two platoons in after the area was more-or-less secured.My Lai village had about 700 residents. They lived in either red-brick homes or thatch-covered huts. A deep drainage ditch marked the eastern boundary of the village. Directly south of the residential area was an open plaza area used for holding village meetings. To the north and west of the village was dense foliage [SEE MAP].By 8 a.m., Calley’s platoon had crossed the plaza on the town’s southern edge and entered the village. They encountered families cooking rice in front of their homes. The men began their usual search-and-destroy task of pulling people from homes, interrogating them, and searching for VC. Soon the killing began. The first victim was a man stabbed in the back with a bayonet. Then a middle-aged man was picked up, thrown down a well, and a grenade lobbed in after him. A group of fifteen to twenty mostly older women were gathered around a temple, kneeling and praying. They were all executed with shots to the back of their heads. Eighty or so villagers were taken from their homes and herded to the plaza area. As many cried “No VC! No VC!”, Calley told soldier Paul Meadlo, “You know what I want you to do with them”. When Calley returned ten minutes later and found the Vietnamese still gathered in the plaza he reportedly said to Meadlo, “Haven’t you got rid of them yet? I want them dead. Waste them.” Meadlo and Calley began firing into the group from a distance of ten to fifteen feet. The few that survived did so because they were covered by the bodies of those less fortunate.What Captain Medina knew of these war crimes is not certain. It was a chaotic operation. Gary Garfolo said, “I could hear shooting all the time. Medina was running back and forth everywhere. This wasn’t no organized deal.” Medina would later testify that he didn’t enter the village until 10 a.m., after most of the shooting had stopped, and did not personally witness a single civilian being killed. Others put Medina in the village closer to 9 a.m., and close to the scene of many of the murders as they were happening. As the third platoon moved into My Lai, it was followed by army photographer Ronald Haeberle, there to document what was supposed to be a significant encounter with a crack enemy battalion. Haeberle took many pictures. He said he saw about thirty different GIs kill about 100 civilians.An army helicopter piloted by Chief Warrant Officer Hugh Thompson arrived in the My Lai vicinity about 9 a.m. Thompson noticed dead and dying civilians all over the village. Thompson repeatedly saw young boys and girls being shot at point-blank range. Thompson, furious at what he saw, reported the wanton killings to brigade headquarters [THOMPSON’S STORY].Meanwhile, the rampage below continued. Calley was at the drainage ditch on the eastern edge of the village, where about seventy to eighty old men, women, and children not killed on the spot had been brought. Calley ordered the dozen or so platoon members there to push the people into the ditch, and three or four GIs did. Calley ordered his men to shoot into the ditch. Some refused, others obeyed. One who followed Calley’s order was Paul Meadlo, who estimated that he killed about twenty-five civilians. (Later Meadlo was seen, head in hands, crying.) Calley joined in the massacre. At one point, a two-year-old child who somehow survived the gunfire began running towards the hamlet. Calley grabbed the child, threw him back in the ditch, then shot him.Hugh Thompson, by now almost frantic, saw bodies in the ditch, including a few people who were still alive. He landed his helicopter and told Calley to hold his men there while he evacuated the civilians. (One account reports Thompson told his helicopter crew chief to “open up on the Americans” if they fired at the civilians, but Thompson later said he did not remember having done so.) He put himself between Calley’s men and the Vietnamese. When a rescue helicopter landed, Thompson had the nine civilians, including five children, flown to the nearest army hospital. Later, Thompson was to land again and rescue a baby still clinging to her dead mother.By 11 a.m., when Medina called for a lunch break, the killing was nearly over. By noon, “My Lai was no more”: its buildings were destroyed and its people dead or dying. Soldiers later said they didn’t remember seeing “one military-age male in the entire place”. By night, the VC had returned to bury the dead. What few villagers survived and weren’t already communists, became communists. Twenty months later army investigators would discover three mass graves containing the bodies of about 500 villagers. My Lai: The TrialThe Army’s Criminal Investigation Division continued its separate investigation. Most of the enlisted men who committed war crimes were no longer members of the military, and thus immune from prosecution by court-martial. A 1955 Supreme Court decision, Toth vs Quarles, held that military courts cannot try former members of the armed services “no matter how intimate the connection between the offense and the concerns of military discipline.” Decisions were made to prosecute a total of twenty-five officers and enlisted men.Ernest Medina:Captain Ernest Medina faced charges of murdering 102 Vienamese civilians. The charges were based on the prosecution’s theory of [SEE command responsibility] Medina, as the officer in charge of Charlie Company should be accountable for the actions of his men. If Medina knew that a massacre was taking place and did nothing to stop it, he should be found guilty of murder. (Medina was originally charged also with dereliction of duty for participating in the coverup, but the offense was dropped because the statute of limitations had run.) Medina was subjected to a lie-detector test which tended to show he responded truthfully when he said that he did not intentionally suggest to his men that they kill unarmed civilians. The same test, however, tended to to show that his contention that he first heard of the killing of unarmed civilians about 10 to 10:30 A.M. was not truthful, and that he in fact knew non-combattants were being killed sometime between 8 A.M. and 9 A.M., when there would still have been time to prevent many civilian deaths. The prosecution, led by Major William Eckhardt, was unable, however, to get the damaging lie-detector evidence admitted. Medina’s lawyer, flamboyant defense attorney F. Lee Bailey, conducted a highly successful defense, forcing the prosecution to drop key witnesses and keeping damaging evidence, such as Ronald Haeberle’s photographs, from the jury. After fifty-seven minutes of deliberation, the jury acquitted Medina on all charges. (Months later, when a perjury prosecution was no longer possible, Medina admitted that he had suppressed evidence and lied to the brigade commander about the number of civilians killed.) William Calley:The strongest government case was that against Lt. William Calley. For days, the grisly evidence accumulated without a single witness directly placing Calley at the scene of a shooting. One of the early witnesses was Ronald Haeberle, the army photographer whose pictures brought home the horror of My Lai/In the second week of the trial Daniel began to call his more incriminating witnesses. Robert Maples, a machine gunner in the first platoon, testified that he saw Calley near the eastern drainage ditch, firing at the people below. Maples said that Calley asked him to use his machine gun on the Vietnamese in the ditch, but that he refused [SEE TESTIMONY OF MAPLES]. Dennis Conti provided equally damning evidence. Conti testified that he was ordered to round up people, mostly women and children, and bring them back to Calley on the trail south of the hamlet. Calley, Conti said, told us to make them “squat down and bunch up so they couldn’t get up and run.” Minutes later Calley and Paul Meadlo “fired directly into the people. There were burst and shots for two minutes. The people screamed and yelled and fell.” Conti said that Meadlo “broke down” and began crying [SEE TESTIMONY OF CONTI].The prosecution’s final witness was its most anticipated witness. Paul Meadlo had been promised immunity from military prosecution in return for his testimony in the Calley case, but when he was called earlier in the trial, Meadlo had refused to answer questions about March 16, 1968, claiming his fifth amendment right not to incriminate himself. Daniel called Meadlo to the stand for a second time, and the ex-GI, who had lost a foot to a mine shortly after the massacre, limped to the stand in his green short-sleeve shirt and green pants. Judge Kennedy warned Meadlo that if he refused to answer questions, two U. S. marshals would take him into custody. Meadlo said he would testify. He told the jury that Calley had left him with a large group of mostly women and children south of the hamlet saying, “You know what to do with them, Meadlo.” Meadlo thought Calley meant he should guard the people, which he did. Meadlo told the jury what happened when Calley returned a few minutes later:He said, “How come they’re not dead?” I said, I didn’t know we were supposed to kill them.” He said, I want themdead.” He backed off twenty or thirty feet and started shooting into the people — the Viet Cong — shooting automatic. He was beside me. He burned four or five magazines. I burned off a few, about three. I helped shoot ’em.Q: What were the people doing after you shot them? A: They were lying down.Q: Why were they lying down?A: They was mortally wounded.Q: How were you feeling at that time?A: I was mortally upset, scared, because of the briefing we had the day before. Q: Were you crying?A: I imagine I was….Daniel then asked Meadlo about the massacre at the eastern drainage ditch, and in the same almost emotionless voice, Meadlo recounted the story, telling the jury that Calley fired from 250 to 300 bullets into the ditch. One exchange was remarkable:Q: What were the children in the ditch doing? A: I don’t know.Q: Were the babies in their mother’s arms? A: I guess so.Q: And the babies moved to attack?A: I expected at any moment they were about to make a counterbalance. Q: Had they made any move to attack?A: No. The Defense of CalleyThe defense strategy had two main thrusts. One was to suggest that the stress of combat, the fear of being in an area thought to be thick with the enemy, sufficiently impaired Calley’s thinking that he should not be found guilty of premeditated murder for his killing of civilians. Latimer relied on New York psychiatrist Albert LaVerne to advance this defense argument [SEE LAVERNE TESTIMONY]. The second argument of the defense was that Calley was merely following orders: that Captain Ernest Medina had ordered that civilians found in My Lai 4 be killed and was the real villain in the tragedy.On February 23, 1971, William Calley took the stand. He told the jury he couldn’t remember a single army class on the Geneva Convention, but that he did know he could be court-martialed for refusing to obey an order. He testified that Medina had said the night before that there would be no civilians in My Lai, only the enemy. He said that while he was in the village, Medina called and asked why he hadn’t “wasted” the civilians yet. He admitted to firing into a ditch full of Vietnamese, but claimed that others were already firing into the ditch when he arrived. Calley said, “I felt then–and I still do– that I acted as directed, I carried out my orders, and I did not feel wrong in doing so”Ernest Medina was called as a witness of the court. Medina directly contradicted Calley’s testimony. Medina said he was asked at the briefing on March 15 whether “we kill women and children,” and– looking straight at Calley behind the defense table–he said to the GIs “No, you do not kill women and children…Use common sense.” At the close of his testimony, Medina saluted Judge Kennedy, then marched past Calley’s table without glancing at him.It was time for summations. George Latimer for the defense argued that Medina was lying about not giving the order to kill civilians, that Medina knew perfectly well what was going on in the village, and now he and the army were trying to make Calley a scapegoat. Aubrey Daniel for the prosecution asked the jury who will speak for the children of My Lai. He pointed out that Calley as a U. S. officer took an oath not to kill innocent women and children, and told the jury it is “the conscience of the United States Army”.The VerdictAfter thirteen days of deliberations, the longest in U. S. court-martial history, the jury returned its verdict: guilty of premeditated murder on all specifications. After hearing pleas on the issue of punishment, jury head Colonel Clifford Ford pronounced Calley’s sentence: “To be confined at hard labor for the length of your natural life; to be dismissed from the service; to forfeit all pay and allowances.” My Lai: Opinion PollsQUESTION: Do you agree or disagree with the decision of the military court which found (Lt. William) Calley guilty (in connection with the My Lai incident) and gave him a life sentence?Agree 7%Disagree 78%No opinion 15%From a telephone survey of 1,090 adults from across the United States conducted for President Nixon on April 1, 1971.QUESTION: Do you think President Nixon should free Lt. William Calley, substantially reduce his sentence, or uphold his life imprisonment sentence (in connection with the My Lai incident)?Free Lt. William Calley 51% Substantially reduce his sentence 28%Uphold his life immprisonment sentence 9% No opinion 12% QUESTION 001: Do you approve or disapprove of the court martial finding that Lt. Calley is guilty of premeditated murder? (If ‘Disapprove’, ask:) Do you disapprove of the verdict because you think what happened at My Lai was not a crime, or because you think many others besides Lt. Calley share the responsibility for what happened?Approve 11% Disapprove/Not a crime 15% Disapprove/Others share responsibility 56%Disapprove/Both reasons (vol.) 1% Disapprove/Other reasons (vol.) 5%No opinion 11%——QUESTION 002: Do you think Lt. Calley is being made the scapegoat for the actions of others above him or not (with regard to the My Lai incident)?——Yes 70%No 12%No opinion 18% QUESTION 003: Do you think the (Lt.) Calley sentence of life imprisonment (after his court martial finding of guilty in the My Lai incident) is fair or too harsh, or too lenient?Fair 13% Too harsh 79%Too lenient 1% No opinion 7%From a telephone survey of 522 adults from across the United States conducted by The Gallup Organization for Newsweek in April, 1971.——QUESTION 069: (Now let me read you some statements that have been made about Lt. Calley and the My Lai incident. For each, tell me if you tend to agree or disagree.) . . . The soldiers at My Lai were only following orders from their higher ups.——Agree 77%Disagree 9%Not sure 14% QUESTION 070: (Now let me read you some statements that have been made about Lt. Calley and the My Lai incident. For each, tell me if you tend to agree or disagree.) . . . Lt. Calley has been singled out unfairly as a scapegoat.——Agree 77%Disagree 15%Not sure 8%QUESTION 076: How would you rate President Nixon on the way he reacted to the court-martial of Lt. Calley (in the My Lai incident)?——Excellent 27% Pretty good 31% Only fair 17% Poor 18%Not sure 7% QUESTION 080: (Let me read you some statements that have been made about the way President Nixon reacted to the court-martial of Lt. Calley (in the My Lai incident) and tell me whether you agree or disagree.) . . . President Nixon has come close to undermining the system of military justice by showing sympathy with Lt. Calley.——Agree 28%Disagree 58%Not sure 14%QUESTION 083: Do you tend to agree or disagree with the Army Court-martial Board the found Lt. William Calley guilty (in the My Lai incident)?Agree with decision 24%Disagree with decision 65%Not sure 11%From a personal survey of 1600 adults from across the United States conducted by Louis Harris and Associates in April, 1971. History US History OST 149 Share QuestionEmailCopy link Comments (0)