A grave charge, but the sensitive listener will instantly assume that Mr. Kerry is using the word "crime" loosely, as in, "He was criminally thoughtless in not writing home more often to his mother." But Mr. Kerry quickly interdicted that line of retreat. He went on to enumerate precisely such crimes as are being committed "on a day-to-day basis, with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command." He gave tales of torture, of rape, of Americans who "randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravages of war."
My post on The Many Faces of John Kerry is germane to this discussion.
Under military law, what was the duty of an officer -- Kerry, for example -- if he possessed such information?
It is the affirmative duty, under both the UCMJ and under the basic strictures of human decency, of any service member--commissioned, warrant, or noncommissioned officer AND non-rated enlisted person alike--to report any such action to higher authority if he witnesses any such action, or has reasonable cause to believe that such an action was committed.
If Kerry had real reason to believe this, then he is guilty of several serious felonies under the UCMJ, and can conceivably be recalled to active duty to stand court-martial.
"Following his investigation of the My Lai massacre for the Army, Lieutenant General William R. Peers and his investigative team made highly unusual and largely unprecedented recommendations. The Peers Commission proposed that charges also be preferred against a number of American staff officers, including the division chief of staff, the brigade operations officer, the task force operations and intelligence officers, and the division chaplain...
"One of the conclusions Peers drew following his My Lai investigation was that there was widespread failure to report suspected war crimes and civilian casualties, despite numerous directives and standing operating procedures (SOPs) requiring such reports. Even more damning was the conclusion that individuals within the task force headquarters took affirmative steps to conceal the massacre, including falsifying logs by changing the locations where civilians were reportedly killed. A staff officer involved in concealing a war crime may be prosecuted as an accessory after the fact in violation of Article 78, for misprison of a serious offense in violation of Article 134, or for dereliction of duty in violation of Article 92."
From "Staff Officer Responsibility for War Crimes,", LTC Michael J. Davidson, USA, published in the Mar/April 2001 issue of Military Review, the professional journal of the US Army Command & General Staff College. The full article is available at this link to the Military Review Website.
Do we really want to elect a President who could be readily indicted and convicted of war crimes by the very same International Criminal Court he would order the State and Defense Departments to operate under?