Replies

Links to recent stories on Camil at other sites:

Kerry hedges on 1971 KC meeting
Kansas City Star (subscription), MO - Mar 19, 2004
... None of the records show any indication of what then-Florida organizer Scott Camil dubbed a "domestic Phoenix Program" he was promoting to the Vietnam veterans ...

Kerry hedges on '71 KC meeting
Kansas City Star (subscription), MO - Mar 20, 2004
... None of the records show any indication of what then-Florida organizer Scott Camil dubbed a “domestic Phoenix Program” he was promoting to the Vietnam ...

Kerry hedges on 1971 KC meeting
Centre Daily Times, PA - Mar 19, 2004
... None of the records show any indication of what then-Florida organizer Scott Camil dubbed a "domestic Phoenix Program" he was promoting to the Vietnam veterans ...

Kerry hedges on 1971 KC meeting
Biloxi Sun Herald, MS - Mar 19, 2004
... None of the records show any indication of what then-Florida organizer Scott Camil dubbed a "domestic Phoenix Program" he was promoting to the Vietnam veterans ...

Anti-war activist acquitted of plotting violence at GOP ...
WorldNetDaily - Mar 18, 2004
As WorldNetDaily reported, Scott Camil, a leader of Vietnam Veterans Against the War, presented to the group, including Kerry, a plot to assassinate ...

The New York Sun | March 15, 2004
Frontpagemag.com - Mar 15, 2004
... Gerald Nicosia’s 2001 book Home To War reports that one of the key leaders of Vietnam Veterans Against the War, Scott Camil,“proposed the assassination of ...

Man who plotted murder of congressmen offered job
WorldNetDaily - Mar 14, 2004
... The plot was reported in Gerald Nicosia's 2001 book, "Home To War," that one of the key leaders of the organization, Scott Camil, "proposed the assassination ...

Brinkley: Kerry Faces Questions about Senate Hit Plot
NewsMax.com - Mar 14, 2004
... However Kerry officials in Florida have recently invited the assassination plan's author, Scott Camil, to join the Senator's campaign, the Sun report claimed. ...

'71 anti-war session: Was Kerry in KC?
Kansas City Star, MO - Mar 13, 2004
... 1971. “My recollection was that he wasn't there,” said Scott Camil, a disabled Marine veteran living in Gainesville, Fla. At ...

Ingredients from 2000 back in Florida mix
San Diego Union Tribune, CA - Mar 8, 2004
... I think those of us who voted for him in 2000 learned our lesson," said Scott Camil, a Green Party organizer from Gainesville who is backing Kerry. ...

The files document other Kerry appearances in 1971. One report from Oklahoma said, "The entire conference lacked coordination and appeared to be a platform for John Kerry, national leader of VVAW rather than for VVAW." Another concluded that a speech he gave at George Washington University was "a clear indication that Kerry is an opportunist with personal political aspirations." But the reports were not always accurate. In one, an informant reported that Kerry planned to accompany VVAW co-director Al Hubbard to Paris to meet with North Vietnamese representatives to negotiate a POW prisoner of war release. But another FBI file and other historical accounts report that Kerry was critical of Hubbard for making the trip and for exaggerating aspects of his military record. "John Kerry again attempted to have Al Hubbard voted off the executive committee as Kerry stated he did not think Hubbard ever served in Vietnam or was ever in service," reported one Kansas City informant on the tension that existed between Kerry and Hubbard. Kerry recalled his opposition to VVAW leaders meeting with North Vietnamese officials. "I thought that would be disastrous to the credibility of the organization," he said, "to the people we were trying to convince about the war." Kerry soon left VVAW, which he thought had lost its focus. "The group achieved a lot of good, but it eventually splintered and diversified into these various things," he said. "It started to broaden into this diverse tug of war." On Friday, the Kerry campaign released pages from the senator's personal FBI file, including a May, 24, 1972, memorandum in which the agency decided to end its information- gathering on Kerry's activities. "It should be noted that a review of the subject's file reveals nothing whatsoever to link subject with any violent type activity," the report said. "Thus, considering the subject's apparently legitimate involvement in politics, it is recommended that no further investigation be conducted regarding subject until such time as it is warranted." http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-kerryfbi22mar22,1,1463969.story?coll=la-home-headlines

A review by Camil by a book by David Harris, draft resistor and ex-husband of Joan Baez (that was his bun in her oven at Woodstock):

I found David Harris's book,Our War -- What We Did in Vietnam and What It Did to Us, (Times Books, 1996) to be relevant, easy to read and right on the money. David's descriptive style has a unique ability to capture the moment and bring the times to life.
I served twenty months in Vietnam as a sergeant in the United States Marine Corps from March of '66 through November of '67. I was a forward observer and was wounded twice. I enlisted in the Corps and volunteered for Nam. During this period of time, I knew very little of the motivations of the anti-war movement. I considered the participants to be communist sympathizers and unpatriotic cowards not willing to serve our country. I hated them.
After returning from Vietnam, I still had almost 2 years left in the Marine Corps. I found myself training Marines, some of whom had been drafted. Many of them thought the war was wrong. This was my first contact with anyone who opposed the war. I also became aware that the government through the media was lying to the public about the war.
I didn't understand, if what we were doing was right, why we were lying about it.
The Marine Corps sent me to the University of Western Carolina to lecture on the merits of the war. I was there for four days and then removed. I had been telling the students about free-fire zones and body count. The students didn't understand or like what they were hearing.
What finally turned me around was hearing Jane Fonda speak at the University of Florida. She said that in order for democracy to work, people must know the truth and that the government was not telling the truth. She said it was up to the vets to do it.
I testified at the Winter Soldier Investigation sponsored by Jane Fonda and Mark Lane in Detroit and met Vietnamese people who also testified. I really liked them. I had never gotten to know them in Nam; I just hated them all.
I thought I could be friends with these people, and wondered why I was in their country killing them. It dawned on me that I was just killing them because of their location.
After that, I, like David, put all of my energy into trying to end the war. I wanted to bring all my buddies home. It became obvious to me that our leaders were lying to the public about what we were doing, that we were the ones who were the aggressors and that we were committing unconscionable crimes against the people of Indochina.
The only flaw I found with Our War is that David doesn't give the anti-war movement enough credit. He says that we didn't end the war, that the Viet Cong beat us. That may be true, but it was the anti-war movement that made the political price of continuing the war unpalatable. It meant that our efforts counted. Our efforts hastened the end of the fighting.
What has happened since the war in Vietnam has been very disappointing. I went back to Vietnam in 1993 and found that the North Vietnamese do not share power with the Viet Cong. It saddened me to see that some of those who fought so hard for their independence didn't really achieve it and that there never was a reconciliation between the North Vietnamese, the Viet Cong and the South Vietnamese.
There is no doubt that to our nation the war is like a festering sore that has never healed, and there are plenty of examples. The war has been over for 21 years, yet President Clinton is still condemned by his political adversaries for not serving in Vietnam and for holding anti-war views. Does it bother me that our President didn't go to Vietnam? No. Our constitution is very specific about civilian control of the military. I think Clinton qualifies. A good friend of mine in Atlanta was up for an appointment under President Clinton. He was denied the position on the grounds that when he came back from Vietnam, he was a member of VVAW (Vietnam Veterans Against the War) and therefore unpatriotic and untrustworthy. In the eyes of many, the Vietnam veteran is stereotyped as a drug abuser, a violent person, and a loser. None of these attitudes show that we have moved on.
I think that those who don't realize that they were affected by the war may have been able to put the war behind them, but for those of us in whom memories of the war still burn, we can never totally move on or heal. I have received much counseling for my PTSD (Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder), but I can't get past Vietnam because my memories remain intact and intrude into my daily life at random.
For a society's people to be strong, they must have a good foundation of values, morals, and trust and faith in the institutions of the family, the school, the church, and our leaders. When I went to Vietnam, I had that trust and that faith; when I returned, I had lost it all. I found that I was lied to by my parents, my teachers, my religious leaders, and my government. This left me nowhere to turn for support or leadership. I could only trust my own judgment
As a society, to really heal, we must take full responsibility for what we as a nation have allowed our government to do with our money, our military, and in our name. The purpose of dealing with this responsibility is to learn from our actions and learn how to prevent them from recurring. We have not taken responsibility and we have learned the wrong lessons. Our government has learned to keep the press out of the combat zone so it can't see what we are really doing. In Central America, we have learned to use someone else's children to do the killing and dying for us, through what is called low-intensity conflict. In the Persian Gulf, we have learned that bribing our allies into going along with us gives an air of credibility to our aggressions. It seems to me that all that has been learned is how to neutralize American public opinion.
I looked up the word politician in the dictionary. The definition was "an elected official who lies". Everyone admits that our leaders are just politicians. They lie to us to get elected, they give themselves pay raises in the middle of the night while mismanaging the country, they make laws with loopholes big enough for the special interests to sail through. What they don't do is set a living example of morality or any value besides the value of money. The only value we have these days on a national level is the right of a few to accumulate as much wealth as possible at the expense of the people, the environment, and our integrity.
You can't learn from your "mistakes" if you don't admit them. I agree with David that the word mistake lacks the connotation of the evil for which we as a nation are responsible in Indochina. What would it take to reconcile this problem? Make it a crime for government officials to lie to the public. Get the press to refuse to print information put out by the government without naming sources (if those sources have to be held accountable for what they say, it will make it harder for the government to use the press to feed us propaganda). Make it harder for the government to send its citizens into combat. Make it harder for the government to classify information, so that the public can have a truer picture of how its employees are managing the country. Abolish the National Security Act of 1947, which puts so-called national security concerns above the constitution, and finally, live by and practice the morals and values on a national level that we want our children to live by.
I will always be bitter about the war. David uses the word "wasted" a lot. In Nam when we killed people, we would say we wasted them. When we would talk about our buddies who were killed, we would say the gooks wasted them. All that time, I never thought about the meaning of what we were saying. In reality, the hopes and dreams of my generation were wasted in the rice paddies of Vietnam. David and I each gave twenty months of hard time for our beliefs. Would it have made any difference if David's name was on the Vietnam Memorial Wall? Obviously not. I'd rather that everyone whose name is on the Wall would have spent their twenty months with David and that there would have been no need for the Wall. I salute him, and all those who refused to go, and all those who tried to stop the war.
Our War--What We Did in Vietnam and What it Did to Us, by David Harris
Book review | Scott Camil | April 1997

Michael Pugliese quoted:
>"Scott Camil, formerly a gung-ho Marine, now looking Christ-like with long

hair and beard and chiseled Semitic features, was one of the most dramatic

witnesses at Winter Soldier. Camil testified about slitting old men's

throats and the abominable sexual torture and murder of a female Viet Cong

suspect. He stated that he had always believed in the rightness of his

actions, and in his nation's urgent need for him to perform these terrible

tasks. ... Winter Soldier for Camil and so many others was just this chance
to

connect again with their fellow men, and with the America they had once

loved enough to risk their lives for."

In the where-are-they-now department...Scott just wrote an article for the
mag I co-edit:

Supporting the troops
Scott Camil

I want to say that everyone I know supports the troops, we just disagree on
what that means.

How do you support the troops? When I joined the Marine Corps and when our
friends and loved ones joined the military, there was a belief that those in
charge would act lawfully and responsibly.

Those that waved the flags, beat the drums and fanned the flames of war while
sending us to the Meat Grinder in Vietnam did not really support us, they
fucked us. Supporting the troops means being responsible with their safety
and honest with the citizens; this is not the case now as it was not the case
in Nam.

Using the troops responsibly means using all means of diplomacy to solve the
problems and using the troops as a last resort. It means that you obey in
ternational law and that you use and risk the lives of the troops only
when all other means of conflict resolution are exhausted. In this case, we
are violating the U.N. Charter by invading the sovereign nation of Iraq.
This makes the war unlawful.

We are at war because the President doesn’t have patience. Again, that is
not how you support the troops. I find that to hide a greedy, oil soaked
policy behind the flag and the troops defiles both the flag and the troops.

While the government screams the mantra, “Support our Troops,” they cut VA
benefits so they can give “tax breaks to the rich” what hypocrisy.

Starting a war, sending our troops to fight and die while yelling ‘we support
the troops’ makes as much sense as starting fires, sending firefighters to
risk their lives fighting the fires while yelling ‘we support our
firefighters.’

Iraq has not attacked any other country since the end of Gulf War 1. The
inspections have been very slow. Impatience is not a responsible reason to
go to war or to expend the lives of our troops and it is definitely not how I
would define supporting our loved ones in the military.

Do I, or others against this war, support Saddam? Absolutely not. Even if
most of what they say about him is true, that still does not justify a
vigilante foreign policy where we get to be the judge, jury and executioner.

In this country, the fighting between Democrats and Republican is well known.
Many people consider the selection of Bush in 2000 by the Supreme Court to
be undemocratic. But when we were attacked on 9/11, we put our differences
aside and came together against an enemy that was the aggressor and attacked
us on our own soil. The overwhelming majority of the world put aside their
differences with us and stood by us because they saw us as innocent victims.

Why would we expect the Iraqi people to be any different or the rest of the
world not to side with those they consider as innocent victims, the Iraqi
people? They are being invaded by a foreign country that does not have the
support of the UN. They have done nothing against our country. They also
know that for 12 years our economic sanctions have been responsible for the
deaths of over 500,000 of their children. Knowing this, why do we expect to
be greeted by smiling Iraqis?

In 1991, 6000 Iraqi soldiers who tried to surrender were kept in their
trenches by tanks while bulldozers buried them alive. At the time, Defense
Secretary Dick Cheney sent a report to congress with an elaborate legal
justification. Answering questions raised concerning this incident as it
relates to the Geneva Convention’s prohibition of “denial of
quarter” refusing to accept an enemy’s offer to surrender, the report said,
“There is a gap in the law of war in defining precisely when surrender takes
effect or how it may be accomplished. An attempted surrender in the mist of a
hard fought battle is neither easily communicated nor received. The issue is
one of reasonableness.” Because of these uncertainties and the need to
minimize loss of US lives, military necessity required that the assault... be
conducted with maximum speed and violence.”

If you were an Iraqi soldier, knowing what happened in 1991, how anxious
would you be to surrender to American troops?

We scream about Iraq violating international law because they showed and
questioned American POWs on TV. Look at how we treat the prisoners in
Guantanamo Bay in Cuba…”which would you rather be?

In Vietnam, we had the fire power and the technology. We did not understand
the culture, and in the end, the only way we could have prevailed would have
been to kill everyone in the North and South that did not agree with us.
There was no way that they could fight us on our terms and have a chance
against us, so they improvised and fought a guerrilla war.

In 1991, the Iraqis got their butts kicked trying to fight conventionally
(actually, trying to run from our fire power). If they have any smarts at
all, they know they can’t win conventionally so they are fighting on their
own terms. That puts the US troops in the position of trying to destroy the
will of the Iraqis to resist by knocking out their leadership and convincing
the people that we are really the good guys (winning their hearts and minds).
I remember when we used to say, “Grab them by the balls and their hearts and
minds will follow.” I know that this concept will not work.

Being ashamed and appalled that our government is violating international law
and the Constitution is not wrong or anti American.

As citizens in a democracy protected by the Constitution, We The People are
the highest authority. The President, the Congress and the Supreme Court are
all public servants. We are the employers and they are the employees. The
legitimacy of their power is derived from our acquiescence. Without our
acquiescence, they have no legitimate authority. It is our duty to hold them
responsible and to punish them when they go awry. In a Democracy, legitimate
power has to come from the people. It is our duty to control our government.
...

Scott Camil served as a Marine Corps Sergeant in Vietnam. He is a member of
The Veterans Call to Conscience.

Gainesville (FL) Iguana, Vol. 17, #7, April 2003, p. 1
[lbo-talk] Re: Scott Camil (was: How to Treat Erstwhile Enemies...)
Gainesville (FL) Iguana, Vol. 17, #7, April 2003, p. 1

Scott Camil is a Vietnam veteran who attended school at the University of Florida after serving in Vietnam as a Marine. At UF, Camil became involved in the student protest movement, and then assumed a leadership role in Vietnam Veterans Against the War. Part of the fascination of his story are his feelings about the war and the actions of the military, which initially seem to be contradictory perspectives. Landers skillfully elicits heartfelt and emotionally raw testimony which reflects Camil’s beliefs at the time of the interview, as well as his feelings while serving in Vietnam and shortly before and after his military tour.
Although Camil had played a pivotal role in the protest movement, Landers begins the interview by asking about Camil’s childhood, and progresses chronologically, which enables Camil to ground his testimony in the genuine emotions and motivations which drove him in the past, when he enthusiastically enlisted in the Marines and renewed his tour of duty in Vietnam, without skewing that testimony with the 20/20 nature of hindsight. This tactic also emphasizes the complexity of attitudes regarding warfare from the perspective of the soldier in combat by revealing an evolution of ideas, as well as residual feelings of respect for military life which remain in Camil’s present-day outlook. Camil explains the desire of many soldiers who served in Vietnam to extend their tours of duty, and the difficulty of the transition from military to civilian life: “Real men do not run from a fight, and real men do not leave their friends behind…Stateside, there is a lot of bullshit. In combat, there is no bullshit.” Yet this defense of military lifestyle is intertwined with description of raw terror and hatred of warfare, and more importantly, the Military Industrial Complex which profits from the waging of it: “When you are walking and the guy two guys in front of you steps on a mine and the guy two guys behind you steps on a mine and you know that you are in a minefield, you just start shaking. You are just scared to shit…War is barbaric. It is not clean, it is not civilized, [and] it is not just. All it is is organized murder. That is all it fucking is-organized murder. Then we come home and all of a sudden we are supposed to be just regular fucking dudes again.” Landers wisely avoids trying to direct Camil’s testimony, which enables movement beyond the expected black and white perspective of war is evil or war is glorified, into more realistic shades of grey.
Many of Landers’s questions are striking in their simplicity, yet lead to very complex responses. They seem to get the ball rolling, and it is impossible to determine whether this results from design or dumb luck, but conjecture would suggest a combination of the two. Interviewing skill is demonstrated, however, when Landers recognizes these opportunities to obtain very relevant and fascinating information, and does not interrupt Camil.
L: “When did you graduate from high school?”
C: “…In high school they were sort of like your parents. It was an authoritarian trip. They did not make it relevant [by saying,] ‘This is why it is important to learn something.’ Basically, it was memorizing dates and stuff...They did not put things in context. In history you had to memorize dates and presidents and battles, but they just do not put things into perspective.”

Sometimes, Landers recognizes a need to remain on track, and subtly leads Camil. For example, when Camil is discussing the residual nature of military lifestyle reflected in his clothing style as compared to fellow college students and begins to stray toward tangential subject matter, Landers says: “Right. How did you become politically active?”
Landers also seizes opportunities to universalize Camil’s testimony by grounding it in historical context. At Camil’s first mention of the Winter Soldier Investigation, Landers asks him to recall the dates, and also asks “Is this where Vietnam Veterans Against the War comes into existence?” The latter question also reveals that Landers has done his homework, and is aware of Camil’s leadership role in VVAW.
A handful of Landers’s questions seem to cross the line, since they seem to be a ploy to obtain information which is irrelevant and offensive. When Camil is discussing activist groups on campus at UF, Landers asks “Do you remember any names from the Young Socialists?” While this information might be useful for further research about activism, it does not truly involve Camil, and stylistically, the question seems to have an accusatory air and hidden agenda of ferreting out incriminating evidence which is reminiscent of Joseph McCarthy. Later, when Camil mentions the Young Republicans who favored the American presence in Vietnam, Landers asks: “Did any of these people [Young Republicans] smoke dope that you can remember?”
Landers’s most striking faux pas was the attempt to create a causal relationship which does not truly exist. Camil describes a student-orchestrated demonstration on May 9-10 in response to the mining of Haiphong and the extension of the air war over North Vietnam. When he explains that students blocked the streets, Landers asks, “Where did this idea come from?” Camil replies, “…we did not have money to buy ads, so we had to create news.” Then Landers explains, “The reason I asked…was that this is 1972, and this is a new type of tactic. University of California students occupied the city airport in Santa Barbara, [and] students in Colorado are blocking roads and bridges with trees and things. I am wondering, is this an idea that is filtering down or being discussed with your national connections?” Camil replies, “This was [a] spontaneous local [effort]…streets had been blocked before. After football games….” In this situation, Landers seems to be struggling to obtain an answer which would suit his own agenda, rather than truly investigating Camil’s actual experiences.
Throughout the interview, Landers is able to remain calm and somewhat detached, and avoids getting emotionally involved to the extent of sacrificing objectivity as a result of the shocking nature of Camil’s often graphic testimony. This skill is epitomized by his reaction to Camil’s explanation of an alternative to symbolically throwing away medals during a march on Washington. Camil prefaces the plan by saying that it is something he has never told anyone before, and “I did not think it was terrible at the time. My plan was that, on the last day…we would go into the [congressional] offices…we would schedule the most hard-core hawks for last-and we would shoot them all.” L: “Were you serious about this?” C: “I was serious. I felt that I spent two years killing women and children in their own fucking homes. These are the guys that fucking made the policy, and these were the guys that were responsible for it, and these were the guys that were voting to continue the fucking war when the public was against it. I felt that if we really believed in what we were doing, and if we were willing to put our lives on the line for the country over there, we should be willing to put our lives on the line for the country over here."” Had Landers vehemently objected to the feasibility, logic, legality, or appropriateness of this alternative plan, he would have alienated Camil, thereby destroying the rapport which enabled him to obtain information throughout the interview, which would have sacrificed the honesty of his description of the plan and his justification of such extreme measures, as well as his willingness to speak honestly throughout the remainder of the interview.
Overall, I found the interview’s content fascinating, and felt the format revealed that Landers conducted the interview effectively.
Scott Camil and the Gainesville Eight oral history analysis
~Rebecca Brown February 5, 2000
Interview with Scott Camil, conducted by Stuart Landers on October 20, 1992
Transcript of interview located in University of Florida Oral History Archive

bump

FYI

bump !

Ping

Haven't read every word of your archive, but does it include the fact that one of the assassination targets was shot a year after the meeting? Case never solved.

Not to mention another was killed in a plane crash.

Scott Camil taken at a V.V.A.W. (Vietnam Veterans Against the War) rally.

Michael Kirschbaum's film Seasoned Veteran: Journey of a Winter Soldier is about Scott Camil, an anti-war activist who served two tours of duty in Vietnam and is a purple heart and congressional medal of honor recipient. "I would like this film to educate people on how war affects society at many different levels and also that those who fought in wars should be listened to and their ideas respected," said Michael who held onto these convictions when approaching his interview subjects. "If there was any hesitation, I would just assure them that everything is alright because I believe the story needs to be told, and that's the attitude I brought to the piece."
With the help of his two partners Benito Aragon and Melinda Kahl, the film took about 10 months from concept to finished product. "We did extensive research at all local media institutions and also spent a week conducting research and gathering footage at the National Archives in Washington, DC," he said. "We shot the interviews on DV, however all the archival footage was originally shot on film which I think added a nicer feel to the doc than digital alone. I think film added authenticity to the piece." Seasoned Veteran has been nominated by the International Documentary Association for a David L. Wolper Award for Student Documentary of the Year.
University of Florida (UF) - Gainesville, FL

This thread was a good idea, and needs a bump. We need to keep track of what's going on with this guy.

Here's the latest mention I've been able to find of him.

http://www.gainesville.com/apps/pbcs.dll/artikkel?SearchID=73181521510205&Avis=GS&Dato=20040617&Kategori=LOCAL&Lopenr=206170342&Ref=AR

Relevant text from this article, dated 06/17/2004:

Scott Camil of Gainesville is a consultant to several area candidates. Camil said he learned about the change from Glen Gilson, owner of Fantastic Graphics, when discussing a sign order.

"I wonder why it was changed in a campaign season and why it wouldn't be grandfathered in," Camil said. "What sense does it make to try to find signs that are up all over the place and run around putting little stickers on them?" Qwinn

Glad I found this it is interesting. I am presently reading the FBI files from June 1971 - April 1972.

The FBI files reveal:

1. VVAW Plan to assassinate seven US senators.

2. VVAW was training to execute a Phoenix plan to decapitate the leaders of the US Government.

3. Member of VVAW arrested enroute to VP Agnew speech with an explosive device (BOMB).

4. VVAW running guns to a black militant group in Cairo IL.

5. VVAW funded by Communist party of America.

6. VVAW receiving funds from the Communist Party of a country in Europe.

7. VVAW taking directions from the North Vietnamese Communist Government.

8. VVAW sent tapes to NV to be played to our POW's being held by the communists.

9. VVAW sent its leaders (Kerry was a leader) to NV to be indoctrinated by the NV Communists.

10. FBI files indicate that Kerry only resigned the exeutive committee of the VVAW.

ANd I found this article which proves he was still with the VVAW as a leader as late as Feb. 1972.

Kerry's in deep DoDo

Keep digging, kerry. You're doing fine.

bump

Check this out!

Many criminals actively misspell their names to confuse law enforcement, financial concerns, etc, to avoid responsibility for past and future actions.

This is a small point, but in the Winter Soldier 1971 transcripts, this fellows name is spelled "CAMILE", not Camil.......this is enough to confuse any computer and who knows what else.

If anyone is doing some serious digging, search also for "Camile" and possibly even "Cammille", "Camille", etc.

Here's the link to the Winter Soldier transcripts with him as "Camile"

CAMILE. My name is Scott Camile. I was a Sgt. attached to Charley 1/1. I was a...
http://lists.village.virginia.edu/sixties/HTML_docs/Resources/Primary/Winter_Soldier/WS_03_1Marine.html

Transcript of exchange with WS moderator, also "CAMILE" spelling:

http://lists.village.virginia.edu/sixties/HTML_docs/Resources/Primary/Winter_Soldier/WS_04_1Marine.html

bttt