Talk:Nguyễn Ngọc Loan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:


[edit] This execution was in violation of the Geneva convention.

This assertion was added in an edit today, and I removed it as unsupported and POV. It appears the viet cong executed by Loan was conducting armed hostilities dressed as a civilian (in fact most accounts claim he was an infiltrator). Therefore, at most, the viet cong would most likely have been an unlawful combatant who would not have qualified for protection under the Geneva convention. —Ryanaxp June 28, 2005 17:49 (UTC)

BS. The unlawful combatant term was largely non existant until Bush found it and decided to use it. I warn you that if you accept the unlawful combatant term then you except that snipers and many other type of covert soldiers can be considered unlawful combatants. There is also no conclusive evidence for your claim of Nguyen's activities. I have copied the text from the Nguyen Van Lem article. Although I dislike such an extensive copying of text from one article to another, in this case it is needed. Nil Einne 06:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Regardless of the date of the term, the concept has been around since before the Geneva Conventions. Spies have been executed in previous rules of war. Furthermore, I find this assertion of yours interesting: "I warn you that if you accept the unlawful combatant term then you except that snipers and many other type of covert soldiers can be considered unlawful combatants."
There's a major difference between snipers in uniform targetting an enemy, and terrorists in civilian clothes who target civilians. And if a U.S. military sniper ever does fight while wearing civilian clothes, there is no doubt he would not be granted rights as a legitimate combatant under the Geneva Conventions. Nor would I expect any third parties to be arguing strenuously on his behalf. So your warning is meaningless.
And what difference would it make anyway? The U.S. and its coalition allies are the only ones who do recognize the Geneva Conventions nowadays. With all the protests going on now, there are very few who even give a damn about Iraqi civilians being killed by terrrorists. And if they're not going to demand that little bit of decency, I see the odds that any of them will demand Geneva Conventions for uniformed soldiers is laughable.
In any case, I request that you revise your edits.
-- Randy2063 15:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Please provide references to substantiate the circumstances of his capture, and his status under the Geneva Conventions. Thanks. Edison 22:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
The same argument is over at Talk:Nguyễn Văn Lém, where I quoted this:
Terrorists, spies, and saboteurs were excluded from consideration as prisoners of war. Suspected Viet Cong captured under circumstances not warranting their treatment as prisoners of war were handled as civilian defendants.
I don't know all the circumstances of his capture, but he is now acknowledged to have been in the Viet Cong, and the picture shows him in civilian clothes.
He was due whatever rights a criminal civilian defendant got according to the laws of South Vietnam under wartime laws further complicated by the Tet Offensive. I'd guess that in many countries under such circumstances, a case like that might not even be taken to the authority of a general.
-- Randy2063 04:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Find me any source that say South Vietnamese law at the time allowed soldiers to execute prisoners, be it enemy soldier or civilian. It's a clear violation of Vietnamese law. To justify your edits, you also said that there was a tribunal prior to the execution. FYI, both South Vietnamese sources as well as North Vietnamese sources and every other sources I have come across said the prisoner was executed without a tribunal right after he was caught. Even Nguyen Ngoc Loan & Eddie Adams admitted to that fact. The only debate here is did he murder South Vietnamese civilians? Once again, find me a source that said otherwise.--lt2hieu2004 20:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
You've got that backwards. I was challenging an allegation made in the article, and pointing out that it is quite reasonable to believe that it isn't true. Since you say there are sources available, I don't see a problem with you coming up with one.
It was absolutely not so clearly a violation of Vietnamese law. This happened during the Tet Offensive, and it is not at all unreasonable to think habeas corpus would be suspended during such an emergency, as well as other rights. (After all, Lincoln did it.) You cannot go by normal everyday Vietnamese law and assume that was in force during those times.
It's well known that looters may be summarily shot during a state of emergency. As the Looting article says, "even in Western democracies that otherwise ban the death penalty, extraordinary measures may be taken against looters, during times of crisis." -- and that's mere looting in Western democracies. I cannot imagine that South Vietnam would have been any less strident during one of their biggest times of crisis.
Furthermore, I did not claim in my comment that there was a tribunal. I said that the sources I've seen do not say there was none. If Eddie Adams said otherwise then I didn't see it. I did read that he was only brought in later, and I assumed he might not have known what happened beforehand. That's only one point, however. The looting example is more clear.
I'm putting back up my call for a source.
-- Randy2063 23:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Let me rephrase. Firstly, according to both North and South Vietnamese law at the time, the police were not allowed to execute prisoner without going through a trial. This is just common sense. Secondly, I don't know of any Vietnamese law which allows execution of handcuffed prisoner even in a state of emergency so AFAIK the first law still apply: no prisoner should be executed without going through a trial first. That's why I'm asking you to come up with sources that said Vietnamese law allowed execution of prisoners without trial in a state of emergency. As for proof that no tribunal took place, here is one: [1], every sources that I've come across told the same thing: ARVN soldiers regained control of the area, they found a VC guerrilla inside, they took him to Nguyen Ngoc Loan, Loan then shot the man. There was absolutely no time for a legal trial in just a few minutes between the time the first ARVN soldier entered the building and the time the VC guerrilla was escorted out. Again, please provide sources that said otherwise.--82.23.1.34 00:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
The legal system was not very functional at that moment -- if at all. How could it be common sense for looters to be shot on the spot during an emergency in western Europe but not for shooting outright killers of women and children during the Tet Offensive?
Are you saying that South Vietnamese law and custom should be expected to be more respectful of human rights during an emergency than European law? That doesn't sound like common sense to me.
If I'm reading the right spot in your source, it does not say there was no time for a tribunal. It says, "two Vietnamese soldiers pulled a prisoner out of a doorway at the end of the street." That does not mean he had just been captured at that doorway. For all we know, that doorway may have been leading from Loan's office.
-- Randy2063 01:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Dude, grow up, I'm sure you are more intelligent than that, just re-read what you've written before submitting. You're trying too hard to justify Nguyen Ngoc Loan's action. You must've realised you sounded a lot like some of those conspiracy theorists. If the prisoner was indeed Nguyen Van Lem, he is known to be still alive in the morning of Feb 1st because that morning he led an attack on an ARVN office where he was captured. By noon, he was executed. For the sake of argument, let's just say he was tried and found to be guilty. What kind of trial took place in such a short time with noone to represent the defendant? Must be a very fair & legal one. There are a lot of sources which said Nguyen Van Lem was executed without trial but I've never come across any source which said otherwise. So again, I kindly ask you to provide source.
Btw, both Nguyen Van Lem's wife and Le Cong Na's brother can not be sure if the prisoner in the photo was Nguyen Van Lem or Le Cong Na since he was beaten so badly that even his closest relatives couldn't recognize him.
As for your looters argument. You said "How could it be common sense for looters to be shot on the spot during an emergency in western Europe but not for shooting outright killers of women and children during the Tet Offensive?", the point is Nguyen Van Lem was only caught hiding in a ditch full of bodies. Moreover, whatever you choose to believe, it's still against Vietnamese law to kill a prisoner without trial even in a state of emergency. Again, please provide source if you think otherwise. Even in your country, it might be lawful to shoot looters but I'm sure it's not lawful to shoot a handcuffed looter being escorted to prison.--lt2hieu2004 03:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
On the contrary, you're trying too hard to condemn the man. I don't really doubt that you can find sources that say Lem was shot without a trial. You just haven't yet shown me one.
What I've shown you is that it's not at all unusual for police to be given extraordinary powers in a chaotic situation like this. In the U.S., the Constitution recognizes the possibility of such an emergency when it says, "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it." It's not generally lawful for the police to shoot looters in the U.S. but that's because the system has been functioning in recent years.
Note that I didn't say I thought he got a good trial, nor even a civilian trial at all. I had earlier suggested that he could have had a military tribunal. It is known that Thieu declared martial law during the Tet Offensive. Regardless of whether or not there was a tribunal, normal everyday South Vietnamese law would not have applied on that day. Loan could very well have been acting under a presidential decree.
For it to be "not lawful to shoot a handcuffed looter being escorted to prison" assumes that a prison is secure, and that there are police available to take him there. That wasn't a sure thing during the Tet Offensive.
-- Randy2063 15:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
So what you're saying is that in the U.S, when looters are caught, even after you've handcuffed him (therefore deemed safe), you are allowed to shoot him on the spot just because he is not the only looter in town? If that is the case, I can assure you that South Vietnamese law in 1968 is much more civilized than U.S law today. I think what you meant is that if the looter posed a threat then he can be shot - I don't think anybody consider a handcuffed prisoner a threat.
I don't think I'm trying too hard to condemn the man. Firstly, all sources told the same story: He was caught in a ditch full of bodies. For the sake of argument, let's say he was given a military tribunal (albeit not a fair one at that). To this day, nobody even knows who the prisoner was, nobody has any further proof than he was caught in a ditch full of bodies. If there was proof, I would have supported Loan wholeheartedly because I would have done the same thing but there was none. Despite all that, you're still trying to believe he was justified to execute the prisoner, tell me who is trying too hard. I'm just curious, why do you think he was justified to did what he did?
8 a.m on Feb 1st 1968, president Thieu declared martial law. I didn't question that. But in Vietnam, even in a state of emergency, you are not allowed to shoot handcuffed prisoners. You are only allowed to eliminate threats (which a handcuffed Nguyen Van Lem is definitely not). Moreover, as I've said before, it's definitely illegal in South Vietnam to summarily execute a prisoner (as in most if not all other countries), the question is in a state of emergency does the police have extra power to execute prisoners? Maybe that was the case but I just couldn't find any source that claimed so, that's why I've been asking you to provide sources to back up your arguments.--82.23.1.34 20:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
The situation isn't really "safe" if you've locked up one looter without discouraging the rest, particularly if one of your men is then occupied guarding him instead of catching others.
I'm not saying that's the current policy on looters anyway. I had said that would be during an extreme state of emergency. Regardless, the article on looting agrees that shooting them is a historically accepted practice in times of anarchy.
This was worse than looting. Thousands of civilians were killed by the Viet Cong during Tet. Devoting too much time to the maintenance of Lem's capture would mean others may die. It's also important to remember that the prisons were targeted by the Viet Cong.
I'm not saying he was justified in what he did. I'm saying that it could have been natural, given the personal circumstances, and authorized, given martial law, and therefore, entirely legal.
I don't know what powers the Saigon police were given either. Given the circumstances, it wouldn't surprise me at all if being found in possession of a gun was enough to get someone executed.
What kind of proof should there be that he was captured in that ditch? The police and ARVN soldiers didn't carry cameras around with them. Were they supposed to draw chalk marks around the bodies, and keep everything intact until the detectives arrive?
-- Randy2063 18:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

To be covered by the Geneva Conventions you have to be a soldier of a recognized army of a recognized state that wears a distinct uniform. If you were caught engaging in acts of war while out of uniform, you could indeed be shot at the discretion of the military personnel that caught you. While Roosevelt did not immediately have the German spies executed that landed on American shores to engage in acts of sabotage, he certainly did speed things along. If you understand the situation Gen. Loan and the South Vietnamese were facing at the time this event occured, with thousands of VC dressed in civilian clothes launching attacks all over the city, you can better understand why events unfolded as they did. In hindsight, the civil libertarian in all of us can argue from the armchair whether Gen. Loan made the 'right' decision. It should be borne in mind that the VC were not by any stretch of the imagination 'soldiers'. They were terrorists who engaged in deliberate acts of atrocity aimed at civilians. During this Offensive the VC in Saigon deliberately sought out civilians to slaughter, and counted on their civilian clothing to protect them from being caught. When one was caught, to immediately claim "This person is now a soldier protected by the Geneva Conventions" would merely demonstrate that one has not read the Geneva Conventions or, having read them, one did not understand them. Not only were the VC not covered by the Geneva Conventions based on their lacking a uniform, their deliberate acts violated just about every one of the Geneva Conventions. To be covered by the Geneva Conventions one had to meet certain qualifications. First, your government had to have been a signatory of the Conventions. Secondly, it was understood that only those military personnel who were fighting in uniform were covered by the Convention; those caught fighting clandestinely were not. Even if the VC had claimed a recognizable uniform, and been called a recognized army under the Conventions, it would have been pointless. To be under the Conventions, one would have to abide by them. The VC certainly did not. They deliberately targeted civilians. While there are a handful of instances that have come to light where American forces engaged in deliberate criminal attacks on civilians, with subsequent court-martials and convictions, such behavior was a common everyday occurance for the other side. American forces truly were held to a higher standard and rightly were called to task when they violated that standard. The VC, however, were held to no such standard, and made full use of that fact. After WWII, we could rightly hang and shoot most of the Japanese and German military leadership since their countries were signatories of the Geneva Conventions, and they most manifestly had violated them. Had we won the Vietnam war and been able to bring the butchers of Hanoi to justice, we would not have had that luxury in regards to the VC, since as a gureilla movement with no recognizable uniform, it was not under the Conventions. We would not have been able to say to them, "We are going to try you for all the civilians you killed and all the attacks you launched and all your atrocities that were in violation to the Geneva Conventions, which lay down the rules of war." Had we said it, the VC leadership could rightly have retorted, "Conventions? What Conventions? What rules of war are you talking about? Who said we ever signed it?" People who engage in acts of war on civilians or military targets while not wearing any uniform themselves are not covered by the Geneva Conventions,and this is the precisely the issue are facing in the War on Terror, since so many of those who blow up and kill our military personnel and civilans overseas are not members of any recognized army and do not wear a uniform. They cannot be treated as mere criminals, yet they are also not soldiers. That's why over 6 years after this latest conflict began the issue is still being debated between those who want to treat people like Al Queda as soldiers, and those who want to treat them as mere criminals. And instances like this one, where a South Vietnamese General was faced with a situation during a chaotic battle as to what to do with a person caught engaging in acts of war out of uniform, are going to be gone over again and re-examined.

As an addendum to the above, regarding the German Saboteurs caught during WWII, I refer interested parties to the Wikpedia article on Operation Pastorious:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Pastorius

Note that the spies were caught on American soil in June 1942 and most were executed by early August of that same year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.240.210.46 (talk)

Although you're generally correct in principle, the Geneva Conventions don't require that your nation be a signatory. They do, however, require that it be a "High Contracting Party," which the VC were definitely not. It would be like members of the KKK being arrested and then trying to demand protection under the GCs. They'd simply have no standing to make that claim.
Since you mention the WWII German saboteurs, it's worth noting that they thought they'd be most vulnerable when first landing on the beach, and so they wore German uniforms until they thought they were safe on dry land. In other words, they did read the GCs.
-- Randy2063 14:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


It's pretty cut-and-dried:

Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces. . .hors de combat by. . .detention. . .shall in all circumstances be treated humanely. . . . To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons: (a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds. . . (Convention I, Art. 3.(1).(a))

It doesn't matter whether Lem was uniformed or not--notice this provision applies to "persons" generically, not just "members of armed forces" (which are "combatants" as per Protocol I, Art. 43.2)--at the time of the execution he was incapable of combat by reason of detention. Thus the murder was in violation of the sanction of humane treatment afforded by this article of the first convention. The simple fact is, by Loan's recognition of Lem as hostile, and subsequent detainment of Lem, Lem was de facto granted POW status (which meets the criteria for POW treatment given in Protocol I, Art. 45.1).

As to the question of whether he held POW status de jure, it makes little difference. Lem may have violated the convention by perfidiousness (see Protocol I, Art. 37.1.(c)), in disguising himself as a civilian and engaging in combat (assassinating police officers or their families), thus forfeiting his de jure right to POW status. Even so, he would still be entitled to the same humane treatment required for a sentenced war criminal prior to the execution of the sentence (Protocol I, Art. 44.4). Further, he would have been entitled to argue for his de jure POW status before a tribunal (Protocol I, Art. 45.2).

There is simply no denying that Loan murdered a person in cold-blood, contra the indications of the Geneva Conventions. He should have let a tribunal decide Lem's POW status, and if denied, Lem's sentence for war crimes. 64.234.1.144 (talk) 00:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that Protocol I didn't exist in 1968, that's still not immunity for war crimes. The only question is whether he could have had a quick tribunal. I suspect if it was required then he probably did, as it's likely that Loan cared more about the laws of war than any supporter of the Viet Cong.
This isn't the place to convict him in absentia.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 01:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
The VC appears to have been bound by the conventions under Convention I, Art. 2, para. 3. But even if not, they were still bound under Protocol I, Art. 1.2: "In cases not covered by this Protocol or by other international agreements, civilians and combatants remain under the protection and authority of the principles of international law derived from established custom, from the principles of humanity and from dictates of public conscience." All forms of international law and all bills of rights I'm aware of provide for some form of habaes corpus for civilians and combatants who are not a immediate threat (e.g., detained, wounded, pass). You do have a point that the Protocols were not drafted yet; however, my reading of Convention I, Art. 3.(1).(a) shows it to sufficiently reflect the Protocols (and international law, per above). Don't convict in absentia? As in, a person should have a right to defend themselves from charges...as in...don't summarily execute a person you capture and subdue without allowing them a fair hearing? Still...I can understand how Loan must have felt...and were someone gunning for my family and friends while trying to hide their malice aforethought by dressing as a civilian, and I had detained them...I can't absolutely say I would have taken the moral high road either. But even if I'm a hypocrite, it doesn't mean I'm wrong about what's right and wrong (follow what I say, not what I've done, heh). 64.234.1.144 (talk) 01:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Err, that should have said the VC and RVN... 64.234.1.144 (talk)
Yes, I do mean this is similar to what Loan is being accused of.
It still doesn't matter. As I remember from examining this before, the VC were treated as POWs when captured in combat, but as civilians if captured in a civilian setting. Since martial law applied, and they were in a severe state of emergency that day, Lem could legitimately have been shot like any looter.
Besides that, we still don't know that Lem wasn't given a tribunal. Loan was of sufficient rank that he would have been able to hold one. For all we know, that may be why Lem was taken to Loan. That's another reason not to try him now on Wikipedia. We don't have the timeline.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 02:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Fair points. I guess what still hangs me up is the manner in which the execution was performed (viz., on international TV, in the middle of the street, with Lem subdued and beaten, wearing handcuffs). It leads the mind to jump to conclusions. But as you say, without all the details I guess that isn't really fair to take those conclusions as fact. Perhaps Loan just had a conversation with some bigwigs who had sentenced Lem to death, or even, as you say, under the circumstances, Loan was of sufficient rank to execute Lem on his own prerogative. I guess everyone should be given the benefit of the doubt. So I withdraw my last comments, and hold that the incident was not really so "cut-and-dried"--however, I still maintain that under the circumstances I had (possibly incorrectly) assumed to be true, it would have been a breach of the conventions and-or international common law as it existed at that time. 64.234.1.144 (talk) 02:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I think we're in agreement that either version of events could be true. We just don't know.
One thing we do know is that the photographer did not think Loan was a war criminal.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 19:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)