Calley apologizes
 

Calley apologizes.

Anyone convinced by this? Does an 'apology' settle anything? Also, was Calley a scapegoat?

Personally I think he was guilty, plenty guilty. Enough to put him inside for the rest of his days. But that there were other guilty ones as well.

Nope but the sick thing is he was the only one convicted.

Actually reading about what he was convicted for and how long he actually served I think is quite a counter point to el-Magrahi beign released.

Calley was/is guilty witnessed to doing the killings, sentenced to life,served 3 years house arrest.

el-Magrahi convicted under dubious evidence, disagreement as to whether he was the bomber, sentenced to life, g to be dead in 3 months or so, seved 8 years.

Interesting.

Yea. There are some who wonder how high the rot really went, maybe even higher then Medina, the captain who gave Calley his order. Also, even Calleys men who carried out the massacre are guilty in my eyes, you don't accidentally kill and and even rape people.

Calley has really come up with a nice story. "Following orders...misheard...noise from helicopter...".

Here's some stuff directly from the mouths of Calleys soldiers who carried out the massacre. There were even rapes going on but I guess Calley missed those too.

Four hours in My Lai (1/7)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYzb9DH7YAE
(rest is in the links)

I read quite a bit about it. I don't really want to hear the perpatrators talk about it. Makes me sick.

What really got to me was the chopper crew got into trouble and that bloomin congressman wanted them court martialed....and they got hate mail too...

Hell they were some of the bravest guys in that war.

Calley and his Commanding officer should have been put up against a wall and executed and his men should have been put in jail for life. No excuse for such barbarism.

But he wasn't shot. None of them were shot. Calley only did a couple of years in house arrest (!) and walked. He wasn't even tortured, neither was Medina or the others.

I know. Your point?

If you think he should be shot then go and shoot him then. Not a difficult target, IMHO.

Trying to convince another person to break a law that you wouldn't break yourself is the height of moral cowardice.

So in your mind the law that protects him is in conflict with your sense of what's right and wrong?

Again, do you have a point?

Well I'm just sort of in awe that you would state so blatantly about your wish to have Calley etc. shot but also seem to think that the law that protects him from actually being shot is valid as well. Seems like a bit of a conflict there.

I don't see the conflict. Just because they didn't do what I would have wanted them to do doesn't mean I don't support their right to do what they did.

So you really don't want him to be shot, you're just saying that in order to look more 'just' in hindsight. Very clever too, go for the statute of limitations-thing, they'll never try an old man.

I never said I wanted him to be shot now.