Prosecution Says That Medina 'Chose Not To Intervene' at My Lai
By Homer Bigart Special to The New York Times Fort McPherson, Ga., Aug. 16 Capt. Ernest L. Medina did not order the mass killings at Mylai but he "calculatingly chose not to intervene" while his troops were killing unarmed civilians, the military prosecutor said today in opening the Government's case against the 34-year-old Mexican-American officer. Major Eckhardt said the Government would prove that Captain Medina knew that noncombatants were being rounded up and killed and did nothing to halt the "carnage." By failing to intervene, Captain Medina intended to give "protection and encouragement to his men in the perpetration of murder," the prosecutor charged. The long-delayed start of evidence in the trial of Captain Medina, the second officer to face court-martial in the Mylai killings, was lacking in tension and drama. Major Eckhardt devoted only 11 minutes to his opening statement; F. Lee Bailey, the chief defense counsel, used 16 minutes to reply, and the testimony of the first three witnesses called by the Government failed even to place Captain Medina at the scene of the shootings. Besides being charged with responsibility for the slayings of "not less than 100" civilians in the South Vietnamese of Mylai on March 16, 1968, Captain Medina is also charged with the premeditated murder of a woman and a small boy, and with assault upon a prisoner. Replying to the Government, Mr. Bailey told the five-man military court that the captain issued a cease-fire order as soon as he heard that civilians were being shot and that the order was issued :in language that will turn this courtroom blue." He defended the shooting of the woman. Captain Medina had stern orders from his brigade commander to round up enemy weapons, Mr. Bailey said, so when a helicopter dropped a smoke signal to indicate the location of an armed suspect, the captain hurried to the scene. He saw a Vietnamese in black pajamas, the lawyer said, and it turned out to be a woman. There was no weapon he said. Captain Medina was turning back when he saw "what he believed to be movement" by the woman, so he "instinctively turned and shot," Mr. Bailey went on. Captain Medina immediately notified the brigade commander, Col. Oran K. Henderson, of the incident Mr. Bailey said, and Colonel Henderson radioed back: "I understand; these things happen." ...All the witnesses were hazy over the exact timing of the mass killings and of Captain Medina's cease-fire order. This was important to the defense, for Col. Kenneth A. Howard, said the captain could not be held liable for killings that were committed by his men before he was aware of what was going on. |
Thursday, September 23, 1971 Medina Found Not Guilty of All Charges on MYLAI
By Homer Bigart Special To New York Times Fort McPherson Ga., Sept. 22 Capt. Ernest L. Medina was acquitted today of all charges of involvement in the killing of civilians at Mylai. The jury of five combat officers deliberated only 60 minutes before reaching a verdict of not guilty. ... The 35-year-old officer, normally swarthy but now pallid and puffy eyed, was denounced in the Government's summation as an officer who had abrogated his responsibility, and who "like Pontius Pilate cannot wash the blood from his hands." Captain Medina had been charged originally with the premeditated murder of at least 100 civilians during the sweep through Mylai. He was charged also with the murders of a woman and a small boy and with two counts of assault against a prisoner. The charge of murdering 100 civilians was reduced to involuntary manslaughter by the military judge, Col. Kenneth A. Howard on Friday. At that time, Colonel Howard also threw out the charge that Captain Medina had murdered a child. The jury was not informed of these decisions until late today. ... Colonel Howard, in his instructions to the jury, cast doubts on the testimony of some of the prosecution witnesses. He referred to Gerald Heming as a "frequent user of wine, drinking as much as four quarts a day and (who) had experimented with LSD." ... Of 13 officers and enlisted men who were originally charged with the killings in Mylai, eight cases were dismissed and there were four acquittals before the Medina verdict. The Pentagon said yesterday that no further action was pending but that the Mylai investigation was not officially closed. Further legal action would be initiated, a spokesman said, if evidence warranting it were developed. |
These two articles from the New York Times give information about the court case involving Capt. Ernest L. Medina, who was widely believed to be guilty of war crimes during the Mylai massacre. The main purpose of these articles was to give information about the court case; however, they both approach criticism of the Medina and of the case.
The article on the left casts doubt on Medina's defense. It subtly surrounds Medina's defense statements with doubt. It claims that the witnesses were "hazy" and presents pathos-inducing imagery of Medina's violent actions. [12]
The article on the right provides information after Medina's case. Subtle statements within the article prove a bias:" Captain Medina had been charged originally with the premeditated murder of at least 100 civilians during the sweep through Mylai. He was charged also with the murders of a woman and a small boy and with two counts of assault against a prisoner." The second sentence of this statement sheds a negative light on Medina - whether or not he was found guilty. Adding to this the article's slight bias the proceeding statement adds to a sense of distaste with the trial: "The charge of murdering 100 civilians was reduced to involuntary manslaughter by the military judge, Col. Kenneth A. Howard on Friday. At that time, Colonel Howard also threw out the charge that Captain Medina had murdered a child." [13]
The New York Times, although mostly informational, does lean against the favor of Medina in these two articles.
The article on the left casts doubt on Medina's defense. It subtly surrounds Medina's defense statements with doubt. It claims that the witnesses were "hazy" and presents pathos-inducing imagery of Medina's violent actions. [12]
The article on the right provides information after Medina's case. Subtle statements within the article prove a bias:" Captain Medina had been charged originally with the premeditated murder of at least 100 civilians during the sweep through Mylai. He was charged also with the murders of a woman and a small boy and with two counts of assault against a prisoner." The second sentence of this statement sheds a negative light on Medina - whether or not he was found guilty. Adding to this the article's slight bias the proceeding statement adds to a sense of distaste with the trial: "The charge of murdering 100 civilians was reduced to involuntary manslaughter by the military judge, Col. Kenneth A. Howard on Friday. At that time, Colonel Howard also threw out the charge that Captain Medina had murdered a child." [13]
The New York Times, although mostly informational, does lean against the favor of Medina in these two articles.
This article blatantly criticizes the horrors of Mylai by calling it a "Massacre." This source of media is criticizing what happened at Mylai. This article was written from a Vietnamese perspective. In this article, there is an explanation about how Mylai devastated families, livestock and land. This article looks at the war from a negative aspect, claiming that Mylai is comparable to Hiroshima. [14]
The actions of William Calley - a convicted war criminal - are criticized in both of these very different sources of media. The cover of the Lampoon (left) satirizes Calley's denial of his actions [15], while the cover of the TIME (right) more seriously questions where the guilt lies. William Calley had killed many innocent civilians in Vietnam, and was not severely punished for his actions. [16] These articles represent William Calley from a negative perspective, showing his horrific actions to Vietnamese civilians.
The National Lampoon was in its peak of popularity during this timeframe, drawing on American humor to create strong political messages.
http://archive.org/details/MilitaryMonitor-MyLaiMassacreDiscussed
The National Lampoon was in its peak of popularity during this timeframe, drawing on American humor to create strong political messages.
http://archive.org/details/MilitaryMonitor-MyLaiMassacreDiscussed
In the boxed article, we can see an argument taking place between who was guilty for killing 567 in a town, and if this ever really took place. According to the villagers, soldiers began attacking the village that belonged to the Viet Cong, but showed no sign of resistance. This article shows the cruelty that was occurring during the Vietnam War, yet discusses some defense for the soldiers that were blamed. However, the main impact of this article was the information provided by the article. This shocked people who never thought our soldiers were capable of attacking people who showed no resistance toward the attack, and was never informed about why the attack was taking place. [17]
http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/big/0316.html
http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/big/0316.html