The controversy here ....
is one generated by Herbert defenders - and fueled (unintentionally) by Ken adding one phrase too many (underlined below):
Quote:
And I did see Herbert's interplay with another Major named Reifsnyder at Green Ramp -- it was not the way Herbert told it in the book.
BTW: The first part is not hearsay, but present recollection of what an eyewitness saw - which may be 100% or 0% accurate, or in between. The second part is hearsay - what someone today says they read in the past. As I tell my witnesses, have the document in hand before saying what it says - avoids impeachment and other issues.
Now, to most rational people (including myself), what Herbert said or did not say in his book would be no big deal. However, to Herbert defenders, any attack on Herbert's credibility is rank heresy and must be rigorously attacked. That is because of the nature of the Herbert case.
A 2006 LA Times article ("A Tortured Past") discusses the case. I'm not endorsing the impartiality of the article, which is here.
The records in the Army's file amount to about 9,000 pages according to the article. The article does link to four original documents, which should be read (recalling that you only have 8996 pages to go in order to have the complete picture):
• 1973 memo from the Army Criminal Investigations Division commander to Army Chief of Staff Creighton W. Abrams Jr. - here
• 1970 directive from Army Chief of Staff Gen. William C. Westmoreland - here
• Excerpt of investigation report on one of Herbert's allegations - here
• Excerpt of the 1971 investigation report on the 172d Military Intelligence Detachment - here
Obviously the Herbert case (involving allegations of torture, war crimes, etc.) fits into current events - and has become another arrow in some quivers (e.g., some "progressive" webpages).
The judicial decisions went against Herbert - he got nothing. The courts did not hold that Herbert was or was not a liar; and they did not hold that 60 Minutes was or was not a liar. They did hold that there was sufficient credibility in 60 Minutes' sources to require a finding that there was an "absence of malice" in what 60 Minutes said of Herbert.
Thus, this statement by Ken accurately sums up what the courts, in effect, held:
Quote:
I've heard pro and con on his 173d time so I suspect the truth is, as usual, somewhere in between.
Nuff said by me - my purpose is to explain the controversy - not resolve it.
PS: This case is now part of the complex surrounding "torture issues", including appointment of Mr. Panatta - as to which, my initial thought was .... WT..F.... We shall see on that one.
Went back and noticed that the link to the 1986 merits opinion in Herbert was broken. Here is another link to that opinion, which is here.