Well, no. I believe they can use the spy as a double agent!

If you ever see the video, it looks awful. The VC prisoner, Captain Nguyen Van Lem (in some sources, his name was Bay Lop) was led up to ARVN General Nguyen Ngoc Loan, who just looked at him. Unfortunately, we cannot see his face as his back was towards the camera. The General then turned towards the prisoner and very nonchalantly waved the pistol back and forth to motion the guards to move away from him. This is when I think his expression must have been scary, because the two guards moved as if they were standing on live electric wires. At this point the prisoner reacted in fear and anger, but he did not have time to do anything else as General Loan simply raised the pistol and fired at point-blank range. He was not even trying to escape, and I don't even think he got a chance to talk. But as I said, because of the circumstances in which he was captured, the General was completely within his rights to do what he did.
Ironically, according to many sources, this was the image that changed the perception of the American public towards the war. It was after the showing of the video oon the 6:00 news that people started to believe tha tUS soldiers should be pulled out and that the US was losing the war.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nguyen_Ngoc_Loan and http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...4/666noxlw.asp for more info.

Dean.

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

I found a bit more.
South Vietnamese sources said that Lem commanded a Viet Cong assassination and revenge platoon, which on that day had targeted South Vietnamese National Police officers, or in their stead, the police officers' families; these sources said that Lem was captured near the site of a ditch holding as many as thirty-four bound and shot bodies of police and their relatives, some of whom were the families of General Loan's deputy and close friend. (In some accounts, the deputy was a victim as well; in others, the number of murdered relatives were as few as six.) Photographer Adams confirmed the South Vietnamese account, although he was only present for the execution. Lem's widow confirmed that her husband was a member of the Viet Cong and she did not see him after the Tet Offensive began. Shortly after the execution, a South Vietnamese official who had not been present said that Lem was only a political operative.

Though Loan's execution of Lem would have violated the Geneva Conventions for treatment of prisoners of war had he been wearing a uniform and fighting enemy soldiers, the execution was attributed to war crimes allegedly committed by Lem. The rights of POW status were accorded to Viet Cong only if captured during military operations. Those captured as unlawful combatants were subject only to the laws of the South Vietnamese government, which sanctioned the use of draconian measures.

Note the "had he been wearing..." bit. A bit of diversion there. The fact is that he was not, and the Geneva Convention is very clear on this. If you are a combattant, a member of an organized military force, wearing civilian clothes while fighting in a combat zone, you are considered a spy, with the obvious consequences. In addition, if Lem was only a "political operative", what would he have been doing hiding in a ditch in enemy territory while his death squads were running around?!??

Also keep in mind that the activities of the death squad can be described as war crimes!

Well, nice info!

Surely to fail your military objective(prevent north invading south) is to lose whatever the reason.
This is not to diminish the superb performance of those who served there.

Hey Sven, while we were there, we kept the North from overthrowing the South. It wasn't until the North signed a peace treaty (Jan 27, 1973)promising not to invade the South that we left (March 1973). Even after we were gone the North took a while to take the South (April 1974). It's not as simple as you might think.

Originally Posted by DTop

Hey Sven, while we were there, we kept the North from overthrowing the South. It wasn't until the North signed a peace treaty (Jan 27, 1973)promising not to invade the South that we left (March 1973). Even after we were gone the North took a while to take the South (April 1974). It's not as simple as you might think.

Check and Mate on this topic....as pointed out via the quote, the North had not yet taken control of the South until well past April of 75..(((correction))). The South were still in control on the day we pulled our last people out of that h*ll-hole (March 73). We didn't really lose the war - our politicians pulled us out while we were still meeting mission profiles.

The South lost the war when they allowed the North to invade and didn't put up a strong enough defense. Part of the problem was that some of the South Vietnamese were in favor of joining the North to the South and helped with the takeover by the North.

Actually it was April of 1975, two years later when the North Vietnamese violated the treaty they signed.

Yes it was '75, I stand corrected though I think I made my point.

Originally Posted by DTop

Hey Sven, while we were there, we kept the North from overthrowing the South. It wasn't until the North signed a peace treaty (Jan 27, 1973)promising not to invade the South that we left (March 1973). Even after we were gone the North took a while to take the South (April 1974). It's not as simple as you might think.

Sorry for my ignorance.

I am a Vietnamese-American, raised by Vietnamese parents who escaped from Viet Nam during the war, and I was born and raised in Southern California (Orange County, very near Little Saigon).

Never, EVER have I heard any comments against the American military effort in Viet Nam from my relatives or any other Vietnamese person.

The 1SGT of my NJROTC unit, who served a tour in Viet Nam, has always proudly said that the US military never militarily lost a battle in Viet Nam. I think that's probably an exaggeration, but from my studies of history, it's mostly true.

I don't think any blame can be put on American forces. The American military was the only thing keeping the North from overwhelming the South, and it's no surprise that once the US pulled out, the South was defeated.

Rather, in my opinion the war was lost by political micromanagement of the war (rather than leaving it to soldiers) and by American anti-war sentiment at home which magnified the political effects.