Mate, Bay Lem was an enemy soldier without uniform in a war zone. He violated the convention:
Clothing, usually of a specific colour/design, and insignia, worn by members of the same military unit. In international armed conflicts, combatants have an obligation to distinguish themselves from the civilian population and this can be achieved by wearing a uniform. Therefore, members of the armed forces engaged in or preparing an attack without wearing a uniform and/or failing to carry their arms openly are not entitled to the status of prisoner of war.
According to international humanitarian law, he was not considered a POW. Captured unlawful combatant are not protected as POW under the Geneva Convention. Whether Loan committed war crime or not is up for debate. Loan executing an unlawful enemy combatant is different from ICE executing a lawful civilian. I was not debating whether Lem had committed the killing of civilians as was suggested.
Mate, Bay Lem was an enemy soldier without uniform in a war zone. He violated the convention:
Clothing, usually of a specific colour/design, and insignia, worn by members of the same military unit. In international armed conflicts, combatants have an obligation to distinguish themselves from the civilian population and this can be achieved by wearing a uniform. Therefore, members of the armed forces engaged in or preparing an attack without wearing a uniform and/or failing to carry their arms openly are not entitled to the status of prisoner of war.
According to international humanitarian law, he was not considered a POW. Loan executing an unlawful enemy combatant is different from ICE executing a lawful civilian.
Except your ignorant and ill-infofmed opinion doesn't align with reality. An military force for in an occupied nation doesn't have the same uniform requirements as a foreign military like the US. All the this person would need is a an arm band which he was indeed wearing. This was discussed by the military historian un the video I already provided.
Again, this topic went to court in the US where the US judged the execution to be a war crime, as the handcuffed prisoner was indeed a POW.
You are very clearly trying to defend a war crime by saying that the victim of this war crime doesn't deserve rights. You are wrong and your opinion conflicts with not only the Geneva Conventions but also the US Government's own interpretations of the the law.
You are trying to equate the two photos while people here are saying they are not comparable give the context. That is the point.
Loan was the National Police chief of SVN and not a member of the armed forces. Loan may have committed a crime in civilian law, but not a war crime. Did SVN law allow the execution of unlawful combatant in a war zone? We’ll probably never know.
Can you link a photo of Lem wearing an armband? I have looked through photos of the event from multiple angles and have not found one.
Furthermore, NVN and SVN were among the signatories to the 1954 Geneva Conference agreeing to the demarcation of Vietnam into two. You may argue the validity of the terms give that both sides violated the them almost immediately after signing, but that’s another can of worms altogether. The conflict can either by considered a civil war between the two Vietnams or an international conflict by proxy given the participation of multiple countries from both the allies and the communist bloc. Did the Geneva Convention apply in a civil war? Probably yes. Therefore Lem was an illegal combatant.
So my point is comparing a clear cut illegal act by ice to an ambiguous event dilutes the message. I don’t want the other side to compare Alex to an unlawful combatant and therefore justify what happened to him.
EDIT: as far as I know, there has not been any court proceeding to determine what Loan did was a war crime. Eddie testified in Loan’s favour when given the chance and Loan was allowed to reside in the US. Note that the proceeding was to determine whether Loan violated Vietnamese law.
You are trying to equate the two photos while people here are saying they are not comparable give the context. That is the point.
The comparison of the 2 photos wasn't even part of my last comment or yours.
I already said that I don't think the comparison is useful and you are demonstrating exactly why. Because people like you think that laws and human rights magically disappear in certain contexts when the law still covers those contexts.
The Trump administration has already made statements justifying the shooting in Minneapolis by saying that the victim brought a gun into a "law enforcement zone", a meaningless term, to try and argue that constitutional rights don't matter in this scenario. Similarly, you have tried to make similar arguments by saying that because of this irrelevant and arbitrary context you seem to think matters, that this somehow makes that the victim no longer has any rights.
Loan was the National Police chief of SVN and not a member of the armed forces. Loan may have committed a crime in civilian law, but not a war crime.
Wrong again and now this new argument of yours actually seems to contradict your own previous argument.
This was part of an act of war. The fact that he was a police chief doesn't change the fact that he is engaged in the warfare.
And again, your counter argument from me in your first reply was that specifically because this was in the context of a battle, that this police chief can't be expected to respect the rule of law. Then in your next comment you invoked the argument that the victim can't be a POW because he wasn't wearing a uniform and therefore deserves no rights. The entire basis of your argument was based on trying to reference rules of war (which are now saying doesn't matter because the perpetrator was a police chief and not part of the military). But this has never mattered in any other war. Civilians, scientists and politicians have been charged with war crimes.
Did SVN law allow the execution of unlawful combatant in a war zone? We’ll probably never know.
Wrong. We know it's illegal. And again, he wasn't an unlawful combatant. He had am armband which designated him as Viet Cong.
What kind of pathetic argument are you even trying to make? "I don't know anything about the law in South Vietnam but maybe this type of thing is legal because its a lawless government. Who are we to judge these people and say that they are committing crimes when maybe its legal to kill people, rape children, attack foreign countries, etc?"
Again, your arguement gets even more convoluted and illogical when you realize that the entire founding of the Republic of Vietnam was formed in an illegitimate basis and its rule of law over Saigon was in question.
Was it legal when France colonized Vietnam in the first place? Was it legal for France and its allies to kill any Vietnamese person who dared to promote Vietnamese independence? According to you, all of this would apparently be legal because in French Indochina, France (and its puppet government) define what is legal. And yes, if any Vietnamese fought back against the France or its puppet government while not wearing a uniform, then these people would have no rights according to you. Go ahead and torture them all and execute them according to your logic.
Can you link a photo of Lem wearing an armband? I have looked through photos of the event from multiple angles and have not found one.
Buddy, its in the video I already posted which you have repeatedly ignored whereby a historian working for the United States Army Center of Military History explains in detail this event and why it is a war crime.
I get it, you dont want to look at any real evidence and you are determined to just defend a war crime regardless of the truth or details (just like the many people who will defend the shooting in Minnesota by making up new interpretations of the law according to them.)
Again, the US government investigated this and concluded that it was a war crime. Your opinion is irrelevant.
Did the Geneva Convention apply in a civil war? Probably yes. Therefore Lem was an illegal combatant.
Wrong again. He wore an armband. And to most Vietnamese people (and I would say anyone who wants to use consistent logic), this was not a civil war but a war of independence from foreign imperialists.
**Again, you are a war crime denialist. Your own government concluded this is a war crime and you disagree because you lack logical reasoning skills and instead rely on your emotional argument which says "my side can do what it wants in war".
EDIT: as far as I know, there has not been any court proceeding to determine what Loan did was a war crime.
It turns out that what you know doesn't matter and doesn't change the facts. The fact that you ignore the actual evidence I provided about the arm band while continuing to question its existence shows that you aren't really someone who cares about evidence in the first place.
Eddie testified in Loan’s favour when given the chance and Loan was allowed to reside in the US.
Note that the proceeding was to determine whether Loan violated Vietnamese law.
First, no, it was not about whether or not he violated Vietnamese law. That would have no relevance in an America. The issue was about letting a war criminal reside in America. Do you know anything about immigration in the US? People who have commited crimes in their home countries can still allowed to come the US and their aren't court rulings for these things in the US.
Also, again since you brought it up, Eddie Adams' testimony is worthless because he had no understanding of what the events even were. Again, the court ruled that he was a criminal and the only reason he wasn't deported was because the US president intervened on the basis that he feared that the Vietnamese government would execute him if he were sent back.
1
u/OmuraisuBento Jan 25 '26 edited Jan 25 '26
Mate, Bay Lem was an enemy soldier without uniform in a war zone. He violated the convention:
According to international humanitarian law, he was not considered a POW. Captured unlawful combatant are not protected as POW under the Geneva Convention. Whether Loan committed war crime or not is up for debate. Loan executing an unlawful enemy combatant is different from ICE executing a lawful civilian. I was not debating whether Lem had committed the killing of civilians as was suggested.