The story behind the famous Vietnam War execution photo

[SpeedRacer 1]

from the Weekly Standard:
Photographs Do Lie
Why his Pulitzer-winning picture of a South Vietnamese general haunted Eddie Adams for the rest of his life.
by Duncan Currie
09/24/2004 12:00:00 AM





PHOTOJOURNALIST Eddie Adams died last Sunday at age 71, but his place in history is secure. Indeed, Adams made history with his famous picture of South Vietnamese General Nguyen Ngoc Loan. Taken in Saigon on February 1, 1968, the picture showed Gen. Loan's point-blank execution of a Viet Cong captain named Bay Lop. The images were searing: Loan's cold grimace; a snub-nosed .38 revolver held inches from Lop's terrified face; the fiercely clenched teeth of an officer standing nearby.

It won a Pulitzer Prize for the Associated Press in 1969, and was one of the most influential still photos of the 20th century. But until the day he died, Eddie Adams regretted having taken it.

Actually, that's an understatement. Adams blamed himself for ruining Loan's life. "The general killed the Viet Cong; I killed the general with my camera," was how he put it. His picture told one story; but his contrition for that picture told quite another.

Adams snapped his unforgettable shot on day two of the Tet Offensive. Tet was a coordinated assault by more than 80,000 North Vietnamese and VC troops on 36 (of 44) provincial capitals, 5 (of 6) autonomous cities, and 64 (of 242) district capitals in South Vietnam. It was a surprise attack during a holiday truce (for the Vietnamese New Year). The fighting lasted a few months in several different theaters. It ended with a resounding American victory. But media coverage in general, and Adams's photograph in particular, transformed it into a Pyrrhic victory.

On the day of the picture, VC guerrillas were storming Saigon. General Loan, South Vietnam's national police chief, sought to make an example of the captured Bay Lop. As journalists, including Adams, followed, Loan brought the hand-bound prisoner to a street corner. Suddenly, the general extended his arm, raised a gun to Lop's head, and pulled the trigger. Adams clicked his camera at that precise moment. (Close inspection of his photo reveals the bullet exiting Lop's skull.) As Adams remembered it, Loan then turned to the journalists and said, "They killed many of your people and many of my men."

The AP photo landed in newspapers worldwide the following day. Without background or context, readers saw a merciless Loan and a defenseless Lop. (NBC also acquired film footage of the incident, thanks to South Vietnamese cameraman Vo Suu.)

It's impossible to say how much Adams's picture influenced the 1968 U.S. presidential race. But it galvanized nascent antiwar sentiment, and indirectly boosted the campaign of Sen. Eugene McCarthy. On March 31, some eight weeks after its publication, President Lyndon Johnson announced he would not seek reelection.

For many Americans, the picture became a symbol of the war's putative moral ambiguities. Antiwar partisans used it to buttress their charge that the U.S. military was sanctioning atrocities.

Along with Tet, it catalyzed the gradual turning of public opinion against the war. (In the wake of the offensive, CBS News anchor Walter Cronkite declared Vietnam unwinnable.) The NVA and VC may have tortured and killed 3,000 South Vietnamese civilians in the city of Hué; but the most enduring image of Tet was Adams's picture. Loan was thus cemented in history as a brutal executioner.

The AP subsequently assigned Adams to follow Loan around Vietnam. Then, a strange thing happened. As Adams later recalled on National Public Radio, "I . . . found out the guy was very well loved by the Vietnamese, you know. He was a hero to them . . . and it just saddens me that none of this has really come out."

Among other things, Adams learned that Loan spent considerable time lobbying for new hospitals in South Vietnam. "It's just a sad statement," Adams said on NPR, "of America. He was fighting our war, not their war, our war, and every--all the blame is on this guy."

Adams frequently offered a qualified defense of Loan's infamous act. Within context, and given the inevitable fog of war, he would say, the killing was understandable, if not excusable. As historian Robert D. Schulzinger points out in A Time for War, the executed VC fighter "had killed some Saigon civilians, many of them relatives of police in the capital."

When Saigon fell in April 1975, Loan escaped to the United States. But his notoriety traveled with him. New York congresswoman Elizabeth Holtzman demanded his deportation. So did the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Deportation to Communist Vietnam would have equaled a death sentence. President Jimmy Carter, to his credit, intervened and allowed the ex-general to stay in Virginia.

For years afterward Loan operated a pizza parlor in Dale City, Virginia, while making his home in nearby Burke. He kept in regular touch with Eddie Adams; the two men had become friends.

Adams once visited Loan at the pizzeria. "He was like a freak show," Adams told the New York Daily News. "People had figured out who he was." Adams recalled "going into the bathroom in his restaurant and reading some graffiti on the wall. Someone had written, 'We know who you are, you f-----.'" The obscenity made him despondent. "That was because of me," Adams said. "And I don't like ruining people's lives with my pictures."

Shortly after the visit, Loan closed his restaurant in 1991. People indeed had learned he was the executioner from Adams's photograph. The negative publicity had triggered a sharp decline in business.

Loan died in July 1998, at age 67, from cancer. Torn up by regret, Adams penned a moving eulogy in Time magazine. It was part remembrance, part mea culpa for his 1968 picture. "Still photographs are the most powerful weapon in the world," he wrote. "People believe them, but photographs do lie, even without manipulation. They are only half-truths. What the photograph didn't say was, 'What would you do if you were the general at that time and place on that hot day, and you caught the so-called bad guy after he blew away one, two or three American soldiers?' General Loan was what you would call a real warrior, admired by his troops. I'm not saying what he did was right, but you have to put yourself in his position."

Adams also sent the Loan family flowers and a card. "I'm sorry," he wrote. "There are tears in my eyes."


Duncan Currie is an editorial assistant at The Weekly Standard.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[christoofar 0]

All I can say is.... wow.

____________________________________________________________
I'm RICK JAMES! Fo shizzle.

[tbrown 26]

There was also film on the TV networks of the execution. I remember seeing it on NBC I'm pretty sure. I was 12 and in the 7th grade. I don't remember thinking it was "outrageous" or anything else pro ar anti war. It just sort of blew me away seeing a real person get shot like that. It woke me up to the idea that any war is a nasty business.

Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity !

[WFFC 1]

It's amazing when the Paul Harvey version of the story comes out. It always shed's a light on what really was.

-----
~~~Michael

[linestretch 0]

link to the photo???

my pics & stuff!

[ltdiver 3]

Quote

link to the photo???

Less than 15 seconds on google.

http://www.nandotimes.com/nt/images/century/photos/century0258.html

ltdiver

Don't tell me the sky's the limit when there are footprints on the moon

[Chrisky 0]

When german troops in WWII shot members of the resistance (taken in armed but ununiformed), it was called a war crime.

This guy shoots a handcuffed prisoner, there's nothing right about it, it's a war crime. Just because he was an ally of the US doesn't change that.

There is only one measure for crime and cruelty, not two.

The mind is like a parachute - it only works once it's open.
From the edge you just see more.
... Not every Swooper hooks & not every Hooker swoops ...

[Guest]

Quote

When german troops in WWII shot members of the resistance (taken in armed but ununiformed), it was called a war crime.

No, it wasn't. The maquis were fair game.

Quote

This guy shoots a handcuffed prisoner, there's nothing right about it, it's a war crime.

No, it wasn't.

Quote

Just because he was an ally of the US doesn't change that.

There is only one measure for crime and cruelty, not two.

Bullshit. Gen Loan acted in accordance with the Geneva Convention. Capt Lop was in civilian clothes and caught in the act of machine-gunning unarmed civilians.

He also had Viet Cong identification papers when he was apprehended.

Loan was within his rights to summarily execute Lop.

Eisenhower did the same thing in WWII.

This thread belongs in Speaker's Corner. Would a greenie please move it?

Edit to add: Please see Speaker's Corner thread on this topic.
mh

.

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Loan was within his rights to summarily execute Lop.

Having the right to do something doesn't make it the right thing to do.

[Hipwrddude 0]

In March, 1966, Premiere Nguyen Cao Ky dismissed Gen. Nguyen Chanh Thi to both gain control over central South Vietnam and for sympathizing with the Buddhists against Ky. When protests erupted in Danang in May, he sent Colonel Nguyen Ngoc Loan to lead government forces in slaying hundreds of soldiers loyal to Thi and more then a hundred civilians who had taken refuge in Buddhist temples. The internecine fighting so incensed the U.S. Marine commander at Danang, that he sent 6 jets aloft to prevent Ky's air force from rocketing what remained of the resistance. When a Buddhist uprising in Hue city threatened to destabilize the government, Ky once again sent Loan in to do the dirty work.
On Feb. 1, 1968, thousands of Vietcong had penetrated Saigon on the third day of the Communist Tet offensive. Earlier that day of the Eddie Adams photograph, a Vietcong Captain had been captured after killing innocent civilians. The Commander of the National Police, Colonel Loan ordered the captured Vietcong be brought to his position for all the media to see. With a camera rolling, he removed a revolver from his vest and fired one round point blank into the captive's head.
It was later reported that the Vietcong had killed the Colonel's family.

You're always the starter in your own life!

[Erroll 52]

Quote

Quote

Loan was within his rights to summarily execute Lop.

Having the right to do something doesn't make it the right thing to do.

The previous poster didn't suggest that it was the right thing to do. He was merely (correctly) refuting someones's assertion that this was a war crime.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

The previous poster didn't suggest that it was the right thing to do. He was merely (correctly) refuting someones's assertion that this was a war crime.

And I didn't suggest that the previous poster did. I was merely stating my opinion.

[Hipwrddude 0]

Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 prohibits the abuse or murder of POWs. Here is the passage that would govern the conduct of Col. Loan: "(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples." So there it is, did Col. Loan commit a war crime? Yes. Was he ever prosecuted for it? No. What percentage of war criminals are actually prosecuted for committing war crimes? Perhaps less then 1/10th of 1%.

You're always the starter in your own life!

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 prohibits the abuse or murder of POWs. Here is the passage that would govern the conduct of Col. Loan: "(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples."

That is not correct. He was not a POW.

The person was not entitled to the rights of a POW because (a) he was not in a uniform and (b) concealed his weapon for the purpose of (c) murdering unarmed civilians.

reference

Only lawful combattants are entitled to POW status.

Quote

"...the law of war draws a distinction between the armed forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent nations and also between those who are lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals."

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals."

Still sounds like he was not given a trial by a military tribunal. The summary execution would have been legal only after such a preceding.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Guest]

Quote

Quote

The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals."

Still sounds like he was not given a trial by a military tribunal. The summary execution would have been legal only after such a preceding.

Gen Loan didn't have time to stop the defense of Saigon during the Tet Offensive and conduct a military tribunal for Lop. Lop was fair game, and got what he had coming to him, though I suppose for appearances' sake, a hastily-convened panel could have made the action appear somewhat more legitimate.

However, Loan was within his rights as an appointed (and uniformed) military & police commander (remember, he was a General and the Saigon Chief of Police) to act as judge, jury, and executioner.

Such things do happen in war zones. Whacking Lop was good for the morale of Loan's troops, so Lop didn't die for nothing.

In 1964, Colonel Mike Hoare personally shot the big toes off the feet of one of the troops under his command, who had been convicted of raping a civilian. That sentence was reached in about ten minutes by a hastily-convened tribunal of three officers. Hoare was one of the three.

Although mercenaries, Hoare and his men wore military uniforms, bore arms, and were in the service of a legitimate government.

The other example that I have cited was the Eisenhower action against Germans caught behind Allied lines, committing acts of sabotage while wearing American uniforms, an action masterminded by the notorious Kommando, Otto Skorzeny. After a brief hearing, they were all lined up against a wall and shot.

That was not a war crime - it was an act of military justice.

Conclusion: military tribunals are harsh.

Lesson #1: Don't get caught bearing arms and conducting acts of war in a war zone while wearing civilian clothes (or the uniform of your opponent) - it's hazardous to your health.

Lesson #2: Don't try to compare civilian laws and concepts of justice to military situations - they don't always apply.

mh

.

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[jcd11235 0]

First, I agree completely that military justice in a combat zone is and should be different than that a civilian judicial system. And morale should always be among the chief concerns of any good general, because even low morale can be used to your advantage (see Sun Tzu's concept of death ground), in some situations. Most of the time, though, high morale is better. As such, executing a captured spy is not necessarily the worst thing a commander could do, especially if it will significantly improve morale. I do believe, however, that such an execution, if done in front of cameras and press, should abide by by all applicable national and international law.

But, I am looking at it through the eyes of history, and not trying to judge the man.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[namgrunt 0]

in 1967 I along with 197 men were deployed to quan tri viet nam . at the end of 11 mts and 27 days there were 3 of our original men remaining. we did recon along the d.m.z. in 5 to 7 man teams.
war is bad ,no matter whoes side you are on.
the fellow is gone let it rest.

ALL gave some
SOME gave all

airborn all the way

59 YEARS,OVERWEIGHT,BALDIND,X-GRUNT
LAST MIL. JUMP VIET-NAM(QUAN-TRI)
www.dzmemories.com

[Hipwrddude 0]

Ha, ha, ha. Thank you Happythoughts for throwing some embers on the fire. First off, I am still correct--you are not referencing the Geneva Accords which are considered international law. What your reference reflects is the phrase used in a controversial 1942 Supreme Court ruling that denied regular criminal trials to German saboteurs. The scope of that reference strictly confines itself to the U.S. Here, if you want to read more: http://fair.org/extra/0203/guantanamo-prisoners-rumsfeld.html
The rest of the world, some of which are signatories to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 to mitigate the destruction of war, uphold the concepts set forth in that document. I am no expert on this matter. Back in '85 I had an extraordinary professor who shook me up in a "Law of Land Warfare," class at Temple U. I had just gotten out of the Marines after some experiences that made me re-think the value of human life.

You're always the starter in your own life!

[Hipwrddude 0]

Hi Mark,
While Loan (pronounced Lo-Ann) had titles to his authority, no individual can act as a tribunal under the Geneva Convention of 1949. This distinction is quite clear in both international and U.S. law.

You're always the starter in your own life!

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

...you are not referencing the Geneva Accords which are considered international law

Third Geneva Convention

From the Geneva Convention, Article 4:

Quote

Article 4
Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:[
that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
that of carrying arms openly;
that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

The person who was shot, was not distinctly identified as a combattant (no uniform, he tried to dress like a civilian intentionally).
He did not carry his arms openly, but hid them until he could machine-gun the unarmed civilians in a market.
"Laws and customs of war" ? Intentionally shooting unarmed civilians violates that.

Quote

I am no expert on this matter.

Me neither. I also hestitate to quote the rules of war because sometimes the value of those rules pales. If one side does not adhere to them, I think they lose the right to the advantages of those rules.

Quote

Back in '85 I had an extraordinary professor who shook me up in a "Law of Land Warfare," class at Temple U. I had just gotten out of the Marines after some experiences that made me re-think the value of human life

In '68, when the pic was taken, I had cousins in VN.

In '72, my brother was there. He told me that he had just lost a friend to a 7 yo child with a satchel charge. Someone gave a little girl a backpack and told her "the GI will give you chocolate if you give him these".

There were people delivering bombs from airplanes and there were people letting children carry them. In that culture, place, and day - the value of human life was very distorted.

In '85, it was easier to disect the morality of the situations.

[Hipwrddude 0]

Touche'! Ouch!

“In 1967-68, during the US involvement in Vietnam, the US issued directives to classify Viet Cong main force and local force personnel, and certain Viet Cong irregulars, as PoWs. This was despite the existence of doubts and ambiguities as to whether these forces met all the criteria in Article 4 of the 1949 Geneva Convention III. However, there was a significant exception in respect of terrorism. Viet Cong irregulars were only to be classified as PoWs if captured while engaging in combat or a belligerent act under arms, 'other than an act of terrorism, sabotage, or spying'. There was provision for establishing Article 5 tribunals to determine, in doubtful cases, whether individual detainees were entitled to PoW status. Those not entitled to such status were to be transferred to the South Vietnamese authorities.48”

“, the great majority of prisoners taken in war meet the criteria for PoW status laid down in international treaties, and must be so treated if they continue to be held. However, in an anti-terrorist war, as in other wars, there are likely to be certain individuals who do not meet the criteria. Such individuals, for example, members of a terrorist organisation, may present special problems as prisoners, and may pose a continuing threat even after the end of a war. The standard presumption outlined in treaty law and in US military manuals is that such people should be accorded the treatment, but not the status, of a PoW until a tribunal convened by the captor determines the status to which the individual is entitled. In cases where it is determined that they are not PoWs, there are certain fundamental rules applicable to their treatment, including those outlined in Article 75 of 1977 Geneva Protocol I. Any prisoner, whether or not classified as a PoW, can be tried for offences, including those against international law, that were committed prior to capture.”

--Adam Roberts is Montague Burton Professor of International Relations at Oxford University and Fellow of Balliol College. He is co-editor, with Richard Guelff, of Documents on the Laws of War (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.)

Since summary executions of captured "unlawful combatants" could be met with reprisals and the breakdown of unit discipline, it's important to maintain the Principles in The Law of War to mitigate the destruction. As law too is negotiable, I am not far away from your perspective that Col. Loan committed a "lawful killing." It's in these situations that a judge advocate would need to define what constitutes a "military tribunal" during a state of emergency.

You're always the starter in your own life!