Soldiers On Charges Speak Out

Press, Volume CIX, Issue 32302, 21 May 1970, Page 5

Soldiers On Charges Speak Out

(N.Z. Press Assn.—Copyright) / ATLANTA, May 19. Two soldiers, facing a: possible death sentence for charges stemming from the alleged My Lai massacre, have said they can remain quiet no longer, and have claimed that “the Army machine is rolling over them” in frantic efforts to gain a conviction. Private Max D. Hutson, aged 22, of Attica, Indiana, and Private Gerald A. Smith, aged 22, of Chicago, said in an exclusive interview with I

I United Press International | that they had been treated \ by the Army as if they had i been prejudged guilty, before 'an investigation had been • completed. They said they had not i even been allowed to select . the military lawyers of their own choice, a privilege guaranteed by Army regulations. The interview marked the first time that any man charged in connection with the alleged massacre has spoken out about the treatment the Army has given them, U.P.I. said. However, civilian lawyers defending officers charged with alleged crimes at My Lai have noted I that it seems to them that

1 the Army is trying to “raili road” through a verdict of 1 guilty. » Mr Hutson is charged with i rape, murder, and assault with intent to commit murt der. He termed the rape t charge a “dirty lie” and r declared his complete inno- » cence of the other charges. Mr Smith is accused of premeditated murder and > indecent assault on a Viet--1 namese female. “I haven’t i done anything wrong,” he 5 said. “I only want the oppor- . tunity to have a fair chance i to prove my innocence.” , All the charges stem from ? the alleged incident which 1 occurred on March 16, 1968, 1 in My Lai, a hamlet in t South Vietnam. Seven other!

enlisted men and four officers are charged with offences allegedly committed in My Lai. In addition, 14 highranking officers are accused of suppressing evidence about the alleged incident immediately after it occurred. Messrs Hutson and Smith explained why they finally sought aid from the American public. “I’ve got nowhere else to turn," Mr Hutson said. “I’ve tried Army channels, my Congressman, and finally I felt that possibly I could make Americans understand that enlisted men are people just like the officers are.”. “The Army has treated me so unfairly that I’ve got to -go to the public,” said Mr Smith. “This is not something 1 want to do. It’s something I have to do." Mr Smith, who is a Negro, said that his grandfather fought in an all-Negro cavalry unit against Pancho Villa in Mexico and finally retired from the Army as a lieutenant-colonel. His father was a senior noncommissioned officer with the 82nd Tiger Tank Battalion in World War 11. “I’ve never done anything before in my life like this, either,” said Mr Hutson in his interview. “I have never protested either at serving in the Army or serving in combat in Vietnam.” Mr Hutson said his father fought in the Battle of the Bulge in World War 11. His brother has served with distinction in South-East Asia.

Under Army regulations, a man accused of a crime “has a right to be represented in his defence . . . by the mili-

tary counsel of his own selection,” in addition to the military lawyer assigned him. But neither Mr Smith nor Mr Hutson has been given that privilege by the Army. Although each has an assigned lawyer, neither has a military lawyer of his own choosing. Some of the officers charged in the alleged massacre have at least three military lawyers. When Mr Smith had charges brought against him at Fort Riley, Kansas, he asked that Captain Delmar C. Gowing represent him. The latter went with Mr Smith to a Peers Commission hearing in Washington in December last where Mr Smith testified.

But when Mr Smith was transferred to Fort McPherson, Georgia, along with the others accused in connection with the alleged massacre, Captain Gowing was not allowed to continue as counsel—even though Mr Smith specifically asked for such. “We worked together all that time, and then they took him away.” Mr Smith said. He appealed against the Fort Riley decision to the commanding general of the United States sth Army. The appeal was disallowed on the ground that Captain Gowing “had too many cases I already." Mr Hutson was charged by the Army on March 9 this year. He asked that Captain Richard S. Derbis be appointed as the counsel of his choice on March 10. That request was denied, as was a request for Captain John D. Link.