Q How long were you in Viet Nam?
A Thirteen months.
Q That would cover the period from when to when?
A Roughly, from August until September; running a year or 13 months.
August of '66 to September of '67?
A Right.
Q What kind of discharge did you get?
A I haven't received one yet.
Q You are still a member of the Marines?
A Yes, I am on the inactive reserves.
Q What was your rank while you were a Marine?
A Corporal.
Q That is, when you left after duty, you were a corporal?
A Yes.
Q What company were you with in Viet Nam?
A India Company, Third Battalion, Fifth Marines.
Q Where were you stationed?
A Well, I was stationed -- the regimental head¬quarters was out of Chu
Lai and later it moved to Tam Ky and then to Thang Binh.
Q Where is Chu Lai?
A Chu Lai is south of DaNang and Tam Ky and Thang Binh are northeast from Chu
Lai.
Q Did you serve as an infantryman?
A Yes, I did.
Q As a corporal, what was your relationship to the
infantry? Were you a gun man or what was your position?
A Well, I started out as an ammo carrier and I became a section
leader my last four months in Viet Nam. I was a section leader and
I was in charge of 16 men; two 60 millimeter mortars, their operation, their
firing. I did the F.O. for both guns, forward observer.
In an indirect way, I was responsible or at least my duty required my guns
firing when the company needed them, so I was responsible for my company.
Q Did your particular section have any particular name?
A My company, India Company, was known as Igniting Eye.
Q To what did the name Igniting Eye have reference?
A Igniting Eye stood for the -
MR. ANDERSON: At this point, Your
Honor, I would like to enter an objection to the
specific question because it is irrelevant, and
an objection to any line of questioning which might lead to his experiences
or observations in Viet Nam, and based on the foundation questions
he has asked, it looks like that is where he is going.
I would like to object to the witness testifying as to any characterizations
of the war or any experiences he may have had, because I think it
is irrelevant to the crime charged.
I wanted at this time to state that objection, cognizant of what the Court
has said previously.
THE COURT: Well, at this time I am going to overrule the
objection, but as the questions progress and you feel you should object further,
you may do so.
BY MR. TILSEN:
Q Well, I just asked you what the Igniting Eye stood
for, Mr. Neilson.
A It stood for the burning eye, we burned every village
we went through in a number of our operations.
Q Is there a name for the particular type of operation that your squad or battalion
was assigned?
A Search and destroy.
Q Did you spend your time then as a section leader in search and destroy missions
while in Viet Nam?
A Yes, part of my time was as section leader and the other as a gunner, and
so forth.
Q Will you describe what is meant or what was meant in Viet Nam by a search
and destroy mission?
A The search and destroy mission was outlined in boot camp as being a mission
where a suspected North Vietnamese was building up, and we were to go in and search
and destroy the enemy, its food, its homes, villages, supplies, if
we found any, and so forth.
Q You made reference to the villages, the homes. Did you have any particular
duties with respect to the homes in which the people lived?
MR. ANDERSON: I would object, Your Honor. He has
described the search and destroy mission, and I think within the
context of the Court's description of allowable testimony, that
is objectionable.
MR. TILSEN: Oh, come on, that's -- We haven't
begun to get into anything.
THE COURT: Well, if you are going to have him
attempt to describe alleged atrocities of
the war, everybody knows that war has atrocities, and I do not
think there is any point of a detailed description of that.
MR. TILSEN: Your Honor, as I understand
your ruling, you have asked me not to have him describe the specific
incidents that I told you the witness would describe. I understood
that he could describe the nature of search and destroy missions,
the nature and description of the type of missions that went on,
and things like that. I don't think we are anywhere near a point
where we are even getting into individual incidents that Mr. Neilson
could testify to, except for the Court's ruling.
MR. ANDERSON: If he is getting to an individual
incident, I will object.
MR. TILSEN: No, he is not getting to individual
incidents. We are talking about the nature of search and destroy
missions in general and what he participated in in that regard.
THE COURT: You may proceed.
