JFKerry Treason Thread

[pegwinn]

Since the treason thread got moved into the steel cage I figure a new one is in order. In that thread we touched on JFKerry and folks drew up in battle lines.

So hopefully this thread will dig into Kerry specifically and not get sent to the cage.

Please read the next couple of posts before voting.

[pegwinn]

DISCLAIMER: This document reflects only the result of the work of the author. No agency, group, or individual other than myself is represented here.

This is a JAG Manual Format (Command Investigation) project. The text is based on the Investigating Officers report to the Commanding Officer and consists of four distinct parts.

The first statement is the subject line. It is intended to concisely describe the specific purpose of the investigation. For those inclined to Nitpick, see chapter 2 of the JAG Manual.

The next section is Findings of Fact. Each fact connected with the investigation is listed sequentially. Each fact must be supported by an item or items of evidence. For this project the sources will be internet based and linked in the body of each fact asserted.

After findings of fact come the Opinions section. Each opinion must be based on facts. The facts must be cited.

Finally the last section is recommendations. Each recommendation must be based on one or more of the opinions presented. The opinions must be cited.

Once completed the JAG is turned into the Commanding Officer for review. He/She will then add an endorsement page with his/her decision. Obviously this project will stop short of a decision.

[pegwinn]

Subj: Investigation concerning post Vietnam actions undertaken by John Forbes Kerry to determine if his actions were treason.

FINDINGS OF FACT:

1. That John F. Kerry enlisted in the US Navy Reserve on February 18, 1966. Encl 1 (http://www.answers.com/topic/john-kerry-1)

2. That John Kerry was on active duty in the U.S. Navy for three years and eight months, from August 1966 until March 1970. Encl 1 (http://www.answers.com/topic/john-kerry-1)

3. That John F. Kerry served in the US Navy Reserve from March 2 1970 until February 1972. Encl 1 (http://www.answers.com/topic/john-kerry-1)

4. That John F. Kerry received an Honorable discharge from the Naval Reserve on February 16, 1978. Encl 6 (http://www.americanthinker.com/2004/08/did_navy_lt_kerry_violate_the.html)

5. That John F. Kerry received his commission on December 16 1966. Encl 1 (http://www.answers.com/topic/john-kerry-1)

6. That the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) applies to all military personnel worldwide to include members of the inactive reserve. Encl 5 (http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj.htm#SUB%20CHAPTER%201.%20GENERAL%20PROVISIONS ), Encl 7 (http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/mcm104.htm)

7. That article 104 of the UCMJ is applicable to all persons whether civil or military. Encl 7 (http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/mcm104.htm)

8. That John F. Kerry was subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice from February 18, 1966 to February 16, 1978. Encl 1 (http://www.answers.com/topic/john-kerry-1), Encl 5 (http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj.htm#SUB%20CHAPTER%201.%20GENERAL%20PROVISIONS ), Encl 6 (http://www.americanthinker.com/2004/08/did_navy_lt_kerry_violate_the.html)

9. That John F. Kerry visited Paris in June of 1970 and met with Madame Nguyen Thi Binh. Encl 7 (http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=/SpecialReports/archive/200406/SPE20040604a.html), Encl 8 (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/03/25/kerry_spoke_of_meeting_negotiators_on_vietnam/)

10. That John F. Kerry testified before Congress on April 23, 1971. Encl 9 (http://www3.iath.virginia.edu/sixties/HTML_docs/Resources/Primary/Manifestos/VVAW_Kerry_Senate.html)

11. That during Senate testimony John F. Kerry stated that he witnessed various atrocities during his tour of duty in Vietnam. Encl 9 (http://www3.iath.virginia.edu/sixties/HTML_docs/Resources/Primary/Manifestos/VVAW_Kerry_Senate.html)

12. That John F. Kerry stated that the atrocities were known to all levels of command. Encl 9 (http://www3.iath.virginia.edu/sixties/HTML_docs/Resources/Primary/Manifestos/VVAW_Kerry_Senate.html)

13. That John F. Kerry stated that he participated in the atrocities referred to during his Senate testimony. Encl 9 (http://www3.iath.virginia.edu/sixties/HTML_docs/Resources/Primary/Manifestos/VVAW_Kerry_Senate.html)

14. That John F. Kerry specifically endorsed the proposals of the communist delegation he had met with in June 1970 during his Senate testimony. Encl 6 (http://www.americanthinker.com/2004/08/did_navy_lt_kerry_violate_the.html)

15. That the North Vietnamese Government benefited from John F. Kerry's testimony. Encl 10 (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38738) Encl 11 (http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/1104/1104vvaw.htm) Encl 15 (http://www.nysun.com/article/3756)

16. That the North Vietnamese Government created propaganda based in part on John F. Kerry's antiwar activities. Encl 10 (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38738) Encl 11 (http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/1104/1104vvaw.htm) Encl 15 (http://www.nysun.com/article/3756)

17. That The Constitution of the United States , Art. III, defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort. This offence is punished with death. By the same article of the Constitution, no person shall be convicted of treason, unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court. Encl 12 (http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/t103.htm)

18. That Per the US Supreme Court ruling in Gorin v. United States treason requires a specific intent, and a specific intent both to aid the enemy and to injure the United States. Encl 13 (http://www.constitution.org/cmt/jwh/jwh_treason.htm)

19. That Chief Justice Marshall, in explanation of the Levying War Clause in Article III stated that an overt act was needed to fulfill the requirement. He further clarified the statement by saying "if a body of men be actually assembled for the purpose of effecting by force a treasonable purpose, all those who perform any part, however minute, or however remote from the scene of action, and who are actually leagued in the general conspiracy, are to be considered as traitors." Encl 14 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article03/24.html)

20. That TITLE 18 CHAPTER 115--TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES Sec. 2381 states: "Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States." Encl 16 (http://frwebgate3.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate.cgi?WAISdocID=37343230701+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve)

OPINIONS:

1. John Kerry was legally accepted into the US Naval Reserve, was Commissioned, served on Active Duty in the Southeast Asia theater of operations and was lawfully required to adhere to the customs, regulations, and orders pertaining to service in the United States Navy. Thus John F. Kerry was "owing allegiance to the United States". (Finding of Facts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 20)

2. John Kerry was subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, specifically Article 104, during his visit to Paris. (Finding of Facts 8, 9)

3. By his own admission John Kerry violated Article 104 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. (Finding of Facts 10)

4. By his own admission John Kerry was aware of alleged war crimes and failed to either correct the situation or report same to his superiors as was his sworn duty. (Finding of Facts 11)

5. By his own admission, John Kerry committed atrocities which violated the law of land warfare. (Finding of Facts 13)

6. That John Kerry's open endorsement of the communist delegation proposals constituted adhering to the enemy. (Finding of Facts 14, 17)

7. That his actions in total constituted giving aid and comfort to the enemy. (Finding of Facts 14, 15, 16)

8. That the preceeding actions in total meet the legal definition of Treason. (Finding of Facts 17, 18, 19, 20)

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. That John Kerry be further investigated under article 32 of the UCMJ to specifically create appropriate charges for violation of article 104. (Opinion 3)

2. That John Kerry be further investigated under article 32 to address the potential charges that may be levied at trial for crimes against humanity. (Opinion 5)

3. That John Kerry be suspended from his duties as a Senator of these United States until questions of treason are lawfully addressed via General Court Martial or Military Tribunal. (Opinion 8)

[Gunny]

Subj: Investigation concerning post Vietnam actions undertaken by John Forbes Kerry to determine if his actions were treason.

FINDINGS OF FACT:

1. That John F. Kerry enlisted in the US Navy Reserve on February 18, 1966. Encl 1 (http://www.answers.com/topic/john-kerry-1)

2. That John Kerry was on active duty in the U.S. Navy for three years and eight months, from August 1966 until March 1970. Encl 1 (http://www.answers.com/topic/john-kerry-1)

3. That John F. Kerry served in the US Navy Reserve from March 2 1970 until February 1972. Encl 1 (http://www.answers.com/topic/john-kerry-1)

4. That John F. Kerry received an Honorable discharge from the Naval Reserve on February 16, 1978. Encl 6 (http://www.americanthinker.com/2004/08/did_navy_lt_kerry_violate_the.html)

5. That John F. Kerry received his commission on December 16 1966. Encl 1 (http://www.answers.com/topic/john-kerry-1)

6. That the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) applies to all military personnel worldwide to include members of the inactive reserve. Encl 5 (http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj.htm#SUB%20CHAPTER%201.%20GENERAL%20PROVISIONS ), Encl 7 (http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/mcm104.htm)

7. That article 104 of the UCMJ is applicable to all persons whether civil or military. Encl 7 (http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/mcm104.htm)

8. That John F. Kerry was subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice from February 18, 1966 to February 16, 1978. Encl 1 (http://www.answers.com/topic/john-kerry-1), Encl 5 (http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj.htm#SUB%20CHAPTER%201.%20GENERAL%20PROVISIONS ), Encl 6 (http://www.americanthinker.com/2004/08/did_navy_lt_kerry_violate_the.html)

9. That John F. Kerry visited Paris in June of 1970 and met with Madame Nguyen Thi Binh. Encl 7 (http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=/SpecialReports/archive/200406/SPE20040604a.html), Encl 8 (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/03/25/kerry_spoke_of_meeting_negotiators_on_vietnam/)

10. That John F. Kerry testified before Congress on April 23, 1971. Encl 9 (http://www3.iath.virginia.edu/sixties/HTML_docs/Resources/Primary/Manifestos/VVAW_Kerry_Senate.html)

11. That during Senate testimony John F. Kerry stated that he witnessed various atrocities during his tour of duty in Vietnam. Encl 9 (http://www3.iath.virginia.edu/sixties/HTML_docs/Resources/Primary/Manifestos/VVAW_Kerry_Senate.html)

12. That John F. Kerry stated that the atrocities were known to all levels of command. Encl 9 (http://www3.iath.virginia.edu/sixties/HTML_docs/Resources/Primary/Manifestos/VVAW_Kerry_Senate.html)

13. That John F. Kerry stated that he participated in the atrocities referred to during his Senate testimony. Encl 9 (http://www3.iath.virginia.edu/sixties/HTML_docs/Resources/Primary/Manifestos/VVAW_Kerry_Senate.html)

14. That John F. Kerry specifically endorsed the proposals of the communist delegation he had met with in June 1970 during his Senate testimony. Encl 6 (http://www.americanthinker.com/2004/08/did_navy_lt_kerry_violate_the.html)

15. That the North Vietnamese Government benefited from John F. Kerry's testimony. Encl 10 (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38738) Encl 11 (http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/1104/1104vvaw.htm) Encl 15 (http://www.nysun.com/article/3756)

16. That the North Vietnamese Government created propaganda based in part on John F. Kerry's antiwar activities. Encl 10 (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38738) Encl 11 (http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/1104/1104vvaw.htm) Encl 15 (http://www.nysun.com/article/3756)

17. That The Constitution of the United States , Art. III, defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort. This offence is punished with death. By the same article of the Constitution, no person shall be convicted of treason, unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court. Encl 12 (http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/t103.htm)

18. That Per the US Supreme Court ruling in Gorin v. United States treason requires a specific intent, and a specific intent both to aid the enemy and to injure the United States. Encl 13 (http://www.constitution.org/cmt/jwh/jwh_treason.htm)

19. That Chief Justice Marshall, in explanation of the Levying War Clause in Article III stated that an overt act was needed to fulfill the requirement. He further clarified the statement by saying "if a body of men be actually assembled for the purpose of effecting by force a treasonable purpose, all those who perform any part, however minute, or however remote from the scene of action, and who are actually leagued in the general conspiracy, are to be considered as traitors." Encl 14 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article03/24.html)

20. That TITLE 18 CHAPTER 115--TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES Sec. 2381 states: "Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States." Encl 16 (http://frwebgate3.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate.cgi?WAISdocID=37343230701+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve)

OPINIONS:

1. John Kerry was legally accepted into the US Naval Reserve, was Commissioned, served on Active Duty in the Southeast Asia theater of operations and was lawfully required to adhere to the customs, regulations, and orders pertaining to service in the United States Navy. Thus John F. Kerry was "owing allegiance to the United States". (Finding of Facts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 20)

2. John Kerry was subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, specifically Article 104, during his visit to Paris. (Finding of Facts 8, 9)

3. By his own admission John Kerry violated Article 104 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. (Finding of Facts 10)

4. By his own admission John Kerry was aware of alleged war crimes and failed to either correct the situation or report same to his superiors as was his sworn duty. (Finding of Facts 11)

5. By his own admission, John Kerry committed atrocities which violated the law of land warfare. (Finding of Facts 13)

6. That John Kerry's open endorsement of the communist delegation proposals constituted adhering to the enemy. (Finding of Facts 14, 17)

7. That his actions in total constituted giving aid and comfort to the enemy. (Finding of Facts 14, 15, 16)

8. That the preceeding actions in total meet the legal definition of Treason. (Finding of Facts 17, 18, 19, 20)

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. That John Kerry be further investigated under article 32 of the UCMJ to specifically create appropriate charges for violation of article 104. (Opinion 3)

2. That John Kerry be further investigated under article 32 to address the potential charges that may be levied at trial for crimes against humanity. (Opinion 5)

3. That John Kerry be suspended from his duties as a Senator of these United States until questions of treason are lawfully addressed via General Court Martial or Military Tribunal. (Opinion 8)

Based on all of the above, he's not only guilty of treason, but dereliction of duty for not reporting war crimes, and participating in war crimes.

[Gunny]

Interesting ... a "not likely" vote with no comment.

[musicman]

Hell, yeah. And, if you really want the evidence to overflow the bucket, throw in his actions in Central America during the 1980's. THEY ALONE make a pretty good case for treason!

[musicman]

http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/MarkMAlexander/2004/10/08/john_kerry__more_aid_and_comfort?page=full


But Kerry's infamous (and unlawful) coddling of Vietnamese Communists some 35 years ago (see "Aid and comfort to the enemy: The Kerry Record...") was not his last rendezvous with the Reds. After his election to the Senate in 1984 (as Ted Kennedy's understudy), Kerry spent years dismissing claims by POW family groups that some Americans were still being held in Vietnam and Cambodia. And he has, since, given aid and comfort to plenty of other Red regimes, including some in this hemisphere.

For example, in 1985 Kerry courted Daniel Ortega and his Communist regime in Nicaragua, even traveling to visit his "Dear Comandante" in Managua. Kerry returned to the U.S., where he advocated a policy of appeasement rather than continued funding of Ortega's opponents, the anti-Communist Contras.

[CSM]

I never had a doubt that Kerry should have been given a fair trial and then summarily shot for treason.

[trobinett]

Don't care for the man, and I use that term loosely, but I don't in today's environs think his crimes, and YES he did commit crimes, reaches as high as treason.

BUT, if I were King, I'd hang the son of a bitch!!!:cheers2:

[5stringJeff]

I say not likely, not because his actions were not meant to undermine America, but because the amount of "aid and comfort" North Vietnam received is arguably minimal, even though he technically does meet the criteria for treason.

[Gaffer]

Try and execute the son of a bitch. It's all he deserves. And for good measure execute kennedy along with him.

[Hobbit]

Interesting ... a "not likely" vote with no comment.

That was me, and I was on my way to bed when I put it down. Kerry's a lot of things, but I don't think there's enough for a treason case. On the other hand, I'd say he should get charged with:

Sedition
Slander
Purjury or Crimes Against Humanity (his choice)
Conduct Unbecoming an Officer

and maybe a few other things.

[pegwinn]

I say not likely, not because his actions were not meant to undermine America, but because the amount of "aid and comfort" North Vietnam received is arguably minimal, even though he technically does meet the criteria for treason.

The cool part about a court martial is that technically works for them.

Personally, I think his lack of prosecution was politically motivated. The public would have had a cow. It would have made the OJ Trial look like a well oiled no issues case.

[glockmail]

Try and execute the son of a bitch. It's all he deserves. And for good measure execute kennedy along with him. Shit. Why not execute all Democrat politicians from the Gay State?

[Gunny]

That was me, and I was on my way to bed when I put it down. Kerry's a lot of things, but I don't think there's enough for a treason case. On the other hand, I'd say he should get charged with:

Sedition
Slander
Purjury or Crimes Against Humanity (his choice)
Conduct Unbecoming an Officer

and maybe a few other things.

My response is simply that based on the evidence presented by the MSgt, if I was the SJA, I would prosecute.

[Gaffer]

Shit. Why not execute all Democrat politicians from the Gay State?

I could live with that.

[glockmail]

I could live with that. You and I will need to buy a lot more bullets.

[pegwinn]

That was me, and I was on my way to bed when I put it down. Kerry's a lot of things, but I don't think there's enough for a treason case. On the other hand, I'd say he should get charged with:

Sedition
Slander
Purjury or Crimes Against Humanity (his choice)
Conduct Unbecoming an Officer

and maybe a few other things.

I'd say that all of them together, along with advocating the enemy's position, as well as the illegal contact add up to treason.

[Gaffer]

You and I will need to buy a lot more bullets.

I'm sure we could get donations.

[glockmail]

I'm sure we could get donations. :laugh2: :salute:

[Pale Rider]

Hell yeah, and throw in Hanoi Jane for good measure.

[Insein]

Why waste our time? He's irrelavent.

[jimnyc]

Reviving an old thread that was linked to from our best post contest. Of course it's much too old to be in the contest, but thought maybe some of our members that weren't around then would like to take a stab at the facts discussed in post #3. I'll recap them here (see original post for working links):

Subj: Investigation concerning post Vietnam actions undertaken by John Forbes Kerry to determine if his actions were treason.

FINDINGS OF FACT:

1. That John F. Kerry enlisted in the US Navy Reserve on February 18, 1966. Encl 1 (http://www.answers.com/topic/john-kerry-1)

2. That John Kerry was on active duty in the U.S. Navy for three years and eight months, from August 1966 until March 1970. Encl 1 (http://www.answers.com/topic/john-kerry-1)

3. That John F. Kerry served in the US Navy Reserve from March 2 1970 until February 1972. Encl 1 (http://www.answers.com/topic/john-kerry-1)

4. That John F. Kerry received an Honorable discharge from the Naval Reserve on February 16, 1978. Encl 6 (http://www.americanthinker.com/2004/08/did_navy_lt_kerry_violate_the.html)

5. That John F. Kerry received his commission on December 16 1966. Encl 1 (http://www.answers.com/topic/john-kerry-1)

6. That the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) applies to all military personnel worldwide to include members of the inactive reserve. Encl 5 (http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj.htm#SUB%20CHAPTER%201.%20GENERAL%20PROVISIONS ), Encl 7 (http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/mcm104.htm)

7. That article 104 of the UCMJ is applicable to all persons whether civil or military. Encl 7 (http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/mcm104.htm)

8. That John F. Kerry was subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice from February 18, 1966 to February 16, 1978. Encl 1 (http://www.answers.com/topic/john-kerry-1), Encl 5 (http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj.htm#SUB%20CHAPTER%201.%20GENERAL%20PROVISIONS ), Encl 6 (http://www.americanthinker.com/2004/08/did_navy_lt_kerry_violate_the.html)

9. That John F. Kerry visited Paris in June of 1970 and met with Madame Nguyen Thi Binh. Encl 7 (http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=/SpecialReports/archive/200406/SPE20040604a.html), Encl 8 (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/03/25/kerry_spoke_of_meeting_negotiators_on_vietnam/)

10. That John F. Kerry testified before Congress on April 23, 1971. Encl 9 (http://www3.iath.virginia.edu/sixties/HTML_docs/Resources/Primary/Manifestos/VVAW_Kerry_Senate.html)

11. That during Senate testimony John F. Kerry stated that he witnessed various atrocities during his tour of duty in Vietnam. Encl 9 (http://www3.iath.virginia.edu/sixties/HTML_docs/Resources/Primary/Manifestos/VVAW_Kerry_Senate.html)

12. That John F. Kerry stated that the atrocities were known to all levels of command. Encl 9 (http://www3.iath.virginia.edu/sixties/HTML_docs/Resources/Primary/Manifestos/VVAW_Kerry_Senate.html)

13. That John F. Kerry stated that he participated in the atrocities referred to during his Senate testimony. Encl 9 (http://www3.iath.virginia.edu/sixties/HTML_docs/Resources/Primary/Manifestos/VVAW_Kerry_Senate.html)

14. That John F. Kerry specifically endorsed the proposals of the communist delegation he had met with in June 1970 during his Senate testimony. Encl 6 (http://www.americanthinker.com/2004/08/did_navy_lt_kerry_violate_the.html)

15. That the North Vietnamese Government benefited from John F. Kerry's testimony. Encl 10 (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38738) Encl 11 (http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/1104/1104vvaw.htm) Encl 15 (http://www.nysun.com/article/3756)

16. That the North Vietnamese Government created propaganda based in part on John F. Kerry's antiwar activities. Encl 10 (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38738) Encl 11 (http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/1104/1104vvaw.htm) Encl 15 (http://www.nysun.com/article/3756)

17. That The Constitution of the United States , Art. III, defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort. This offence is punished with death. By the same article of the Constitution, no person shall be convicted of treason, unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court. Encl 12 (http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/t103.htm)

18. That Per the US Supreme Court ruling in Gorin v. United States treason requires a specific intent, and a specific intent both to aid the enemy and to injure the United States. Encl 13 (http://www.constitution.org/cmt/jwh/jwh_treason.htm)

19. That Chief Justice Marshall, in explanation of the Levying War Clause in Article III stated that an overt act was needed to fulfill the requirement. He further clarified the statement by saying "if a body of men be actually assembled for the purpose of effecting by force a treasonable purpose, all those who perform any part, however minute, or however remote from the scene of action, and who are actually leagued in the general conspiracy, are to be considered as traitors." Encl 14 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article03/24.html)

20. That TITLE 18 CHAPTER 115--TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES Sec. 2381 states: "Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States." Encl 16 (http://frwebgate3.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate.cgi?WAISdocID=37343230701+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve)

OPINIONS:

1. John Kerry was legally accepted into the US Naval Reserve, was Commissioned, served on Active Duty in the Southeast Asia theater of operations and was lawfully required to adhere to the customs, regulations, and orders pertaining to service in the United States Navy. Thus John F. Kerry was "owing allegiance to the United States". (Finding of Facts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 20)

2. John Kerry was subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, specifically Article 104, during his visit to Paris. (Finding of Facts 8, 9)

3. By his own admission John Kerry violated Article 104 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. (Finding of Facts 10)

4. By his own admission John Kerry was aware of alleged war crimes and failed to either correct the situation or report same to his superiors as was his sworn duty. (Finding of Facts 11)

5. By his own admission, John Kerry committed atrocities which violated the law of land warfare. (Finding of Facts 13)

6. That John Kerry's open endorsement of the communist delegation proposals constituted adhering to the enemy. (Finding of Facts 14, 17)

7. That his actions in total constituted giving aid and comfort to the enemy. (Finding of Facts 14, 15, 16)

8. That the preceeding actions in total meet the legal definition of Treason. (Finding of Facts 17, 18, 19, 20)

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. That John Kerry be further investigated under article 32 of the UCMJ to specifically create appropriate charges for violation of article 104. (Opinion 3)

2. That John Kerry be further investigated under article 32 to address the potential charges that may be levied at trial for crimes against humanity. (Opinion 5)

3. That John Kerry be suspended from his duties as a Senator of these United States until questions of treason are lawfully addressed via General Court Martial or Military Tribunal. (Opinion 8)

[pegwinn]

Reviving an old thread that was linked to from our best post contest. Of course it's much too old to be in the contest, <snip>

http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/traurig/sad-smiley-019.gif

[retiredman]

#6 above is inaccurate, and, without it, the whole case is blown out of the water.

Once in the inactive reserve, Kerry is only subject to the UCMJ during periods of time when he is in inactive duty training status (during the hours he is actually performing drills) or when he is on active duty for training status (two weeks of annual ACDUTRA). When he went to Paris, he was neither.

End of discussion.

[Gaffer]

His going to paris and meeting with the enemy was an act of treason, whether as a military person or as civilian.

[retiredman]

His going to paris and meeting with the enemy was an act of treason, whether as a military person or as civilian.

your opinion. not supported by fact.

but nice tapdance away from the fact that whoever wrote the initial list knows about as much about the UCMJ as can fit in a coffee cup with room for a cup of coffee.

[pegwinn]

#6 above is inaccurate, and, without it, the whole case is blown out of the water.

Once in the inactive reserve, Kerry is only subject to the UCMJ during periods of time when he is in inactive duty training status (during the hours he is actually performing drills) or when he is on active duty for training status (two weeks of annual ACDUTRA). When he went to Paris, he was neither.

End of discussion.

I thought you looked familiar. Tell you what, go back to the USMB thread (http://www.usmessageboard.com/showthread.php?p=532453&highlight=John+kerry+treason#post532453)specifical ly post 23 and re-read it. I have been gone awhile but I assume USMB and DP have stopped the BS. Or, if you prefer I can simply cut and paste the entire posts from there to here. Didja have a good Thanksgiving?

Edited to add this:


your opinion. not supported by fact.

but nice tapdance away from the fact that whoever wrote the initial list knows about as much about the UCMJ as can fit in a coffee cup with room for a cup of coffee.

Ooh, that was a zinger. Cut to the quick I am. Ah well I've tried to remain reasonably civil, but, the Fact is, I have routinely demonstrated a far better grasp of things military than you on this and other boards. What really sticks in your craw is you know it's true. Here is your chance to be honest, whatever will you do with it?

[retiredman]

I thought you looked familiar. Tell you what, go back to the USMB thread (http://www.usmessageboard.com/showthread.php?p=532453&highlight=John+kerry+treason#post532453)specifical ly post 23 and re-read it. I have been gone awhile but I assume USMB and DP have stopped the BS. Or, if you prefer I can simply cut and paste the entire posts from there to here.


Well...from that post, you make the admission that you (or the writer that you cut and pasted your little diatribe from) didn't really know WHO was or was not subject to the UCMJ.... and you made a big deal out of removing findings of "fact" #6 and #8. In fact, the elimination of those two renders the findings of "fact" #1-5 irrelevant.

but let's work backward from your recommendations and see what we find:



"Recommendation" #1 is based solely upon "opinion" #3 which is based solely upon "fact" #10 that Kerry testified before congress. Go for it.

"Recommendation #2 is based solely upon "opinion" #5 which is based solely upon "fact" #13. The "atrocities" that Kerry admitted to were the use of free fire zoners, interdiction fire and seach and destroy missions. If you want to recommend that Kerry be brought to trial for crimes against humanity, why would you not also bring every other member of the US armed forces that served in country and used those exact same tactics to trial as well? Why are you singling out Kerry?

Recommendation #3 is based solely upon opinion #8 that Kerry committed treason and that opinion is based upon "facts" #17-20 which are constitutional sections and supreme court opinions about the nature of treason all of which require that aid and comfort be provided to the enemy. I do not think that anything you have shown above would indicate that by meeting the lady in Paris while she herself was there to meet with other Americans, listen to her eight ideas about ending the war that she was there to negotiate the ending of with those aforementioned Americans, and agreeing with those points gave any "aid or comfort" to anyone.

And considering that those three recommendations used only three of the eight "opinions" formed, it would seem as if the other five were clearly gratuitous cheap shots without merit..... and considering that those three "opinions" that were used only relied upon only 6 of your 20 "findings of fact" and then only in inaccurate presumptive ways, it would seem that the other 14 "findings of fact" were also just more scattershot slander..... mud throwing for the sake of mud throwing.

[Kathianne]

MM, Kerry recently said once again (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/11/21/swift_boat_issue_becomes_crucial_to_kerry_anew/), that he's going to debunk the Swift Boat Veterans. Every day I look for his response, every day I'm disappointed. Why doesn't he just do it?

[retiredman]

MM, Kerry recently said once again (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/11/21/swift_boat_issue_becomes_crucial_to_kerry_anew/), that he's going to debunk the Swift Boat Veterans. Every day I look for his response, every day I'm disappointed. Why doesn't he just do it?

You'd have to ask him.... he rarely consults with me anymore!

I have debunked two of the biggest swifties all by myself, so I hardly think it is a big deal

[pegwinn]

Well...from that post, you make the admission that you (or the writer that you cut and pasted your little diatribe from) didn't really know WHO was or was not subject to the UCMJ.... Rest assured that I wrote it. You might want to look up the word diatribe though. As to who..... I may have erred which is why I gave you the benefit of the doubt.

and you made a big deal out of removing findings of "fact" #6 and #8. In fact, That would be called a courtesy. There is more than enough to demonstrate the point. The beauty of the JAG is that the house is always built on a strong foundation.

the elimination of those two renders the findings of "fact" #1-5 irrelevant. Now, Commander, surely you understand the importance of establishing a firm starting point.

but let's work backward from your recommendations and see what we find:


"Recommendation" #1 is based solely upon "opinion" #3 which is based solely upon "fact" #10 that Kerry testified before congress. Go for it. I will assume that you are not arguing the point then? You agree that further investigation is called for. Good.

"Recommendation #2 is based solely upon "opinion" #5 which is based solely upon "fact" #13. The "atrocities" that Kerry admitted to were the use of free fire zoners, interdiction fire and seach and destroy missions. If you want to recommend that Kerry be brought to trial for crimes against humanity, why would you not also bring every other member of the US armed forces that served in country and used those exact same tactics to trial as well? Why are you singling out Kerry? Please Commander. Stick to the facts without attempting to sidestep. This is an individual JAG. The reviewing officer would no more consider other folks war crimes than I did. IOW, other folks actions are only relevent to the extent that they prove or disprove Kerry's involvement.

Recommendation #3 is based solely upon opinion #8 that Kerry committed treason and that opinion is based upon "facts" #17-20 which are constitutional sections and supreme court opinions about the nature of treason all of which require that aid and comfort be provided to the enemy. So far.... so good. Anything else?

I do not think that anything you have shown above would indicate that by meeting the lady in Paris while she herself was there to meet with other Americans, listen to her eight ideas about ending the war that she was there to negotiate the ending of with those aforementioned Americans, and agreeing with those points gave any "aid or comfort" to anyone. You need to read the other opinions again and the facts that built them.

And considering that those three recommendations used only three of the eight "opinions" formed, Nothing in the JAG manual requires that "all" sources be used. IF they exist and are reported they are usable. The specifics are listed. The supporting chain is intact and most build up from the one before it. You are still trying to sidestep the issue.

it would seem as if the other five were clearly gratuitous cheap shots without merit..... Nice try. But, this fallacy on your part was explained above.

and considering that those three "opinions" that were used only relied upon only 6 of your 20 "findings of fact" and then only in inaccurate presumptive ways, I am afraid you will need to demonstrate that in order to have any credibility.

it would seem that the other 14 "findings of fact" were also just more scattershot slander..... mud throwing for the sake of mud throwing. So is it your assertion that the facts were wrong? IF so, prove it.

For a Naval Officer, your legal education appears to be lacking. You attempt to sidetrack the issue instead of taking a shot at proving anything to be wrong. I sincerely hope that you were more diligent in the leadership of the Sailors under your command.

[retiredman]

For a Naval Officer, your legal education appears to be lacking. You attempt to sidetrack the issue instead of taking a shot at proving anything to be wrong. I sincerely hope that you were more diligent in the leadership of the Sailors under your command.

try not to get so personal... it seems that you are insulting because you know you are beaten on the facts.

If you indeed wrote it, then you ddn't know what you were talking about. ALl of your bullshit "facts" about when Kerry signed up and when he got out and when he did this and when he did that are irrelevant if his military status was not an issue when he went to Paris, and it wasn't. The crap about atrocities is just that - crap. Free fire zones interdiction fire and search and destroy missions may have been personally "atrocious" to LT Kerry, but they are not war crimes, nor atocities by any international legal standard.

and if you want to suggest that Kerry meeting with the North Vietnamese delegate in Paris at the very same time that Kissinger was meeting with her was treasonous and in violation of article 104, I suggest you try to sell that to some audience other than some political geeks on an internet message board... but, by all means, do keep trying... have you gained much traction amongst any other conservatives and/or republicans since you first started this idiocy eleven months ago???

Perhaps, after we have hashed and rehashed this particularly obscure and meaningless issue, we could move on to my favorite one about the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin?

[mrg666]

try not to get so personal... it seems that you are insulting because you know you are beaten on the facts.

If you indeed wrote it, then you ddn't know what you were talking about. ALl of your bullshit "facts" about when Kerry signed up and when he got out and when he did this and when he did that are irrelevant if his military status was not an issue when he went to Paris, and it wasn't. The crap about atrocities is just that - crap. Free fire zones interdiction fire and search and destroy missions may have been personally "atrocious" to LT Kerry, but they are not war crimes, nor atocities by any international legal standard.

and if you want to suggest that Kerry meeting with the North Vietnamese delegate in Paris at the very same time that Kissinger was meeting with her was treasonous and in violation of article 104, I suggest you try to sell that to some audience other than some political geeks on an internet message board... but, by all means, do keep trying... have you gained much traction amongst any other conservatives and/or republicans since you first started this idiocy eleven months ago???

Perhaps, after we have hashed and rehashed this particularly obscure and meaningless issue, we could move on to my favorite one about the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin?

whose this guy its not mfm surely
:laugh2:

[pegwinn]

try not to get so personal... it seems that you are insulting because you know you are beaten on the facts. And yet you fail to "beat" any of them. As to personal, puhleeze. I have been far more likely to take you at your word than many others. Come to think of it, I don't believe I ever seriously questioned any of the claims you have made. Yet.... well let's let your words......

If you indeed wrote it, then you ddn't know what you were talking about. ... speak for themselves..... ALl of your bullshit "facts" about when Kerry signed up and when he got out and when he did this and when he did that are irrelevant if his military status was not an issue when he went to Paris, and it wasn't. Hmm, more of the same. Pot, meet Kettle. And of course, any competent investigator would have included it so that the record reflects the accurate account of his service. That could also explain why you would not. The crap about atrocities is just that - crap. Free fire zones interdiction fire and search and destroy missions may have been personally "atrocious" to LT Kerry, but they are not war crimes, nor atocities by any international legal standard. That sir, is not something that you are qualified to speak on apparently.

A quote From a decidedly anti-war text which addresses your concerns: (http://www.crimesofwar.org/thebook/free-fire-zones.html)


But despite the GIs’ confusion, international law enjoins armies to avoid targeting any but military objectives and assures protection to civilians, in almost any circumstance. Free fire zones as defined by Department of Defense doctrine and the rules of engagement are a severe violation of the laws of war for two reasons. First, they violate the rule against direct attack of civilians by presuming that after civilians are warned to vacate a zone, then anyone still present may lawfully be attacked. The rule prohibiting direct attacks on civilians provides no basis for a party to a conflict to shift the burden by declaring a whole zone to be “civilian free.” And second, they violate the rule against indiscriminate attack (http://www.crimesofwar.org/thebook/indiscriminate-attack.html) by presuming without justification in the law that warning civilians to leave eliminates the legal requirements to discriminate in targeting its weapons.


and if you want to suggest that Kerry meeting with the North Vietnamese delegate in Paris at the very same time that Kissinger was meeting with her was treasonous and in violation of article 104, I suggest you try to sell that to some audience other than some political geeks on an internet message board... but, by all means, do keep trying... have you gained much traction amongst any other conservatives and/or republicans since you first started this idiocy eleven months ago??? Continuing with the personal attacks only makes you look desperate. Anyone with a bit of reading skill will know that Kissenger was an authorised representative of the .gov at the time. Kerry was not.

Perhaps, after we have hashed and rehashed this particularly obscure and meaningless issue, we could move on to my favorite one about the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin? Your desire to disengage is noted. Simply. Stop. Responding.

Batter Up.

[Yurt]

try not to get so personal... it seems that you are insulting because you know you are beaten on the facts.

If you indeed wrote it, then you ddn't know what you were talking about. ALl of your bullshit "facts" about when Kerry signed up and when he got out and when he did this and when he did that are irrelevant if his military status was not an issue when he went to Paris, and it wasn't. The crap about atrocities is just that - crap. Free fire zones interdiction fire and search and destroy missions may have been personally "atrocious" to LT Kerry, but they are not war crimes, nor atocities by any international legal standard.

and if you want to suggest that Kerry meeting with the North Vietnamese delegate in Paris at the very same time that Kissinger was meeting with her was treasonous and in violation of article 104, I suggest you try to sell that to some audience other than some political geeks on an internet message board... but, by all means, do keep trying... have you gained much traction amongst any other conservatives and/or republicans since you first started this idiocy eleven months ago???

Perhaps, after we have hashed and rehashed this particularly obscure and meaningless issue, we could move on to my favorite one about the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin?

:fu:

don't get personal and then you talk trash :poke:

[glockmail]

MM, Kerry recently said once again (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/11/21/swift_boat_issue_becomes_crucial_to_kerry_anew/), that he's going to debunk the Swift Boat Veterans. Every day I look for his response, every day I'm disappointed. Why doesn't he just do it? Because he can't.

[retiredman]

Batter Up.

the fact remains:

you tried to create this quite official listing of "facts", "opinions", and "recommendations".

You listed 20 "facts". The first five of which were clearly providing background support for the sixth and eighth fact. The only problem is, those two "facts" were not "facts" at all. You clearly do not know very much at all about the UCMJ if you do not know that members of the Individual Ready Reserve are only subject to the UCMJ while actually drilling or performing ACDUTRA. Odd, since it is clearly stated. I cannot begin to understand why someone who claimed to understand the code would be that ignorant of it.

The fact remains that of your eight "opinions", only three of them are used to support your following "recommendations", and those three opinions rely on only six of your twenty "facts"

Of your three "recommendations", the first would suggest that Kerry listening to someone from North Vietnam discuss their suggestions as to how to end the conflict at a time when those same folks from North Vietnam were discussing that very same list of suggestions with our secretary of state was somehow provided "aid" to the enemy is weak....but as I said, I think that you should attempt to sell that idea to the Bush administration. What sort of success have you had in getting anyone to listen to that since you first posted this brief? You've obviously been shopping it around for nine months now. Any nibbles from DoJ or the JAG boys at DoD?

The second "recommendation" is ridiculous in that you recommend bringing charges against Kerry for "atrocities" but make no recommendation that the rest of the American ground forces who also routinely used free fire zones, interdiction fire and search and destroy missions also be charged. I also would love to see any citations from the Geneva Convention rules themselves that were in effect during Kerry's tour that would suggest that those tactics were, in fact, illegal in any case.

The third "recommendation" relies on four generic "facts" that have no relevance to Kerry whatsoever in that you cannot prove in any way that Kerry meant to give aid and comfort to the enemy. Talking to representatives of North Vietnam concurrently with the Secretary of State talking with then provides them no aid or comfort whatsoever..... and certainly, the fact that they had gotten the Secretary of State of the most powerful nation on earth to come to Paris to listen to them sitting around a table of their specific design was clearly more important to them than some young naval reservist with zero power and zero ability to provide them anything - let alone aid or comfort.

and above and beyond ALL of that, is the fact that your obsession with John Kerry would seem to be nothing more than a dodge to avoid talking about the real failures - past AND present -of our current CinC.

John Kerry will never run for president again. the folks in Massachusetts love him but he will never carry our party's banner in a national election. I think that you should worry, instead, about what is happening to the once seemingly invincible GOP juggernaut that was launched by Reagan and Newt..... Bush has run it up on the rocks and shoals.

All your discussions about historical figures who play no real role in the upcoming elections seems to be better suited for the History forum. Maybe you could check with the moderators and get it moved and we could continue this discussion there.... along with, perhaps, discussions of Watergate,Teapot Dome or Babcock and the Whiskey Ring. mmmmkay?

[pegwinn]

I tend to agree. It really doesn't matter how loud the pig screams, in the end it still becomes breakfast unless it can convince others that it aint a pig.

[pegwinn]

Y'know, you are way too easy. But, so long as you wish to flail away and sidestep, I will continue to demonstrate your inabilities.


the fact remains:

you tried to create this quite official listing of "facts", "opinions", and "recommendations". No tried. Did. Strike One.

You listed 20 "facts". The first five of which were clearly providing background support for the sixth and eighth fact. The only problem is, those two "facts" were not "facts" at all. You clearly do not know very much at all about the UCMJ if you do not know that members of the Individual Ready Reserve are only subject to the UCMJ while actually drilling or performing ACDUTRA. Odd, since it is clearly stated. I cannot begin to understand why someone who claimed to understand the code would be that ignorant of it. The UCMJ is more than one page and I know the parts I dealt with better than those I didn't. Simple really. Now, you purport to have commanded a reserve center if memory serves. I would expect you to be knowlegeable about those things. So, as a courtesy, I deferred to you. The thing that your hidebound mentality cannot grasp is that even without those two facts, the others still stick. Strike Two.

The fact remains that of your eight "opinions", only three of them are used to support your following "recommendations", and those three opinions rely on only six of your twenty "facts" And that invalidates what? Guess you never did a JAG and so I will move into teaching mode. If you had (ever been a real IO) you would know that you can list a gazillion facts that don't get used except for indirectly. Remember, a JAG at this level is merely to inform the commander.

Of your three "recommendations", the first would suggest that Kerry listening to someone from North Vietnam discuss their suggestions as to how to end the conflict at a time when those same folks from North Vietnam were discussing that very same list of suggestions with our secretary of state was somehow provided "aid" to the enemy is weak....but as I said, I think that you should attempt to sell that idea to the Bush administration. What sort of success have you had in getting anyone to listen to that since you first posted this brief? You've obviously been shopping it around for nine months now. Any nibbles from DoJ or the JAG boys at DoD? So, your refutation of the first recommendation is simply that no one took action in the seventies? Hidebound. Very. And it indicates that you would compromise doing the right thing in favor of political expediency. Pity.

The second "recommendation" is ridiculous in that you recommend bringing charges against Kerry for "atrocities" but make no recommendation that the rest of the American ground forces who also routinely used free fire zones, interdiction fire and search and destroy missions also be charged. I also would love to see any citations from the Geneva Convention rules themselves that were in effect during Kerry's tour that would suggest that those tactics were, in fact, illegal in any case. Please. As a former leader you are well aware that there are no group courts martial or NJP. As a former leader you should be aware that in individual investigation is just that, individual. Tell you what. I will answer your question about rules and recommend that you investigate another Kerry, Bob type one each. Read this and see if your can find the answer (http://www.hrw.org/press/2001/05/rumslet0507.htm)to your own question. No need to thank me. I've been in the business of educating officers since 1985.

The third "recommendation" relies on four generic "facts" that have no relevance to Kerry whatsoever in that you cannot prove in any way that Kerry meant to give aid and comfort to the enemy. Talking to representatives of North Vietnam concurrently with the Secretary of State talking with then provides them no aid or comfort whatsoever..... and certainly, the fact that they had gotten the Secretary of State of the most powerful nation on earth to come to Paris to listen to them sitting around a table of their specific design was clearly more important to them than some young naval reservist with zero power and zero ability to provide them anything - let alone aid or comfort. Being an apologist doesn't change the nature of the facts and the specifications of the article in question. Of course you should have known that.

and above and beyond ALL of that, is the fact that your obsession with John Kerry would seem to be nothing more than a dodge to avoid talking about the real failures - past AND present -of our current CinC. You have yet to place fingers to keyboard and make any rational discussion. Let me put it to you in terms a Naval Officer should understand. Man your battle stations. Perhaps if you pick the fight, you may do better than constant personal attacks and dodges. Strike Three, and the crowd goes wild.

John Kerry will never run for president again. the folks in Massachusetts love him but he will never carry our party's banner in a national election. I think that you should worry, instead, about what is happening to the once seemingly invincible GOP juggernaut that was launched by Reagan and Newt..... Bush has run it up on the rocks and shoals.

All your discussions about historical figures who play no real role in the upcoming elections seems to be better suited for the History forum. Maybe you could check with the moderators and get it moved and we could continue this discussion there.... along with, perhaps, discussions of Watergate,Teapot Dome or Babcock and the Whiskey Ring. mmmmkay?

Poor guy. Have you yet figured out that I gave you six and eight even though in fact he was subject...... figure it out, or you may still disengage simply by weighing your anchor and sailing off into obscurity again.

Two outs, Batter up.

[glockmail]

Perhaps if you pick the fight, you may do better than constant personal attacks and dodges. Strike Three, and the crowd goes wild.
. :thewave:

[happyfeet]

I'm glad Kerry didn't become President, but I don't think he is guilty of treason in any way

[pegwinn]

I'm glad Kerry didn't become President, but I don't think he is guilty of treason in any way

Believe it or not I am cool with that. But, just to keep the conversation moving..... why?

[retiredman]

why do you run away from the fact that you don't understand the UCMJ and that you thought that it applied to IRR when it clearly didn't. And if your facts aren't germane to anything - and 1-5 clearly are NOT because 6 and 8 are bullshit to begin with - listing them "informs" no one and only serves to muddy the water.

My reason for doubting the real validity of your first "recommendation" has everything to do with the fact that, just like the Logan Act, no CIVILIAN has ever been charged with a violation of UCMJ Article 104. But if you seem to think that you've got such a good case, I am curious why you haven't had much luck so far in selling your little brief as anything to be seriously considered by anyone in government. Do you THINK that it MIGHT have to do with the fact that right from the outset, you PROVE that you don't know what you are talking about? I think you might want to consider that... or perhaps you've got a better explanation as to why the DoJ or DoD has not charged him to date....especially after your "stellar" brief.

I notice that you dodged the entire Geneva Convention issue.... maybe if you could quote me the section of the GC applicable during Kerry's tour that considered anything he did as a "war crime" in any way, we could move this point along. As it is, you ain't got shit. And you also refuse to acknowledge that free fire zones, interdiction fire, and search and destroy missions were accepted and condoned tactics used in Nam by our forces en masse.

And I am not an "apologist". I merely point out that you can list four generic facts that have nothing to do with Kerry but they do not support your opinion or your recommendation. Kerry did NOT provide aid or comfort the the enemy and so should not be removed from the US Senate.

and how is it that you seem to feel as if you can play this game and still act as umpire? Two outs my ass! :laugh2:

Oh...and I would readily admit that, especially in my early years, I learned a hell of a lot from senior enlisted personnel. Several E6-9's in my divisions/departments acted as mentors to me and I remain forever in their debt. Our mutual professional respect spawned several lasting friendships that exist until today. I have no doubt that you may very well have taught officers some things about various aspects of service. I would just suggest that the UCMJ ought not to have been one of them.

[glockmail]

why do you run away from the fact that you don't understand the UCMJ and that you thought that it applied to IRR when it clearly didn't. And if your facts aren't germane to anything - and 1-5 clearly are NOT because 6 and 8 are bullshit to begin with - listing them "informs" no one and only serves to muddy the water.....You sound like a broken record; and wrong again.

[retiredman]

You sound like a broken record; and wrong again.


wrong about what?

are you suggesting that the UCMJ applies to IRR personnel when not in a drill status or on ACDUTRA?

[glockmail]

wrong about what?

are you suggesting that the UCMJ applies to IRR personnel when not in a drill status or on ACDUTRA?
Wrong that a possibly incorrect statement negates five or six others. But do keep pounding the dead horse.

[retiredman]

Wrong that a possibly incorrect statement negates five or six others. But do keep pounding the dead horse.

POSSIBLY???? do you know what you are talking about or don't you? If not, why do you insist on sticking your nose into this discussion like a yappy little dog?

And I never said that the incorrect facts negated anything...only rendered them irrelevant.

What relevance is any of this if his military service had nothing to do with his meeting in Paris

1. That John F. Kerry enlisted in the US Navy Reserve on February 18, 1966. big deal
2. That John Kerry was on active duty in the U.S. Navy for three years and eight months, from August 1966 until March 1970. again...so what?

3. That John F. Kerry served in the US Navy Reserve from March 2 1970 until February 1972. why not make a fact as to what little league team he played on???

4. That John F. Kerry received an Honorable discharge from the Naval Reserve on February 16, 1978. again...irrelevant

5. That John F. Kerry received his commission on December 16 1966.

completely irrelevant

[happyfeet]

Believe it or not I am cool with that. But, just to keep the conversation moving..... why?

Because I don't believe he gave aid and comfort to the enemy. He aided them in no way, and I doubt he gave them any comfort. Traitors are people like Lord Haw Haw (William Joyce) and Benedict Arnold. They went over to the other side lock, stock and two smoking barrels. At the end of the day, to me, Kerry was trying to stop what he saw as a pointless war. If he stated publically he wanted the Viet Cong/NVA to win the war because he believed in their cause, that certainly would give me pause for thought.

[pegwinn]

The sad thing is that every argmument you make is easier to beat down each time.


why do you run away from the fact that you don't understand the UCMJ and that you thought that it applied to IRR when it clearly didn't. And if your facts aren't germane to anything - and 1-5 clearly are NOT because 6 and 8 are bullshit to begin with - listing them "informs" no one and only serves to muddy the water. Never did a JAG huh? It's ok, no one has done everything.

My reason for doubting the real validity of your first "recommendation" has everything to do with the fact that, just like the Logan Act, no CIVILIAN has ever been charged with a violation of UCMJ Article 104. It doesn't negate that he violated it now does it? Please Commander, search your years of service and think of those you knew violated this or that and were not charged.

But if you seem to think that you've got such a good case, I am curious why you haven't had much luck so far in selling your little brief as anything to be seriously considered by anyone in government. Do you THINK that it MIGHT have to do with the fact that right from the outset, you PROVE that you don't know what you are talking about? I think you might want to consider that... or perhaps you've got a better explanation as to why the DoJ or DoD has not charged him to date....especially after your "stellar" brief. Wow, yet another lame attempt to deflect attention away from the listed facts and opinions. Hmmmm, I can't claim to've read Nixons mind but I can easily visualize a decision not to prosecute. Given the antiwar sentiments in congress and the population the trial could have made OJ look trivial. Of course you likely surmised that I've only "peddled" it on a handful of Internet message boards for discussion purposes. You did surmise that right? I mean an experienced leader like yourself does think ahead ... right? So, my post is bs because I didn't actively present it to anyone in the .gov? Lame, Commander, very Lame.

I notice that you dodged the entire Geneva Convention issue.... maybe if you could quote me the section of the GC applicable during Kerry's tour that considered anything he did as a "war crime" in any way, we could move this point along. As it is, you ain't got shit. And you also refuse to acknowledge that free fire zones, interdiction fire, and search and destroy missions were accepted and condoned tactics used in Nam by our forces en masse. Actually I provided a link to yet another antiwar organisation that discusses those types of crimes which in turn referenced the GC1949. I understand that officers are accustomed to being spoon fed, but this is really weak. Look for articles 27/28 then wrap your mind around it. Come see me again if you don't get it.

And I am not an "apologist". I merely point out that you can list four generic facts that have nothing to do with Kerry but they do not support your opinion or your recommendation. Kerry did NOT provide aid or comfort the the enemy and so should not be removed from the US Senate. You assert that as fact and provide no proof of any sort.... bad form commander. You may not agree with me, but my proofs are on the table. I am a bit dismayed that your education is so lacking that you cannot form a coherent defence.

and how is it that you seem to feel as if you can play this game and still act as umpire? Two outs my ass! :laugh2: Actually, I am going easier on you than the board membership would. If this were a scored debate you would be so far behind on points that Jimmy would invoke the mercy rule and lock the thread.

Oh...and I would readily admit that, especially in my early years, I learned a hell of a lot from senior enlisted personnel. Several E6-9's in my divisions/departments acted as mentors to me and I remain forever in their debt. Our mutual professional respect spawned several lasting friendships that exist until today. I have no doubt that you may very well have taught officers some things about various aspects of service. I would just suggest that the UCMJ ought not to have been one of them. Glad to see that you understand the roles of each. I do wish that your mentors had driven you a bit harder in the investigations and critical skills thinking departments.

:slap: As long as you keep coming back I'll continue to slap you around. Your best bet is disengagement and re-evaluate the battles you choose to fight. Right now you are out of your weight class.

[retiredman]

1. The fact that I never did a JAG investigation does not change the fact that your facts 6 and 8 are dead wrong and, without them facts 1-5 are totally irrelevant. But DO keep running away from that fact.

2. Regarding 104, I am not a JAG officer.... and I am pretty sure you weren't either...so I cannot say whether Kerry violated the spirit of that section. I do know that no one has seen fit to charge him with it.... not during the Nixon years or the Ford years or the Reagan years or the Bush years.... I wonder, if there was really any meat on that bone, why no one started chewing on it.

3. If I thought that antiwar organizational websites were the authority on the GC in effect during Nam, I would have asked for that. I asked you if you could provide me with the section of the GC that considers those tactics -used by American troops throughout the conflict - to be war crimes. I guess you are having a tough time finding that???

4. you have NEVER provided any PROOF whatsoever that Kerry provided aid and comfort to the enemy. try again.

5. this is a discussion. I don't need to know your egotistical musings as to the "score".

6. Do me a favor and don't insult my enlisted mentors. You started off this entire charade with incorrect and irrelevant facts. You perhaps should tend to your own critical thinking and try to dig yourself out from underneath the fact that you don't know squat about the UCMJ, and quit with the schoolyard taunts.

[pegwinn]

1. The fact that I never did a JAG investigation does not change the fact that your facts 6 and 8 are dead wrong and, without them facts 1-5 are totally irrelevant. But DO keep running away from that fact. Running? Au Contraire Mes Amis. I am the one who provided the facts, the links, and the discussion. I am the one who has the integrity to allow for the possiblity of being wrong. I did many JAGS as a SNCO. Some were minor things such as theft in the field or tactical vehicle accidents. A couple were non-minor affairs where folks careers were at risk. The first thing I learned is that every fact that can be backed up is important no matter what the investigator believes is relevant. I am going to attempt teaching mode again. If JFKerry were to be considered for potential prosecution of war crimes, wouldn't his status (ACTDU, SELRES, etc) and calendar milestones be relevent? Just think on it.

2. Regarding 104, I am not a JAG officer.... and I am pretty sure you weren't either...so I cannot say whether Kerry violated the spirit of that section. Doesn't matter. As you like to say, "The FACT" is that the letter of the law is what is required to either prosecute or not. Again, he was subject to 104. I do know that no one has seen fit to charge him with it.... not during the Nixon years or the Ford years or the Reagan years or the Bush years.... I wonder, if there was really any meat on that bone, why no one started chewing on it. That is an area we agree on. Neither of us "Knows" unless we could read minds of those Presidents. My theory is listed earlier on in a couple of places as political expediency. I am sure that you ran into politics as an officer. If you didn't then you were very fortunate or naive.

3. If I thought that antiwar organizational websites were the authority on the GC in effect during Nam, I would have asked for that. I asked you if you could provide me with the section of the GC that considers those tactics -used by American troops throughout the conflict - to be war crimes. I guess you are having a tough time finding that??? Reread the posts. It is there.

4. you have NEVER provided any PROOF whatsoever that Kerry provided aid and comfort to the enemy. try again. Facts 14, 15, 16 which form opinion 7. You may disagree, but it is up to you to debunk them. Each is linked. Did you overlook them the first dozen times you read thru the initial posts?

5. this is a discussion. I don't need to know your egotistical musings as to the "score". Yer breakin my heart there Commander. Thicken your skin.

6. Do me a favor and don't insult my enlisted mentors. I didn't. You might want to reread what was actually written. You started off this entire charade with incorrect and irrelevant facts. You perhaps should tend to your own critical thinking and try to dig yourself out from underneath the fact that you don't know squat about the UCMJ, and quit with the schoolyard taunts. Heh. Post 27 was your entry into this fray via this message board. You started with the personal attacks. You should know that attacking Marines is not smart. If you cannot stand the heat, don't play with fire.

Off to the rack. Tomorrow is a work day. IF you wish to disengage so be it. If you wish to attack you get plenty of prep time. C'ya round.

[pegwinn]

Because I don't believe he gave aid and comfort to the enemy. He aided them in no way, and I doubt he gave them any comfort. Traitors are people like Lord Haw Haw (William Joyce) and Benedict Arnold. They went over to the other side lock, stock and two smoking barrels. At the end of the day, to me, Kerry was trying to stop what he saw as a pointless war. If he stated publically he wanted the Viet Cong/NVA to win the war because he believed in their cause, that certainly would give me pause for thought.

I agree that he didn't openly and overtly put on a conical hat and sit at an antiaircraft gun. But, if you review Facts 14, 15, 16 which form opinion 7 and the links you will understand why I disagree with you on the aid and comfort.

[manu1959]

Because I don't believe he gave aid and comfort to the enemy. He aided them in no way, and I doubt he gave them any comfort. Traitors are people like Lord Haw Haw (William Joyce) and Benedict Arnold. They went over to the other side lock, stock and two smoking barrels. At the end of the day, to me, Kerry was trying to stop what he saw as a pointless war. If he stated publically he wanted the Viet Cong/NVA to win the war because he believed in their cause, that certainly would give me pause for thought.


tell me....did he meet with the nva and attempt to negotiate "peace".....while still a memer of the us military....

[happyfeet]

tell me....did he meet with the nva and attempt to negotiate "peace".....while still a memer of the us military....

I do not think so. He was not a member of the military when he went there was he? He still had some sort of reservist status, but that only clicked in when he was doing reservist duty.

That aside, you have put the word peace in speechmarks, which indicates you don't think he was trying to negotiate peace. Do you think he was negotiating how to defeat the US with them? And by defeat, I mean giving away positions, troops movements etc, not wanting to get out of the war. Did the US congress ever declare war on Vietnam?

[happyfeet]

I agree that he didn't openly and overtly put on a conical hat and sit at an antiaircraft gun. But, if you review Facts 14, 15, 16 which form opinion 7 and the links you will understand why I disagree with you on the aid and comfort.


Fact 14: I don't see recommending a peace plan as treason. I call it recommending a peace plan. Is that a bad thing?

THe first link in Fact 15 doesn't prove he was guilty of treason. It was a photo. Nothing wrong with that although it doesn't help his position. The second link mentions a document, that when clicked on, does not work. Your third link mentions that Hanoi were happy with Vietnam Vets against war. Why wouldn't they be happy and how is that treasonous?

Fact 16 mentions the same links.

Therefore I disagree with your premise in opinion 7.

[Psychoblues]

Lemme give you a veteran's of that same war opinion. Kerry obeyed orders, earned his medals and represented America in the grandest fashion possible. His opposition of the War after the fact upsets many then and now. He fought courageously to defend that right and earned that right for himself by his courage and service.

Some may disagree. You can kiss my ass and I would imagine John would tell you much the same.

signed,

One American Veteran

[glockmail]

POSSIBLY???? do you know what you are talking about or don't you? If not, why do you insist on sticking your nose into this discussion like a yappy little dog?

And I never said that the incorrect facts negated anything...only rendered them irrelevant.

What relevance is any of this if his military service had nothing to do with his meeting in Paris

1. That John F. Kerry enlisted in the US Navy Reserve on February 18, 1966. big deal
2. That John Kerry was on active duty in the U.S. Navy for three years and eight months, from August 1966 until March 1970. again...so what?

3. That John F. Kerry served in the US Navy Reserve from March 2 1970 until February 1972. why not make a fact as to what little league team he played on???

4. That John F. Kerry received an Honorable discharge from the Naval Reserve on February 16, 1978. again...irrelevant

5. That John F. Kerry received his commission on December 16 1966.

completely irrelevant What is relevant is that Kerry used his stature as a Naval officer as a cloak of legitimacy for the Paris meeting, as well as when he denigrated the military when he testified before Congress.

Again the insults fly forth from you, and together with your ridiculous complaint about negated vs. irrelevant: further evidence that you are losing this debate.

[glockmail]

Lemme give you a veteran's of that same war opinion. Kerry obeyed orders, earned his medals and represented America in the grandest fashion possible. His opposition of the War after the fact upsets many then and now. He fought courageously to defend that right and earned that right for himself by his courage and service.

Some may disagree. You can kiss my ass and I would imagine John would tell you much the same.

signed,

One American Veteran

At least two of his Purple Hearts were from minor wounds that were treated with first aid, and rejected by his commanding officer as not medal worthy. The method of influence that he used to then obtain these medals is hidden from the public. He used his three PH medals to end his 12 month tour in four. That's hardly honorable.

[retiredman]

Fact 14: I don't see recommending a peace plan as treason. I call it recommending a peace plan. Is that a bad thing?

THe first link in Fact 15 doesn't prove he was guilty of treason. It was a photo. Nothing wrong with that although it doesn't help his position. The second link mentions a document, that when clicked on, does not work. Your third link mentions that Hanoi were happy with Vietnam Vets against war. Why wouldn't they be happy and how is that treasonous?

Fact 16 mentions the same links.

Therefore I disagree with your premise in opinion 7.

precisely!

the Supreme Court opinion written by Justice Jackson in Cramer v. United States is instructive in this issue:

"Thus the crime of treason consists of two elements: adherence to the enemy; and rendering him aid and comfort. A citizen intellectually or emotionally may favor the enemy and harbor sympathies or convictions disloyal to this country's policy or interest, but so long as he commits no act of aid and comfort to the enemy, there is no treason. On the other hand, a citizen may take actions, which do aid and comfort the enemy- making a speech critical of the government or opposing its measures, profiteering, striking in defense plants or essential work, and the hundred other things which impair our cohesion and diminish our strength- but if there is no adherence to the enemy in this, if there is no intent to betray, there is no treason."

http://supreme.justia.com/us/325/1/case.html

[retiredman]

What is relevant is that Kerry used his stature as a Naval officer as a cloak of legitimacy for the Paris meeting, as well as when he denigrated the military when he testified before Congress.



his "stature as a naval officer"? LOL

He did not wear his uniform.... I would think that the fact that North Vietnam had gotten Henry Kissinger to sit down with them in Paris was of infinitely more value to them.

Denigrating the military is not treasonous, but why let a little technicality like that stop a good rant, eh glock?

[glockmail]

precisely!

the Supreme Court opinion written by Justice Jackson in Cramer v. United States is instructive in this issue:

"Thus the crime of treason consists of two elements: adherence to the enemy; and rendering him aid and comfort. A citizen intellectually or emotionally may favor the enemy and harbor sympathies or convictions disloyal to this country's policy or interest, but so long as he commits no act of aid and comfort to the enemy, there is no treason. On the other hand, a citizen may take actions, which do aid and comfort the enemy- making a speech critical of the government or opposing its measures, profiteering, striking in defense plants or essential work, and the hundred other things which impair our cohesion and diminish our strength- but if there is no adherence to the enemy in this, if there is no intent to betray, there is no treason."

http://supreme.justia.com/us/325/1/case.html All Cramer did was hold some money for an old friend. You've taken the SCOTUS decision out of context. Kerry, on the other hand, expressed the desire for the enemy's cause and then worked to give them aid.

[glockmail]

his "stature as a naval officer"? LOL

He did not wear his uniform.... I would think that the fact that North Vietnam had gotten Henry Kissinger to sit down with them in Paris was of infinitely more value to them.

Denigrating the military is not treasonous, but why let a little technicality like that stop a good rant, eh glock? Kerry wouldn't have gotten the audience without his Naval status. The fact that he wore civilian clothes is irrelevant.

[retiredman]

Kerry wouldn't have gotten the audience without his Naval status. The fact that he wore civilian clothes is irrelevant.

and you know this because you have pals that were on the North Vietnamese delegation, I presume?

[retiredman]

All Cramer did was hold some money for an old friend. You've taken the SCOTUS decision out of context. Kerry, on the other hand, expressed the desire for the enemy's cause and then worked to give them aid.


you probably need to read the definition of "giving aid and comfort"...

and you need to understand that there must be both aid and comfort given and adherence to the enemy. Agreeing that the elements of the North Vietnamese peace plan made sense is not, in any real way, giving the enemy any aid or comfort.

[retiredman]

and I am still waiting for pegwinn to produce the text from the Geneva Convention that was in effect during Kerry's tour in Vietnam that shows that free fire zones, interdiction fire, and search and destroy missions are illegal.

Texts from antiwar blogs are really not what I am looking for in this case..... just like text from moveon.org would probably not suffice if someone wanted proof that Bush had committed impeachable offenses.

[glockmail]

and you know this because you have pals that were on the North Vietnamese delegation, I presume?


you probably need to read the definition of "giving aid and comfort"...

and you need to understand that there must be both aid and comfort given and adherence to the enemy. Agreeing that the elements of the North Vietnamese peace plan made sense is not, in any real way, giving the enemy any aid or comfort.

I know this because it makes sense.

Again, I look at the common definition, as in "giving aid" and "giving comfort".

Kerry admitted that he was adherent with the enemy’s goals. The fact that he worked to have them realize those goals means that he gave them aid.

[retiredman]

I know this because it makes sense.

Again, I look at the common definition, as in "giving aid" and "giving comfort".

Kerry admitted that he was adherent with the enemy’s goals. The fact that he worked to have them realize those goals means that he gave them aid.

you probably need to understand the concept that what makes sense to you, does not automatically make sense to others, and that what makes sense to you is not, therefore, factual.

and you probably should also understand that agreeing with the content of the North Vietnamese peace proposals does not mean that he was "adhering" to them. Adhering is not the same thing as agreeing with. The fact that Kerry worked to end the war in Vietnam is not synonymous with giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Again, I would suggest you read some constitutional case law on this issue.

[glockmail]

you probably need to understand the concept that what makes sense to you, does not automatically make sense to others, and that what makes sense to you is not, therefore, factual.

and you probably should also understand that agreeing with the content of the North Vietnamese peace proposals does not mean that he was "adhering" to them. Adhering is not the same thing as agreeing with. The fact that Kerry worked to end the war in Vietnam is not synonymous with giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Again, I would suggest you read some constitutional case law on this issue.

It makes sense to most that Kerry got an audience with the NV because of his many connections as well as his adherence to them. You can deny that if you wish but common sense indicates that this is true.

I would suggest that you read some relevant case law instead of comparing Kerry ‘s case with some boiler room guy.

[retiredman]

It makes sense to most that Kerry got an audience with the NV because of his many connections as well as his adherence to them. You can deny that if you wish but common sense indicates that this is true.

I would suggest that you read some relevant case law instead of comparing Kerry ‘s case with some boiler room guy.

are you aware that there is an element of "allegiance" in the definition of "adherance"? There is nothing to suggest that John Kerry had any allegiance to North Vietnam. He agreed with the content of their peace proposal. So did many other patriotic Americans at the time. Such agreement is hardly treasonous.

Case law would tend to indicate that you have not proven the elements of treason. If you have some relevant case law text that would prove otherwise, I would love to read it.

and please note that your characterizing your opinions as "common sense" hardly makes them so.

[glockmail]

are you aware that there is an element of "allegiance" in the definition of "adherance"? There is nothing to suggest that John Kerry had any allegiance to North Vietnam. He agreed with the content of their peace proposal. So did many other patriotic Americans at the time. Such agreement is hardly treasonous.

Case law would tend to indicate that you have not proven the elements of treason. If you have some relevant case law text that would prove otherwise, I would love to read it.

and please note that your characterizing your opinions as "common sense" hardly makes them so.
The Federal Convention of 1787 considered "giving aid & comfort" as explanatory of "adhering". http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/debates/820.htm Its fairly obvious that Kerry did that.

[retiredman]

The Federal Convention of 1787 considered "giving aid & comfort" as explanatory of "adhering". http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/debates/820.htm Its fairly obvious that Kerry did that.

bullshit. show me the quote from the debates over our constitution that giving aid and comfort as "explanatory of adhering"...and then tell me why you can't give any case law from our actual court system dealing with our actual constitution and are forced to come whimpering in here with transcripts of the debate over that constitution. Could it be that case law supporting your asinine assertion that Kerry adhered to the enemy is a bit more difficult to find than you thought it would be????

and again....what might be "fairly obvious" to you might be less obvious to others...and, apparently, a lot more difficult to prove than you thought.

[jimnyc]

MFM and Pegwinn, would you 2 care to honor us with a formal & moderated debate? You two can decide the amount of replies apiece beforehand. Let me know if you guys are interested. Bot of you seem quite knowledgeable in this area and I think it would make for a great debate!

[glockmail]

bullshit. show me the quote from the debates over our constitution that giving aid and comfort as "explanatory of adhering"...and then tell me why you can't give any case law from our actual court system dealing with our actual constitution and are forced to come whimpering in here with transcripts of the debate over that constitution. Could it be that case law supporting your asinine assertion that Kerry adhered to the enemy is a bit more difficult to find than you thought it would be????

and again....what might be "fairly obvious" to you might be less obvious to others...and, apparently, a lot more difficult to prove than you thought.

Wow. Shall I get you a spoon?




Mr. RANDOLPH thought the clause defective in adopting the words "in adhering" only. The British Stat: adds, "giving them aid and comfort" which had a more extensive meaning.

Mr. ELSEWORTH considered the definition as the same in fact with that of the Statute.

Mr. Govr. MORRIS "adhering" does not go so far as "giving aid and Comfort" or the latter words may be restrictive of "adhering," in either case the Statute is not pursued.

Mr. WILSON held "giving aid and comfort" to be explanatory, not operative words; and that it was better to omit them.

Mr. DICKENSON, thought the addition of "giving aid & comfort" unnecessary & improper; being too vague and extending too far. He wished to know what was meant by the "testimony of two witnesses" whether they were to be witnesses to the same overt act or to different overt acts. He thought also that proof of an overt-act ought to be expressed as essential in the case.

Docr. JOHNSON considered "giving aid & comfort" as explanatory of "adhering" & that something should be inserted in the definition concerning overt-acts. He contended that Treason could not be both agst. the U. States-and individual States; being an offence agst. the Sovereignty which can be but one in the same community.

Mr. MADISON remarked that "and" before "in adhering" should be changed into "or" otherwise both offences viz of levying war, & of adhering to the Enemy might be necessary to constitute Treason. He added that as the definition here was of treason against the U. S. it would seem that the individual States wd. be left in possession of a concurrent power so far as to define & punish treason particularly agst. themselves; which might involve double punishmt.

In any case, SCOTUS should rely on the Constitutional debates as well as The Federalist in determining the intent of the Founders.

[retiredman]

Wow. Shall I get you a spoon?



In any case, SCOTUS should rely on the Constitutional debates as well as The Federalist in determining the intent of the Founders.

thank you. I have missed that reference in the debates.

now.... how are you coming in finding case law that supports your assertion that Kerry adhered to our enemies, or that, by being a private citizen and listening to their peace proposal - an action that the Secretary of State was concurrently involved in - Kerry was somehow giving aid and comfort to the enemy?

[glockmail]

thank you. I have missed that reference in the debates.

now.... how are you coming in finding case law that supports your assertion that Kerry adhered to our enemies, or that, by being a private citizen and listening to their peace proposal - an action that the Secretary of State was concurrently involved in - Kerry was somehow giving aid and comfort to the enemy?

From the OP:
6. That John Kerry's open endorsement of the communist delegation proposals constituted adhering to the enemy. (Finding of Facts 14, 17)

7. That his actions in total constituted giving aid and comfort to the enemy. (Finding of Facts 14, 15, 16)

8. That the preceeding actions in total meet the legal definition of Treason. (Finding of Facts 17, 18, 19, 20)

And as I stated earlier: SCOTUS should rely on the Constitutional debates as well as The Federalist in determining the intent of the Founders. Therefore I will do the same.

[pegwinn]

and I am still waiting for pegwinn to produce the text from the Geneva Convention that was in effect during Kerry's tour in Vietnam that shows that free fire zones, interdiction fire, and search and destroy missions are illegal. Actually on at least two occasions I have stated the chapter and verse. If you overlooked it or cannot look it up for yourself, that isn't my problem.

Texts from antiwar blogs are really not what I am looking for in this case..... just like text from moveon.org would probably not suffice if someone wanted proof that Bush had committed impeachable offenses. You're getting warmer. Go back to those and see what they are based off of. Then pick the source of choice and begin to read.

+

[retiredman]

no chapter or verse...merely some allusions to a antiwar website that discusses the convention in general terms. I would love to see the language from the Geneva Convention in effect during Kerry's tour in Nam that states, unambiguously, that free fire zones and interdiction fire and search and destroy missions are illegal. I went back and reread this thread and could not find it. It would seem to me that it would be easier to just post it again rather than do this dance.

[Kathianne]

no chapter or verse...merely some allusions to a antiwar website that discusses the convention in general terms. I would love to see the language from the Geneva Convention in effect during Kerry's tour in Nam that states, unambiguously, that free fire zones and interdiction fire and search and destroy missions are illegal. I went back and reread this thread and could not find it. It would seem to me that it would be easier to just post it again rather than do this dance.

I've never known Pegwinn to lie, which is what it seems to be you are accusing him of? I've stood up for you under similar situations.

[retiredman]

From the OP:
6. That John Kerry's open endorsement of the communist delegation proposals constituted adhering to the enemy. (Finding of Facts 14, 17)

7. That his actions in total constituted giving aid and comfort to the enemy. (Finding of Facts 14, 15, 16)

8. That the preceeding actions in total meet the legal definition of Treason. (Finding of Facts 17, 18, 19, 20)

And as I stated earlier: SCOTUS should rely on the Constitutional debates as well as The Federalist in determining the intent of the Founders. Therefore I will do the same.

so pegwinn is your constitutional case law source now? Pegwinn says Kerry adhered to the enemy and that is good enough for you? If pegwinn told you to jump off a bridge, would you?:laugh2:

John Kerry stating that the North Vietnamese peace proposal made sense was a disavowal of his allegiance to his country???? How so??? It was a statement that he wanted his country to fail and his enemies to succeed? really??? Our government was in Paris to FIND a path to peace. Kerry went and listened to the North Vietnamese delegation's points and found them to be reasonable. That is not adhering to the enemy.

If he had gone and listened to them make their superbowl picks and he agreed with them, that would not be a disavowal of his patriotism and a wish for his enemies to win.

[pegwinn]

no chapter or verse...merely some allusions to a antiwar website that discusses the convention in general terms. You are getting warmer.

I would love to see the language from the Geneva Convention in effect during Kerry's tour in Nam that states, unambiguously, that free fire zones and interdiction fire and search and destroy missions are illegal. So would I. But since the convention was written before we started using those terms, I guess you are going to have to actually put two and two together. Here's a hint..... what's the physical effect of a free fire zone?

I went back and reread this thread and could not find it. It would seem to me that it would be easier to just post it again rather than do this dance. It would also be easier for you to stop tapdancing around the issue. You actually came close to makeing an argument worth discussing. But, true to form, you fell back into your own mediocrity.

+

[retiredman]

I've never known Pegwinn to lie, which is what it seems to be you are accusing him of? I've stood up for you under similar situations.

I am not accusing him of lying.... certainly not. I only point out that I cannot find in any pegwinn post a chapter and verse quotation from the GC that unambiguously declares those tactics to be illegal. Maybe he could just refer us to a post #?

[pegwinn]

I am not accusing him of lying.... certainly not. Well I am glad to hear that.

I only point out that I cannot find in any pegwinn post a chapter and verse quotation from the GC that unambiguously declares those tactics to be illegal. Never said that I did. What I said was: "I have stated the chapter and verse".

Maybe he could just refer us to a post #? Posts 35 and 40 both link to humanrights watch if memory serves. In each article the relevant portions of the GC are discussed. All you need to do is read the conventions on the url of your choice. Now, if 35 and 40 are simply too much, scroll to post 50. Here's a hint, it's in blue text. You are free to look up the source at the source of your choice. Wouldn't want to be accused of using anti-kerry versions of the GC.
I sure hope this gets better quick, fast, and in a hurry. I'm becoming bored...

[retiredman]

I would suggest reading FM 6-20 regarding free fire zones:

"A specific designated area into which any weapon system may fire without additional coordination with the establishing headquarters. "

another good link:

http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals/journal_of_military_history/v070/70.1hawkins.html

[retiredman]

as per your suggestion....GC1949 article 27 and 28:

Article 27
Protected persons are entitled, in all circumstances, to respect for their persons, their honour, their family rights, their religious convictions and practices, and their manners and customs. They shall at all times be humanely treated, and shall be protected especially against all acts of violence or threats thereof and against insults and public curiosity.

Women shall be especially protected against any attack on their honour, in particular against rape, enforced prostitution, or any form of indecent assault.

Without prejudice to the provisions relating to their state of health, age and sex, all protected persons shall be treated with the same consideration by the Party to the conflict in whose power they are, without any adverse distinction based, in particular, on race, religion or political opinion.

However, the Parties to the conflict may take such measures of control and security in regard to protected persons as may be necessary as a result of the war.

Article 28
The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations.


http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm

edit/addendum:

from pegwinn's opening gambit:

"By his own admission John Kerry was aware of alleged war crimes and failed to either correct the situation or report same to his superiors as was his sworn duty."

In fact, free fire zones, harassment and interdiction fire, and search and destroy missions - the only "atrocities" that Kerry participated in - were the policy of the department of defense. Was he supposed to report to his superiors that he was appropriately following DoD policy?

[pegwinn]

I would suggest reading FM 6-20 regarding free fire zones:

"A specific designated area into which any weapon system may fire without additional coordination with the establishing headquarters. "

another good link:

http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals/journal_of_military_history/v070/70.1hawkins.html

Interesting. So by designating a village full of civilians and supposed viet cong we can shift the burden of blame to the villagers? It's thier own fault that they didn't leave.

Personally, I could care less. But, since the discussion is digging into the technicalities of the rules of war....

[pegwinn]

Glad to see that you found it. Emphasis added.


as per your suggestion....GC1949 article 27 and 28:

Article 27
Protected persons are entitled, in all circumstances, to respect for their persons, their honour, their family rights, their religious convictions and practices, and their manners and customs. They shall at all times be humanely treated, and shall be protected especially against all acts of violence or threats thereof and against insults and public curiosity. I would submit that indiscriminant killing associated with Vietnam era free fire zones to be the key violator here. Please note, I don't agree personally with this. But, John Kerry himself opened the door.

Women shall be especially protected against any attack on their honour, in particular against rape, enforced prostitution, or any form of indecent assault.

Without prejudice to the provisions relating to their state of health, age and sex, all protected persons shall be treated with the same consideration by the Party to the conflict in whose power they are, without any adverse distinction based, in particular, on race, religion or political opinion.

However, the Parties to the conflict may take such measures of control and security in regard to protected persons as may be necessary as a result of the war.

Article 28
The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations. Without consulting a lawyer, I see this as a statement against holding hostages to prevent attack. I could be mistaken. It may in fact be a blanket authority to arclight a single village to eliminate potential enemies. Got any insight?


http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm

edit/addendum:

from pegwinn's opening gambit:

"By his own admission John Kerry was aware of alleged war crimes and failed to either correct the situation or report same to his superiors as was his sworn duty."

In fact, free fire zones, harassment and interdiction fire, and search and destroy missions - the only "atrocities" that Kerry participated in - were the policy of the department of defense. Was he supposed to report to his superiors that he was appropriately following DoD policy?

[gabosaurus]

Shouldn't this thread be moved to "Conspiracy Theories"? Or perhaps the Humor section.

[Kathianne]

Shouldn't this thread be moved to "Conspiracy Theories"? Or perhaps the Humor section.

on the basis of what?

[gabosaurus]

Severe lack of credibility, for one thing.
If we are going to try Kerry for treason, then we need to try G.W. Bush for international terrorism.

[glockmail]

Severe lack of credibility, for one thing.
If we are going to try Kerry for treason, then we need to try G.W. Bush for international terrorism.
Then make your case. :poke:

[retiredman]

Glad to see that you found it. Emphasis added.

John Kerry was not a lawyer at the time either. He should have consulted one prior to his testimony before congress.... I am sure that the lawyer would have advised him against the use of the word "atrocities" when describing tactics that were publicly sanctioned and acknowledged at all levels. Kerry may have felt that free fire zones were atrocities, but they were described in the Army field manual. Similarly, Harassment and Interdiction Fire and Search and Destroy were publicly approved and sanctioned tactics in use by the US Armed Forces throughout that conflict,

As I said to you earlier... from my personal conversations with comrades in arms with multiple tours in Nam, it was never possible to ascertain the "innocent civilian " status of someone there. Many young boys blew themselves up as they were surrounded by friendly GI's there to give the boys some candy.... many GI's were lured into huts by sexy and "grateful" vietnamese girls only to have their throats slit by the VC boyfriend laying in wait. Therefore, according to the guys I spoke with, there were no instances (that they told me of) where ordinance was released against a target that was known to have innocent civilians only. I know a guy who told me of calling in close air support on a village from which enemy fire was emanating. Clearly, either the civilians there were held hostage against their will by the VC, or they were supportive of the VC.... but in either case, they all got smoked. Was that "terrible"? yes. Was it "atrocious"? yes. Was it in violation of the rules of war? I don't think so.

As a matter of fact, I don't believe that anything that John Kerry personally owned up to in his Senate testimony was in violation of the rules of war that were in place during his tour there, regardless of how much of an atrocity it had seemed to him at the time.

And, without doubt, if you suggest "that Kerry be further investigated under article 32 to address the potential charges that may be levied at trial for crimes against humanity", you need to explain why you are singling HIM out from all the other hundreds of thousands of Americans who employed the exact same tactics and participated in the exact same sort of behavior,

[Gaffer]

All operations we went on were in "free fire zones". That was the term used to describe an enemy controlled area. kerry didn't see shit in the way of atrocities, he lied and made shit up for his own agenda. We did what we had to do and then did what we could for any victims of the actions. What kerry failed to note was the atrocities performed by the VC and NVA. The murders they performed in order to control a village or region. That's why I despise kerry. He was quick to blame the US yet NEVER said anything about the VC and what they did. I SAW what they did. The results of an artillery or air strike were nothing compared to a VC murder squad.

[retiredman]

Gaffer:

it would seem that pegwinn should be pressing to have you tried for war crimes as well!

[Gaffer]

Gaffer:

it would seem that pegwinn should be pressing to have you tried for war crimes as well!

According to you and kerry all Vietnam Vets are guilty of war crimes.

As I said I have seen what the VC and NVA did. Those were war crimes. Not US atrocities but communist atrocities. kerry and the rest of you libs NEVER bring up what they did. When you and kerry can condemn them for their actions I will be willing to give you some credibility. But all I have heard from him is how terrible we were. And you support him. kerry talks like he knew what everyone was doing over there and everything they were involved in. All based on his three months of running up and down a river. I'll let you in on a little secret. He wasn't with me in the central highlands or the iron triangle, he wasn't with me along the Cambodian border. And I am insulted that he would presume to know what I did and didn't do.

Where's his condemnation for the five farmers we found with their heads cut off as an example to the village that they needed to support the VC. Or the ones shot in the head or tortured to scare the villagers into supporting them. Where is his, and your, condemnation of the NVA for the thousands slaughtered in Hue because they were teachers or business men or educated. With you people its all about blaming America and ignore the atrocities of our enemies which far out stripe anything we have ever done.

kerry is a liar and a traitor and you want to defend his scummy ass.

[retiredman]

According to you and kerry all Vietnam Vets are guilty of war crimes.



hey shithead...here's the deal. either find ONE post where I have EVER said ANYTHING negative about Vietnam veterans...and then when you come back empty handed, show some balls and some grace and offer me an apology.

[Gaffer]

hey shithead...here's the deal. either find ONE post where I have EVER said ANYTHING negative about Vietnam veterans...and then when you come back empty handed, show some balls and some grace and offer me an apology.

You support kerry and all he stands for. That says it all in my book. It's not about what you say in posts, its about what you DON'T say. And that's the part that speaks volumes.

[retiredman]

You support kerry and all he stands for. That says it all in my book. It's not about what you say in posts, its about what you DON'T say. And that's the part that speaks volumes.

somehow I knew that you would show no balls, zero grace, and even less class and not retract that remark.

you're a cowardly piece of shit, in my book.

[glockmail]

somehow I knew that you would show no balls, zero grace, and even less class and not retract that remark.

you're a cowardly piece of shit, in my book.
typical liberal maineman: be obscure and offensive, play the victim when called to task, then whine and insult when that doesn't work either.:lol:

[pegwinn]

Shouldn't this thread be moved to "Conspiracy Theories"? Or perhaps the Humor section.

Now that is funny. Thanks, we needed a lighthearted post to level it out.


Severe lack of credibility, for one thing.
If we are going to try Kerry for treason, then we need to try G.W. Bush for international terrorism.

I'm not certain what you are calling a "severe lack". I started the thread and so assume you are talking about/to me personally. Please elaborate.

If you want to start a GWB is a terrorist thread, go for it. You can even use my first three posts as templates on how to construct a logic and fact driven investigation.




<snip>

As a matter of fact, I don't believe that anything that John Kerry personally owned up to in his Senate testimony was in violation of the rules of war that were in place during his tour there, regardless of how much of an atrocity it had seemed to him at the time. That's fine. All along I never expected folks to agree even with facts in place. You look at what is available and make up your mind.

And, without doubt, if you suggest "that Kerry be further investigated under article 32 to address the potential charges that may be levied at trial for crimes against humanity", you need to explain why you are singling HIM out from all the other hundreds of thousands of Americans who employed the exact same tactics and participated in the exact same sort of behavior, I'm singleing him out because he was the subject of the "investigation" & he confessed, and he apparently did nothing to stop it. Mere enlisted guys are supposed to question or even disobey orders that are unlawful. Officers certainly are supposed to set an example in that arena as well. Actually, I have a whole scenario where he could have done things the honorable way and not garnered questions of treason.


Gaffer:

it would seem that pegwinn should be pressing to have you tried for war crimes as well!

Gaffer wasn't the one under investigation.

[glockmail]

....If you want to start a GWB is a terrorist thread, go for it. You can even use my first three posts as templates on how to construct a logic and fact driven investigation....Post 91 as well. Gabby has never backed up anything when challenged. She's all hot air.

[pegwinn]

Post 91 as well. Gabby has never backed up anything when challenged. She's all hot air.

Yep, you beat me to the challenge. I think Gabby is in the stage of life where everything is outrageous etc. A lil bit later she will learn to look with a neutral POV and a couple of question marks. Happens to all of us.

[retiredman]

peg... I only have a problem with two of your "facts" and you have retracted them. I do have several problems with several of your opinions drawn from those facts. Opinion 2, as we know, is not true in any way. Opinion 4's use of the word "alleged" makes it pretty meaningless. As I have shown in previous posts, the tactics that Kerry refers to as "atrocities", were not war crimes in accordance with the GC, and were, in fact, published and taught and sanctioned by all levels of the chain of command. Kerry could hardly fail to correct those tactics or expect that reporting them would cause anything other than laughter from his chain of command. Opinion 5 is similar. Kerry may have found those tactics repugnant, but the government of the United States did not, and neither did the Geneva Convention. Opinion 6 misconstrues the meaning of the word "adhere". If, this past summer, I had agreed with a coaching decision made by Joe Torre, even though I am a lifelong RedSox fan, that singular agreement would not mean that I had "adhered" to the Yankees. Opinion 7 goes against the spirit of the original intent of "aid and comfort" which was that it would be treason for a citizen to provide shelter or sanctuary to an enemy, or help bind his wounds. If all a citizen has to do to be accused of aiding and comforting the enemy is to publicly state their agreement with that enemy's policies, that destroys that original intent. Since opinion 8 is built upon all these other incorrectly drawn opinions, it too is suspect. The ONLY opinion that I am vacillating on is opinion 3. There is no doubt that Kerry did communicate with the North Vietnamese delegation. But how constitutional Article 104 of the UCMJ is has never been tested. I would think that Kerry would have been a perfect test case for any of the six republican administrations that have come and gone since his meeting. Of your recommendations, the first one deals with that opinion, but it, itself, is flawed in that an article 32 investigation is reserved for persons subject to the UCMJ. Kerry was not when the meeting took place, so a military tribunal seems the only venue that is available....and trying an American civilian for treason in front of a military tribunal rather than a civilian court seems...well... far fetched, don't you think?

Regardless, this has been fun!

[Gaffer]

somehow I knew that you would show no balls, zero grace, and even less class and not retract that remark.

you're a cowardly piece of shit, in my book.

I will not retract anything. Call me what you wish. I say it like I see it. You don't like what I have to say, put me on ignore. I don't respond to neg reps and pm's cussing me out.

[retiredman]

I will not retract anything. Call me what you wish. I say it like I see it. You don't like what I have to say, put me on ignore. I don't respond to neg reps and pm's cussing me out.


Call you what I wish? I already did! :laugh2:

Trust me, pal...I sure as hell don't need your permssion to call you a spineless lying sack of shit.

and if you don't like it, put ME on ignore and quit neg repping ME asking for retractions!

wuss

[Gaffer]

Call you what I wish? I already did! :laugh2:

Trust me, pal...I sure as hell don't need your permssion to call you a spineless lying sack of shit.

and if you don't like it, put ME on ignore and quit neg repping ME asking for retractions!

wuss

I haven't neg repped you or asked for anything. Better look again.

[retiredman]

I haven't neg repped you or asked for anything. Better look again.

agreed. you really should retract though.... you have nothing that I have ever said that would warrant that.

[pegwinn]

This is the fourth attempt to submit this.

Other than chit chat this will be my final word on this debate. At this point you can call it the "closing argument". I actually wrote it last night so it will not address anyones post, only a final argument from my end. I posted it earlier and it went to never never land. I tried again and found that docs in MSWord don't play nice with DP. Glad I had a backup copy, else I'd be half drunk and depressed.

Friends, Posters, Countrymen, Lend me your beers. I come to bury Kerry, not to praise him.

I am of the opinion that there is sufficient evidence publicly available to lawfully address charges of treason at a General Court Martial or Military Tribunal.

But first, I must correct a factual error.

I initially stated that John Kerry admitted to war crimes in his Senate testimony. Actually, I mislabeled a source during the writing. John Kerry actually admitted to war crimes on NBC's Meet the Press on April 18, 1971.


"Do you consider that you personally as a Naval officer committed atrocities in Vietnam or crimes punishable by law in this country?" Kerry answered straightforwardly, "Yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones.... I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages."

However, that isn’t treason is it?

Treason, according to the constitution of the United States is found in Art. III. It defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort. This offence is punished with death. By the same article of the Constitution, no person shall be convicted of treason, unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

So we must look to see if John Kerry levied war against the United States.
Is a disinformation campaign an act of war? I believe so. Could the testimony before congress be considered a disinformation campaign intended to undermine the legitimate authority, and executive ability of the United States to prosecute the military action in Vietnam? I believe so. And of course that is for you to ponder and decide on your own.

Then, the next logical approach would be to see if he adhered to our enemies.

There are three positions one could take at that time. The first was support of the USA, the second was to be neutral, and finally one could support the enemy. Some will argue that one could oppose the USA without supporting the enemy, but in light of John Kerry's actions, I don't think it would apply.

He visited and communicated with the North Vietnamese delegation in 1970. He openly stated that he supported their goals. So, while he was a recognized and decorated Naval Officer and a high profile “celebrity” war protester: He was also an unauthorized communicator with the enemies of the United States. We have to remember that Article 104 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice applies to all persons. It states in para 5:


(5) Communicating with the enemy.

(a) That the accused, without proper authority, communicated, corresponded, or held intercourse with the enemy, and;
(b) That the accused knew that the accused was communicating, corresponding, or holding intercourse with the enemy.

And, to this day, to the best of my knowledge, we do not know the actual transcript of what was said in that meeting.

Finally, we come to the clause which brings everyone out of the woodwork. Did John Kerry give “aid and comfort” to the enemy?
I would argue that by adhering to our enemy and openly supporting their agenda he gave valuable propaganda fodder which was used against American POW’s at that time. This propaganda furthered the North Vietnamese cause at the expense of the United States and her fighting men.

John Kerry did not openly broadcast on the radio as did Tokyo Rose. He did not hand over troop emplacements and material intelligence as did Benedict Arnold.

What he did was systematically over a period of time create situations that were sympathetic to the North Vietnamese. What he did was escalate these actions in such a way as to appear to be a mere protester. Each action was followed by another which climbed higher into the American hierarchy and into the consciousness of the American public. He used his position as a decorated Naval Officer to undermine the American war effort on several fronts.

One such front was the media. His campaign was disinformation worthy of the best KGB operatives. There was the infamous protest where he did or didn’t throw his medals over the fence. There was the senate testimony. There was sixty minutes interview. In each case he played to a national audience.

Another front was political. His trip to France as an unauthorized “envoy” comes to mind. OF course so does his testimony and Q &A with the Fulbright committee of the Senate of the United States.

By advancing the cause of the North Vietnamese, and by systematically undermining the cause of the USA, John Kerry aided the enemy far more than by merely providing funds, arms, or bodies. In short, the North Vietnamese directly benefited from his actions.

In light of all of this, why wasn’t he prosecuted then and there? In our history we’ve tried and executed traitors before. What made John Kerry special?

I can only speculate that the President chose not to prosecute this for reasons of political expediency. Considering the mood of Congress and the American People, his (Kerry’s) trial likely would have rivaled OJ Simpsons as a media circus. One can almost envision a younger Johnny Cochran holding a conical hat and black pajamas praying aloud “If it doesn’t fit you must acquit.”

The final question some would ask is, Did John Kerry intend to commit treason. In our system of justice, intent is often a requirement for conviction.

Truthfully, I cannot read John Kerry’s mind. Only he knows what his intentions were following his return from Vietnam. So, on the matter of intent, I can only assume from the facts that:

By his actions of systematically undermining the United States war efforts though a series of escalating actions;

By openly embracing the North Vietnamese tenets after an unauthorized meeting;

By providing the North Vietnamese with invaluable propaganda material;
There is more than enough publicly available evidence to assume a malicious intent and follow through with the original recommendation.

“That John Kerry be suspended from his duties as a Senator of these United States until questions of treason are lawfully addressed via General Court Martial or Military Tribunal.”

Thank you for reading, for the discussion and debate, and now, like the Commanding Officer in any JAG you have to make up your mind. You may refer it up, tear it up, or anything in between.

It's been fun.

<O:p
<O:p

[glockmail]

.....and trying an American civilian for treason in front of a military tribunal rather than a civilian court seems...well... far fetched, don't you think?

.... Not when many crimes were committed while he was in uniform. Besides, that "civilian" trumps out his military record every chance he gets. Live by the sword, die by it.

[retiredman]

Not when many crimes were committed while he was in uniform. Besides, that "civilian" trumps out his military record every chance he gets. Live by the sword, die by it.

the only "crime" in question in the first recommendation was his alleged violation of article 104... and that alleged violation took place when he was not subject to the UCMJ, and therefore was not subject to an article 32 investigation.

but clearly, when you're in a mudslinging mood, the legality of it all is not an issue to you, eh glock?

"live by the sword, die by it" hardly belongs in a serious debate of this issue, but something shouted from the peanut gallery.... which, I guess, is just where it did come from.:laugh2:

[Gunny]

Call you what I wish? I already did! :laugh2:

Trust me, pal...I sure as hell don't need your permssion to call you a spineless lying sack of shit.

and if you don't like it, put ME on ignore and quit neg repping ME asking for retractions!

wuss

How is he lying? By defending Kerrry's actions, you are complicit in them. It doesn't get simpler than that. I'd say you got who owes who an apology ass-backward.

[Gunny]

the only "crime" in question in the first recommendation was his alleged violation of article 104... and that alleged violation took place when he was not subject to the UCMJ, and therefore was not subject to an article 32 investigation.

but clearly, when you're in a mudslinging mood, the legality of it all is not an issue to you, eh glock?

"live by the sword, die by it" hardly belongs in a serious debate of this issue, but something shouted from the peanut gallery.... which, I guess, is just where it did come from.:laugh2:

Add to that dereliction of duty, or lying. Pick one. Either he was derelict as an officer an gentleman in his duty to immediately report to his next senior in the chain of command any war crimes he witnessed or was ordered to participate in, or he lie to Congress. There is no third option.

[retiredman]

Add to that dereliction of duty, or lying. Pick one. Either he was derelict as an officer an gentleman in his duty to immediately report to his next senior in the chain of command any war crimes he witnessed or was ordered to participate in, or he lie to Congress. There is no third option.


as I have said before, free fire zones, interdiction and harassment fire, search and destroy missions may have been "atrocious" to Kerry, but none of them was a violation of the GC.

[glockmail]

the only "crime" in question in the first recommendation was his alleged violation of article 104... and that alleged violation took place when he was not subject to the UCMJ, and therefore was not subject to an article 32 investigation.

but clearly, when you're in a mudslinging mood, the legality of it all is not an issue to you, eh glock?

"live by the sword, die by it" hardly belongs in a serious debate of this issue, but something shouted from the peanut gallery.... which, I guess, is just where it did come from.:laugh2:

"Yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones.... I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages."

[retiredman]

How is he lying? By defending Kerrry's actions, you are complicit in them. It doesn't get simpler than that. I'd say you got who owes who an apology ass-backward.


By defending Kerry's actions? Have I ever defended Kerry's supposed attacks on all Vietnam veterans? John Kerry himself never even called all vietnam veterans war criminals - I SURE as fuck didn't.

[retiredman]

"Yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones.... I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages."

all perfectly legitimate tactics and none a violation of the GC.

Go read FM6-20

[glockmail]

By defending Kerry's actions? Have I ever defended Kerry's supposed attacks on all Vietnam veterans? John Kerry himself never even called all vietnam veterans war criminals - I SURE as fuck didn't.
Deflection. You've defended his treason.

[retiredman]

Deflection. You've defended his treason.

First off... I disagree with your opinion that he has committed treason.

Secondly, the statement made by gaffer that was in question here was that I had called all vietnam veterans war criminals.

DO try to keep up.

Your silly irrelevant immaterial sniping from the peanut gallery is hilarious!

[glockmail]

First off... I disagree with your opinion that he has committed treason.

Secondly, the statement made by gaffer that was in question here was that I had called all vietnam veterans war criminals.

DO try to keep up.

Your silly irrelevant immaterial sniping from the peanut gallery is hilarious! Of course you say that you disagree. In spite of the facts of course. That's why I state that you are defending a traitor.

With regards to your beef with gaffer, I haven't commented on that. From what I've seen he can not only defend himself, but has already buried you in your own excrement.

[retiredman]

Of course you say that you disagree. In spite of the facts of course. That's why I state that you are defending a traitor.

With regards to your beef with gaffer, I haven't commented on that. From what I've seen he can not only defend himself, but has already buried you in your own excrement.


It is your opinion that I am defending a traitor. newsflash: I think your opinion is worth less than a bucket of warm spit...especially on this subject.

Regarding the beef with gaffer...you say that you have not commented on it but you DID comment on it (liar).... when you said my post was a deflection. that was what that post was about. Either stay in and stay current, or stfu...

or look silly, which, apparently is your choice:laugh2:

[glockmail]

It is your opinion that I am defending a traitor. newsflash: I think your opinion is worth less than a bucket of warm spit...especially on this subject.

Regarding the beef with gaffer...you say that you have not commented on it but you DID comment on it (liar).... when you said my post was a deflection. that was what that post was about. Either stay in and stay current, or stfu...

or look silly, which, apparently is your choice:laugh2:

Bullshit. Re-read post 117. I am commenting specifically on your defense of Kerry's treason; steering your deflection back from your beef with gaffer.

Perhaps you can't read underneath that pile of your own shit that he buried you in.

Regarding your newsflash: the facts are in evidence. Deny them you must.

[retiredman]

How is he lying? By defending Kerrry's actions, you are complicit in them. It doesn't get simpler than that. I'd say you got who owes who an apology ass-backward.


By defending Kerry's actions? Have I ever defended Kerry's supposed attacks on all Vietnam veterans? John Kerry himself never even called all vietnam veterans war criminals - I SURE as fuck didn't.


Deflection. You've defended his treason.

I called gaffer a liar specifically for claiming that I had called all vietnam veterans war criminals. Gunny asked how was he lying. I answered that, and you chimed in.

DO try to keep up.:laugh2:

[retiredman]

Regarding your newsflash: the facts are in evidence. Deny them you must.


look.... you don't know what the fuck you are talking about....you still think that a free fire zone is a war crime.

[retiredman]

"Yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones.... I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages."

by the way...have you had a chance to read FM6-20 yet?:laugh2:

[Gunny]

as I have said before, free fire zones, interdiction and harassment fire, search and destroy missions may have been "atrocious" to Kerry, but none of them was a violation of the GC.

So then he lied to Congress? "Attrocities" as applied to war are violations of the Geneva Convention, Law of War, Code of Conduct and/or the UCMJ.

If in fact, what Kerry considered attrocities were not crimes, then where does he have a case at all to go before Congress with?

[Gunny]

By defending Kerry's actions? Have I ever defended Kerry's supposed attacks on all Vietnam veterans? John Kerry himself never even called all vietnam veterans war criminals - I SURE as fuck didn't.

John Kerry's stance, based on his testimony before Congress; is that war crimes were an everyday occurrence, committed by whoever.

You are defending John Kerry and his actions.

You may very well have not personally accused anyone of anything. But you are defending the man who did. In layman's terms, that means you think what he says is right in regard to this topic.

How is that NOT complicit?

[retiredman]

So then he lied to Congress? "Attrocities" as applied to war are violations of the Geneva Convention, Law of War, Code of Conduct and/or the UCMJ.

If in fact, what Kerry considered attrocities were not crimes, then where does he have a case at all to go before Congress with?


Kerry was not a lawyer. The finer points of military law and the international laws of war were lost on him. He did understand english, however:

a·troc·i·ty
–noun, plural -ties.
1. the quality or state of being atrocious.
2. an atrocious act, thing, or circumstance.

a·tro·cious
–adjective
1. extremely or shockingly wicked, cruel, or brutal: an atrocious crime.
2. shockingly bad or tasteless; dreadful; abominable: an atrocious painting; atrocious manners.

[retiredman]

John Kerry's stance, based on his testimony before Congress; is that war crimes were an everyday occurrence, committed by whoever.

You are defending John Kerry and his actions.

You may very well have not personally accused anyone of anything. But you are defending the man who did. In layman's terms, that means you think what he says is right in regard to this topic.

How is that NOT complicit?

free fire zones, interdiction and harassment fire, search and destroy missions, the burning of villages were all common occurences. All sanctioned and authorized at the highest levels of our government.

I have defended John Kerry's actions in specific instances. I have never defended any disparaging remarks he ever made about any vietnam veteran.

[manu1959]

John Kerry's stance, based on his testimony before Congress; is that war crimes were an everyday occurrence, committed by whoever.

You are defending John Kerry and his actions.

You may very well have not personally accused anyone of anything. But you are defending the man who did. In layman's terms, that means you think what he says is right in regard to this topic.

How is that NOT complicit?

same way i voted for it before i voted against it makes sense......it is cold in maine......affects the brain......

[Gunny]

Kerry was not a lawyer. The finer points of military law and the international laws of war were lost on him. He did understand english, however:

a·troc·i·ty
–noun, plural -ties.
1. the quality or state of being atrocious.
2. an atrocious act, thing, or circumstance.

a·tro·cious
–adjective
1. extremely or shockingly wicked, cruel, or brutal: an atrocious crime.
2. shockingly bad or tasteless; dreadful; abominable: an atrocious painting; atrocious manners.

I wasn't a military lawyer either and I know what attrocity means when applied to armed conflict. It's something outside the norm of blowing each other's heads off is taking place.

Further, the implication that has accompanied his use of the word attrocities for the past 35 years has been that US military servicemen were committing war crimes. I have not until now seen it explained in any other way, nor did I take his testimony in any other way than that.

[retiredman]

same way i voted for it before i voted against it makes sense......it is cold in maine......affects the brain......

if you looked at the quote in context and not merely as a soundbite for political gotcha ads, the kerry vote quote made plenty of sense. It made zero sense - politically - to say it, but when you realize that he was talking about two different amendments - one that made the funding a loan to Iraq the other putting it on the back of the american taxpayer - and he voted for the former and against the latter..it does make sense...but that requires you to study the issue beyond the soundbites, but if you did that, you'd miss wheel of fortune, wouldn't you?:laugh2:

[retiredman]

I wasn't a military lawyer either and I know what attrocity means when applied to armed conflict. It's something outside the norm of blowing each other's heads off is taking place.

Further, the implication that has accompanied his use of the word attrocities for the past 35 years has been that US military servicemen were committing war crimes. I have not until now seen it explained in any other way, nor did I take his testimony in any other way than that.

if you read the testimony, you would see that he was relating the stories of other servicemen, and then he related his own involvement...and even though he may have found free fire zones atrocious, they were not war crimes. same with the other tactics he mentioned.

[manu1959]

if you looked at the quote in context and not merely as a soundbite for political gotcha ads, the kerry vote quote made plenty of sense. It made zero sense - politically - to say it, but when you realize that he was talking about two different amendments - one that made the funding a loan to Iraq the other putting it on the back of the american taxpayer - and he voted for the former and against the latter..it does make sense...but that requires you to study the issue beyond the soundbites, but if you did that, you'd miss wheel of fortune, wouldn't you?:laugh2:

see you did it again....it makes perefect sense what he did except politically.....

it was a great idea right up til it wasn't.....

[retiredman]

see you did it again....it makes perefect sense what he did except politically.....

it was a great idea right up til it wasn't.....

it was a bad idea politically, but it was not nonsensical..... and that, of course, was how it was portrayed. No republican ads ever explained that he was trying to get future Iraqi oil revenues to help pay for the war that toppled Saddam.... but....don't mind me.... aren't hollywood squares reruns on the gameshow channel at this hour?

[manu1959]

it was a bad idea politically, but it was not nonsensical..... and that, of course, was how it was portrayed. No republican ads ever explained that he was trying to get future Iraqi oil revenues to help pay for the war that toppled Saddam.... but....don't mind me.... aren't hollywood squares reruns on the gameshow channel at this hour?

there you go again......how cold is it up there....

[retiredman]

there you go again......how cold is it up there....

warm. I mowed my lawn for the last time this afternoon. how is it where you are?

[glockmail]

look.... you don't know what the fuck you are talking about....you still think that a free fire zone is a war crime. The libs are the ones who called it a war crime, not I. As far as I'm concerned, cordone off an area, drop leaflets, tell all the people to get out, give them 1 hour, and blast away. Kerry's crime is Treason.