 |
SwiftVets.com
Service to Country
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
HardCorps
Ensign
Joined: 10 Aug 2004
Posts: 65
Location: San Diego
|
 Posted: Thu Sep 30, 2004 10:52 am Post subject: More on Kerry's Legal Treason |
 |
|
Hondo, I welcome your analysis but I could not disagree more with several of your points as they relate to historical facts and legal precedent for indictments for treason, and specifically John Kerry’s actions.
ROSENBERGS
"Uhm, no. The Rosenburgs were never tried for treason. They were tried (and fried) for espionage. Big distinction legally."
Although the Rosenbergs were never convicted or indicted for treason (I should have been more specific), your statement is factually incorrect.
If you want to be specific as far as legal distinction, the indictment was neither for espionage or treason- Treason however as it relates to the Constitution was very relevant to the Rosenbergs conviction, but more importantly their death sentences as the espionage act of 1917 did not carry that penalty. The government's case was based on wartime treason: just read the transcripts and the guilty sentence.
Prosecution: "The evidence of the treasonable acts of these three defendants you will find overwhelming . . .”
Here is the sentencing statement of the Judge: "who knows but that millions more of innocent people may pay the price of your treason."
The statement that they were tried for espionage is incorrect and here is the big legal distinction. The Rosenbergs were indicted and convicted for “conspiring to commit espionage in wartime" (1950). The standards of evidence and sentencing guidelines are totally different from espionage. This difference also relates to John Kerry in many significant ways. I am not splitting words here, just as to try someone for "crimes against humanity" requires specific charges and indictments other than crimes against humanity.
The specific conviction language of "in wartime" is significant here: Neither the Korean War nor the Cold War were declared by the war powers act, yet here we have a conviction and death penalty that is contingent on specific conditions for war, treasonous acts and adhering to our enemies.
The idea is not new to our justice system - According to Chief Justice John Marshall "If a body of men be actually assembled, for the purpose of effecting by force a treasonable purpose then any act by the accused; however minute or remote is treason”
DECLARATION OF WAR IS IRRELEVANT
-One thing prosecutors would not need is a formal declaration of war by the United States. The Constitution does not require this in it's definition of treason. Additionally, other indictments of treason in U.S. history have occurred during peacetime or mere riots.
In one case, the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794, two Pennsylvanians were convicted of treason during peacetime. US v. Fries (1799) is another, I can list several others.
- We cannot ignore the historical facts or legal precedents involving treason without declared war.
- The Constitution is not disputed on this fact at all, in fact a number of US Circuit Courts have upheld this finding.
Article III: Section 3
Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
Requirement #1 It is the traitor not the US that levys war against the US. The US need not levy war for treason to take place. The Constitution is clear on this as are the founding Father’s related documents.
OR
Requirement #2 It is not a declaration of war that legally gives an entity the definition of "Enemies". Neither the War powers act, nor the Constitution contain this requirement.
Your statement below is factually incorrect for 3 reasons:
| Quote: | | Indeed, if your position was correct, EVERY peaceful anti-war protestor against any of the above undeclared conflicts could have be prosecuted for treason. I'm pretty sure that happened in exactly ZERO cases. You may feel prosecution for treason appropriate under such circumstances; the courts clearly do not. |
What I feel is irrelevant; it is only what I can prove within the scope of our Constitution and our laws that matters. Too many Americans have zero understanding of the Constitution or our rights and our responsibilities especially when it comes to dissent (which I advocate) and freedom of speech (which you and I protect with our lives).
I am citing for you in this post the specific cases where the Courts DO agree with me.
1. Treason does not require the protester or the dissent to be violent in any way, Peaceful protest can and has certainly caused indictments for treason. Peacefulness has nothing to do with it legally; the Courts have clearly ruled, it is about INTENT, PURPOSE, and AID and ADHEREING to an enemy. These things are only aggravated when a crime is also committed as with Kerry's violation of 18 USC.
2. DECLARED WAR IS NOT REQUIRED! (Whiskey Rebellion).
Other indictments for Treason without Declared War:
-US v. Hanway (1851)
-US v. Burr
-US v. Hoxie(1808)
-US v. Pratt (1869)
Korean Conflict: In Thompson v. Gleason The majority of a three-judge district court maintained that the government acted within the statute, — citing treason cases, when it forfeited benefits on findings that the beneficiary had published pamphlets and made speeches sharply critical of the United States military involvement in Korea. — "It is well settled that aid and assistance to the enemy may be extended in the form of verbal utterance alone, as was the case in this instance."
3. Intent - Your example is too vague as to what the "peaceful protestors" words and resultant impact were in adhering to our enemies. The distinction is critical and has already been constitutionally defined. This is where the US Supreme Court has most recently upheld the legal findings regarding Constitutional Treason involving mere propaganda or speech.
US v. Haupt is a perfect example of a peaceful treason conviction.
US v. Stephan is another “peaceful and harmless acts” treason example.
US v. Cramer another peaceful act of protest.
Here is a specific PROTESTER example as it relates to legal treason in adhering to our enemies, and the direct contradiction of our constitutional and the legal precedents of treason regarding some "peaceful protests" of the Vietnam War:
The VVAW's rally's, marches, documents, broadcasts, and print advertisements DEMANDED violations of US law, overthrow and fragging of military officers, seizing US military bases at home, praise of the Communist war aims, overthrow of the US government and desertion in a way that would make Tokyo Rose look like a Patriot. These are not my opinions or some passionate plea- they are documented facts. Peaceful ?
How can we uphold the many treason prosecutions of the past 227 years and ignore these exact same actions of intent and RESULTING IMPACT? It has already been established by the Courts several times that the 1st Amendment does not protect what Kerry and the VVAW did when others did the same or less.
THIS IS WHERE KERRY AND THE VVAW HAVE NO WAY OF EXPLAINING THEIR WAY OUT OUT OF TREASON:
The World War II cases added to previous doctrine on intent by responding to three kinds of claims that defendants had been of a divided state of mind — out of dual purposes, loyal motive, or dual allegiance. The ruling that the evidence supported the jury's verdict of conviction, in the context of the instruction it approved, the Court apparently holds that if defendant intended to aid the enemy he acted with the requisite wrongful intent; a mixture of purposes will not negative the crime, if the mixture includes an intent to betray. Defendants Chandler and Best presented a related, but distinct, point when they argued that they lacked treasonable intent because, though they intended their propaganda broadcasts to help Germany win and the United States to lose the war, they acted so out of conviction that defeat would serve the best long-term interests of the United States by halting the march of a Jewish Communist conspiracy for world domination. The argument in effect would excuse purpose (an immediate intended objective result of conduct) by motive (an intended more remote result, or at least a different intended result valued for its service to different interests).
In both cases the First Circuit Court of Appeals held that motive was irrelevant, if there were an immediate purpose to aid the enemy.
The Communist Vietnamese goal was to have the United States withdraw unconditionally from Vietnam - Kerry fully (and illegally) endorsed this when meeting with our enemy. The Supreme Court has spoken and his motive was irrelevant as it had an immediate purpose which aided the enemy (even the Viet Cong admit this) among other treasonous consequences which I am sure you are aware.
The Communists also had the goal of using our POW's to further their most powerful tool, propaganda for the world to condemn the US and to break the fighting morale and will of the US Soldiers in battle and at home.
John Kerry intentionally or not, undeniably aided and furthered our enemy goals, and by the definition of our own Courts, Constitution, and the volumes of physical evidence and testimony, John Kerry should be investigated and indicted for treason.
If this will not be done, then the dozens of American citizens who have been charged with treason under similar or less circumstances should have their records expunged.
As far as John Walker Lindh, I have already cited for you many indictments for treason where war was not Declared at all. The record shows clearly that the US could have met the 4 Constitutional and legal requirements for conviction of treason without a declared war in Afghanistan. Nowhere is the government required to press those charges even if it can- this will help explain John Kerry getting a pass. History, as in the Alger Hiss treason "situation" will prove this to be a mistake.
At a minimum, at least John Lindh is serving 20 years for breaking the law, is it justice that John Kerry should not answer for violating 18 USC?
_________________
__________________________
-USMC - Always Faithful
-Platoon Cmdr - Somalia
-ANGLICO FAC - Iraqi Freedom |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Hondo
LCDR
Joined: 26 Aug 2004
Posts: 423
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 30, 2004 6:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Uh, HardCorps . . . .
You need to go back and do a some more homework - both legal
and historical. You can disagree with me all you want, but that
doesn't change the facts.
1. Rosenberg conviction.
Julius and Ethyl Rosenbergs were in fact convicted for espionage
and/or conspiracy to do same. The fact that you wish they had been
convicted of treason or feel they should have been is irrelevant.
The Rosenbergs were NOT convicted of treason. Moreover, given
the facts of their case, they could not have been prosecuted for
treason.
I am aware that the prosecution referred to the Rosenbergs' "treasonous
acts" and that Judge Kaufman referred to their "treason" while
pronouncing sentence. All of that, however, is legally irrelevant. At the
time, Judge Kaufman was reputedly "bucking" for a Supreme Court
appointment and was making what amounts to a campaign speech at the
Rosenbergs' sentencing. Prosecutors routinely use inflammatory
language towards defendents in hopes of influencing the jury. Neither
matters in legal terms. The verdict, however, does. The verdict was
guilty of espionage and/or conspriacy to commit espionage.
Moreover, the Rosenbergs could not have been tried for treason. The
acts for which they were tried don't meet the legal definition of treason.
Treason requires giving aid and comfort TO THE ENEMY, adhering to the
enemy, or taking up arms agains the US. The Rosenbergs did not take up
arms against the US. Therefore, to be prosecuted for treason they would
need to give aid and comfort, or adhere to, an enemy of the US.
Technically, they never did so.
The Rosenbergs were prosecuted for acts occurring during World War II.
Specifically, they spied for the Soviets during World War II. They did not
spy for Germany, Italy, Japan, Romania, Bulgaria, or Hungary (the nations
on which the US declared war during World War II.) The Soviet Union
was a US ally during World War II, not an enemy. As a result, they
gave aid and comfort, or adhered to, an ALLY of the US - not an enemy.
It therefore was legally impossible to convict the Rosenbergs of treason
based on their activities during World War II. That is precisely why they
were tried for espionage and conspiracy to commit same - trying them for
treason was not legally an option. For the same reason, Klaus Fuchs - a
World War II Soviet spy much more damaging to both the US and Great
Britain - was also tried and convicted of espionage in Great Britain vice
being tried for treason.
Were they traitors? As the word is commonly used, yes. Legally, no.
They were spies working for a friendly foreign power. So was
Jonathan Pollard.
Fortunately, the Rosenbergs got exactly what they deserved anyway.
2. Relevance of Declaration of War.
In your preceeding post, you cite a fair number of cases from relatively
early in US history to bolster your contention that a declaration of war is
not necessary for prosecution for treason. That was indeed true early
in US history. However, courts and laws change over time (just look at
the history of Supreme Court rulings on abortion or obscenity). The
Federal Courts' position on treason appears to have done so. I can find
NO CASE IN THE LAST 100 YEARS relating to a prosecution for treason
relating to actions that occurred OUTSIDE A PERIOD OF DECLARED WAR.
As I previously observed, the courts now appear to give much weight, for
purposes of criminal prosecution for treason, on whether or not the US
has declared war or not.
3. Intent.
The three cases you cite all relate to actions DURING A DECLARED
WAR - specifically, treasonous conduct during World War II. As I've
previously noted - and as you seem to have missed or ignored - the
courts now seem to regard the prerequisites for prosecuting treason as
being VERY DIFFERENT during declared and undeclared wars.
4. Lindh.
All the cases you cite of treason trials during other than declared war
relate to conduct from the Civil war and before. None are recent. As I've
noted, it's an open question whether they would be applicable today.
Given the Federal Courts' consistent position over the last 100+ years,
I frankly doubt it. My guess is that federal prosecutors chose to
prosecute Lindh for other than treason because they were afraid they
would lose (since there was no formal declaration of war) and chose to
prosecute him instead on charges that they were certain they could prove.
Don't think for one minute that I approve of Kerry's conduct. I
personally view his post-Vietnam conduct as a reprehensible and, if not
treasonous, bordering on same. For his meetings with the VietCong and
North Vietnamese leadership in Paris, I feel Kerry should have been
prosecuted for violating 9 USC 953 and done hard time. He also should
have been prosecuted for perjury (false testimony to Congress - I'm
assuming he was under oath at the time). However, for roughly a century
the Federal Courts seem to have consistently required a declaration of
war for successful criminal prosecution for treason. Whether Kerry could
have been successfully prosecuted for treason is IMO doubtful at best.
_________________
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing worth a war, is worse."
-- John Stuart Mill |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HardCorps
Ensign
Joined: 10 Aug 2004
Posts: 65
Location: San Diego
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 01, 2004 9:42 am Post subject: Kerry's provable Article III treason |
|
|
Hondo, you need to read my post more carefully before attacking, and your condescending remarks and insults- come on, do you think that is persuasive?
For example your last response:
| Quote: | The Rosenbergs were NOT convicted of treason
|
My previous post: | Quote: | | the Rosenbergs were never convicted or indicted for treason |
What part of that is unclear?
Your last response: | Quote: | | Julius and Ethyl Rosenbergs were in fact convicted for espionage and/or conspiracy to do same. The fact that you wish they had been convicted of treason or feel they should have been is irrelevant. |
(When did I say I "feel " or "wish" anything. How is that a fact? why don't you just call me stupid it's the same thing)
My post: | Quote: | | The Rosenbergs were indicted and convicted for “conspiring to commit espionage in wartime" |
Again, here is the detail you are missing: "Espionage" as a crime and "Conspiring to commit espionage in wartime" are two distinctly different charges with different punishments and levels of proof. Your quote is just not accurate. The 1917 espionage act, 1946 Atomic Energy Act make this very clear. It is not my opinion but the Official written record.
I have given up trying to explain to you the relevance of the Rosenbergs, treason, and John F'ing Kerry- If you don't want to argue the merits and legal facts even when I agree with you and instead want to accuse me of "feeling".
I would however, like the historical record (not me) to correct your post:
Your post: | Quote: | | The Rosenbergs were prosecuted for acts occurring during World War II. ....The Soviet Union was a US ally during World War II, not an enemy. As a result, they gave aid and comfort, or adhered to, an ALLY of the US - not an enemy....-They were spies working for a friendly foreign power |
Spies working for a friendly power???
The Legal Record:
June 30, 1948: Max Elitcher and Morton Sobell drive to Catherine Slip where Sobell met with Julius Rosenberg to exchange microfilm. This crime took place after WWII
1946: Feklisov (confirmed KGB spy) meets with Julius Rosenberg for the last time These were not our allies and there was no declared war.
-Both of these post WWII activities were crutial to a conviction and qualify as treason according to the Constitution and case law.
Your most disturbing and erroneous post on treason however is this:
| Quote: | | In your preceding post, you cite a fair number of cases from relatively early in US history to bolster your contention that a declaration of war is not necessary for prosecution for treason. That was indeed true early in US history. However, courts and laws change over time (just look at the history of Supreme Court rulings on abortion or obscenity). The Federal Courts' position on treason appears to have done so. I can find NO CASE IN THE LAST 100 YEARS relating to a prosecution for treason relating to actions that occurred OUTSIDE A PERIOD OF DECLARED WAR. |
OK, here are two treason convictions that fit your definition:
US v. Fricke (1919)
US v. Robinson (1919)
These American citizens were prosecuted for treason during World War One, a declared war. Something tells me you are going to try and insult your way out of this - don't bother I'll just go "Uh...do my homework".
I can cite for you an equal number of treason cases from all US periods did occur during declared wars. Do you contend that they are irrelevant as well? You can't have it both ways and here is why: The one thing our Supreme Court has been consistent on, is that treason is strictly defined in the US Constitution and can not be added to or subtracted from in it's implementation. Your examples of abortion or obscenities are not strictly defined in the Constitution, treason is.
You claim that the many factual cases of treason I cite (some during declared war, some not, some with peaceful motives, some not) are irrelevant because of when they occurred. Since when? Show me the legal finding that says our historical legal record and US Constitution Article III convictions are irrelevant to the present.
Your contention contradicts the very purpose of treason being specifically written into the Constitution so that no one could change it's meaning or relevance at any time in our history. It also contradicts The Supreme Court's most recent rulings which re-enforced this strict interpretation.
You don't have to debate me here, you must debate the Constitution and the Supreme Court.
Your Response on Lindh:
| Quote: | | All the cases you cite of treason trials during other than declared war relate to conduct from the Civil war and before. |
OK, once again, you can not arbitrarily pick a point in our history of Article III convictions and claim irrelevance, but if you insist, these fit your description anyway:
US v. Lagnason (1904) - no declared war, treason conviction 41 years after the civil war.
US v. de los Reyes (1904) - no declared war
US v. Magtibay (1903) - no declared war
The facts (not feeling) and the Constitutional record of Article III convictions have proved my point; a legal case for treason against John Kerry meets any and all scenarios that his defenders want to put forth, declared war, not declared war, peaceful intent or hostile intent. The legal precedents are real, recent, and relevant in the eyes of the Supreme Court and more importantly the US Constitution. Will it happen? You and I both know better.
To be honest, I could care less about your personal insults to my intelligence, I expect that in a web discussion where people don't look each other in the eye, but when someone uses them as excuses against documented fact and rational thought, not only is it not persuasive to other readers, it detracts from the real enemy, John Kerry.
_________________
__________________________
-USMC - Always Faithful
-Platoon Cmdr - Somalia
-ANGLICO FAC - Iraqi Freedom |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hondo
LCDR
Joined: 26 Aug 2004
Posts: 423
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 01, 2004 3:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
HardCorps:
We both argee Kerry is an idiot and - if not legally a traitor - is one in the common definition of the term.
Our disagreement is over the law and it's interpretation. If you wish to continue, I suggest we take it off-line via PM. I think you are wrong, and that the facts back me up. You apparently feel the same. Reasonable people can disagree on interpreting the law.
To avoid giving Kerry and his supporters any satisfaction regarding the argument, I'll delete my posts on the subject if you will do the same.
_________________
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing worth a war, is worse."
-- John Stuart Mill |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wpage
Lieutenant
Joined: 03 Aug 2004
Posts: 213
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 01, 2004 8:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://star.vietnam.ttu.edu/starweb/vva/servlet.starweb?path=vva/vva.web
FYI - I recently did a search of the Texas Tech Vietnam Virtual Archives for the term "VVAW" and received 87 hits. Supposedly they do have many documents in boxes there but it looks like many of the ones that were previously available online may have been taken offline. Not sure if that is true or not.
Havn't pursued this much, but one document that I did find was a translation of captured documents in 1972 that says tanks to the U.S. Progressives for helping them in their efforts.
It may be worth the look see for someone who lives near there.
_________________
B Co. 2/5th, 1st Cav 71-72 RVN (11B) also
D Co. 1/12th, 1st Cav 1972 RVN (11B)
Battle of Kontum 1972 Easter Offensive
www.thebattleofkontum.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HardCorps
Ensign
Joined: 10 Aug 2004
Posts: 65
Location: San Diego
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 03, 2004 2:37 am Post subject: If Treason prevails, then none shall call it Treason! |
|
|
If Treason prevails, then none shall call it Treason!
Hondo, you say that we agree that Kerry "if not legally a traitor - is one in the common definition of the term.” I think I see the problem. I am not content for Kerry to be labeled a traitor in the common definition. I think he should face fair and official justice unlike what he did when he smeared a generation. It is clear that there is enough evidence for an investigation and a trial. So, we don't agree on that, I do think that Kerry is legally a traitor, there is no "if". This is not my opinion; I don’t “feel” it or even interpret the Supreme Courts findings. My entire position rests on the Courts own case law and official opinions, not mine.
The problem with your position on this is that you do not think that it can be proven that Kerry legally violated the Constitution Article III section 3. as it is defined. This is a perfectly fine position to take for some, and still resent Kerry as I am sure you do. If I am wrong in this analysis of your position, then show me where you think his treason can be proven.
What if everyone here endorsed your opinion, where would we be? “All that it takes for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing"
Your position appears to be: It can not be done for various modern reasons and practicalities.
My Position: It CAN be proven, and must be if our Constitution is to have any meaning, Kerry will not get off this time, 58,000 ghosts and my brothers who are fighting in some Iraqi street right now deserve at least my conviction that treason can be proven and punished, even in our modern convoluted America. I learned this from the WWII, Korea, and Vietnam generation of combat vets- I am who I am. This won't stop on November 3, 2004.
Remember, that a U.S. Vice President was officially tried for Constitutional TREASON. It's not impossible.
What is also troubling is that each time you asked for a specific example or fact, I gave you one, not an opinion.
Once again you say that you "think" I am wrong, yet I "feel" you are wrong as if you are using reason and I am not. You may think this goes unnoticed yet several readers have asked me why I allow your condescension and other remarks to slip by. Normally I would, just as I did to dozens of my fellow citizens when I got back from Iraq and let all the insults and rudeness slip by about my war service. NO More, not from anyone, about anything. As a Marine with 5 deployments- 2 combat, I have never met a Marine (especially the old ones) who would walk away from a challenge or an insult- thick skin has nothing to do with it.
As far as taking it off line, sure. You obviously have an interest in treason case law so if you can come up with additional reasons how we can prove that Kerry legally violated treason laws, then please help.
As far as taking our previous post down as to not give the Kerry folks something, screw them, ALL of my posts give reason after reason why their guy is legally guilty of treason and breaking numerous other laws, they are factual and relevant. Your remarks give reasons why he could not or should not be legally guilty of treason which is perfectly fine, but which posts help Kerry? Which should we e-mail to the Kerry campaign and the newspapers, yours or mine?
In fact, as a Iraq vet who will undoubtedly be going back, I challenge ANY Kerry supporter reading any of my posts to contact me here or via PM and I will be glad to convince them that Kerry is the wrong man in so many ways, and I will not treat them with condescension to prove my point.
Except for the treason issue, I think you are on the right side and have a some good points, so if you want to edit your posts and remove the references to each other, I will gladly edit mine so we can focus all our brain cells on hammering this traitor, there is so much that has not been said about VVAW, Dewey Canyon, CCI, Ion Pacepa, Ortega, Ramsey Clark, etc..
There is another way to officially revoke Kerry's medals especially if the Navy says they were proper, and few here have talked about it. There are also 2 additional laws that Kerry broke that no one is talking about - one regarding Lt. Peck and the other regarding his uniform.
Hard Corps Out.
_________________
__________________________
-USMC - Always Faithful
-Platoon Cmdr - Somalia
-ANGLICO FAC - Iraqi Freedom
Last edited by HardCorps on Sun Oct 03, 2004 8:04 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dusty
Admiral
Joined: 27 Aug 2004
Posts: 1264
Location: East Texas
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 03, 2004 3:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
All that typing and you're gonne delete it. Man I hope not.
There's a lot of great reference information in this thread that I for one would hate to see deleted.
Somebody just find a way to lock Kerry up. He is a weapon of mass destruction for America.
Dusty |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HardCorps
Ensign
Joined: 10 Aug 2004
Posts: 65
Location: San Diego
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 03, 2004 5:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm not deleting the info at all, in fact I am consolidating into specifics how Kerry's violation of the Constitution and other laws (there are two more) in addition to 18 USC are relevant.
_________________
__________________________
-USMC - Always Faithful
-Platoon Cmdr - Somalia
-ANGLICO FAC - Iraqi Freedom |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JB Stone
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 20, 2004 11:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
JOHN EFFING KERRY, SERIAL OPPORTUNIST...
| Quote: | John Kerry, Setting America Adrift
Listen to John Kerry at any one moment and you will never sense the whole. Let him talk about himself long enough and he will indict himself every time.
John Kerry signed a six-year contract to enlist in the Naval Reserve [not the USN] as an OCS Candidate on 2/18/66. However, he did so only after his request for a deferral to study in Paris for an additional year was refused. His Reserve Unit was called up. By his own admission, "When I signed up for the swift boats, they had very little to do with the war. They were engaged in coastal patrolling and that's what I thought I was going to be doing." He requested an early discharge from his Admiral on the grounds of “conscientious objection” to the ongoing conflict. You might say, “John Kerry voted against the military before he voted for it, and then voted against it.” Often criticized for flip-flopping, it’s his consistency and alliances I find most chilling.
A 2/18/70 Harvard Crimson article describes his first bid for the U.S. Congress, campaigning while he was still on Active Duty in the Navy. In “John Kerry: A Navy Dove Runs for Congress”, he states, "I'm an internationalist. I'd like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations." A political career was born. Debating George Bush thirty-four years later he said, “you have to do it in a way that passes … the global test … and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.”
Kerry was soundly rejected in the Democratic Primary. In June, 1970, still in the Navy Reserve, he had joined the Vietnam Veterans Against the War and was making headlines by year’s end. From 1/31 - 2/2/71 Kerry collected “evidence of…"war crimes … committed or witnessed"” at the VVAW’s Winter Soldier Investigation, which he later used in his testimony before the Senate. Many of the “witnesses” he quoted had never actually been in Vietnam or in combat. So, while he may have repeated accurately what he heard to the Senate in April, it was not entirely truthful.
On 4/18/71, he stated to “Meet the Press”, “There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, 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 conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare, all of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions…” Five days later, he threw some of his ribbons, not his medals, over a fence in D.C.
In July of 1971, Kerry appeared on the “Dick Cavett Show”, accusing American Servicemen of War Crimes. Kerry admitted that he'd never actually seen some of the atrocities he testified about, saying, "I personally didn't see personal atrocities in the sense I saw somebody cut a head off or something like that. However, I did take part in free-fire zones, I did take part in harassment and interdiction fire, I did take part in search-and-destroy missions in which the houses of noncombatants were burned to the ground…And all of these acts… are contrary to the Hague and Geneva conventions and to the laws of warfare. So in that sense, anybody who took part in those, if you carry out the application of the Nuremberg Principles, is in fact guilty."
On 2/19/04, he told CNN, "No, I was accusing American leaders…it's the leaders who are responsible, not the soldiers. I never said that." John Kerry now claims to be an American leader. Was he an “American Leader” when he ordered those who served under him to commit what he himself considers to be War Crimes?
John Kerry refuses to release any of his Military Records from 1/3/70 – 7/1/72, during which time he was a Ready Reserve officer and also at the height of his VVAW activities and meeting with the North Vietnamese in Paris. Under oath during the question and answer period following his televised testimony before the U.S. Senate, Kerry said: “I have been to Paris. I have talked to … the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the Provisional Revolutionary Government [both Communist Regimes] and… if the United States were to set a date for withdrawal the prisoners of war would be returned.”
By negotiating for a date certain for our withdrawal while still an Officer in the Naval Reserve, John Kerry created a huge Constitutional dilemma for himself. Title 10, Section 904 of the United States Code [UCMJ] provides: “Any person who… without proper authority, knowingly… communicates or corresponds with or holds any intercourse with the enemy, either directly or indirectly, shall suffer death or such other punishment as a court-martial or military commission may direct.” Given Title 10, Section 904 and Title 18, Section 953, intercourse with the enemy and intercourse with a foreign government with intent to “defeat the measures of” the United States constitute federal crimes. He collaborated with enemy combatants during the war, "adhering to them and giving them aid." The evidence for this is in his own words, covered by another law, The Constitution of the United States, Article III, Section 3.
Kerry’s official Web site features an official Navy document describing his "Honorable Discharge from the Reserves.” This document is dated 2/16/78, a full six years after his original enlistment contract expired. It describes his discharge as being subsequent to the review of "a board of officers,” citing "Title 10, U.S. Code Section 1162 and 1163,” which refers to the grounds for involuntary separation from the service. No ordinary honorable discharge action in the Navy requires a review by a board of officers. The "board of officers" is even more noteworthy because it came about "by direction of the President,” Jimmy Carter. No normal honorable discharge requires the direction of the president.
Less than an hour after his Inauguration, Mr. Carter signed Executive Order 4483 empowering a general amnesty for draft dodgers and other war protesters. It was expanded in March 1977 to include other offenders who may have had general, bad conduct, dishonorable discharges, and any other discharge or sentence with negative effect on military records. In those cases the directive outlined a procedure for appeal on a case by case basis before a board of officers. A satisfactory appeal would result in an improvement of discharge status or an honorable discharge.
Senator Kerry has repeatedly refused to sign Standard Form 180, allowing the release of his complete military records. The Naval Personnel Office confirms that they are still withholding some 100 pages of files.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
