| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
johncollins
Seaman Recruit
Joined: 25 Aug 2004
Posts: 2
|
 Posted: Mon Sep 06, 2004 2:23 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
If there is an actual investigation and they have access to all of Kerry's records that can prove one way or another what the truth of the matter is, it seems to me that:
If Kerry has nothing to fear, it would be in his best interest to have the investigation complete prior to the election so he could claim he was right all along. On the other hand, if he fights the investigation, it is then absolutely obvious that he is hiding something! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
spectrout
Seaman Recruit
Joined: 19 Aug 2004
Posts: 15
Location: South Louisiana
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 06, 2004 2:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Wally626 wrote:
| Quote: | | Good point on the amendment but if they didn't prosecute Hanoi Jane in the 70's they are not going after Kerry now. I pretty sure you would need a formal conviction to invoke this statute |
Only difference Hanoi Jane was merely a "citizen", but John Kerry was a Commissioned Officer in the United States Navy. Otherwise I agree. If they didn't prosecute Hanoi John then it's highly unlikely they'll do it now.
BTW it would seem a Naval Officer would need some sort of approval before undertaking such a venture, and I still think a very strong case could be made for "giving aid and comfort" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
drjohn
Senior Chief Petty Officer
Joined: 09 Aug 2004
Posts: 550
Location: CT
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 06, 2004 2:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Wouldn't Kerry's admission that all officers were war criminals give permission to the North Vietnamese to execute their POW's as such?
Isn't that explicit aid to the enemy? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
spectrout
Seaman Recruit
Joined: 19 Aug 2004
Posts: 15
Location: South Louisiana
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 06, 2004 3:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
A further thought: "citizen" Jane would not be subject to the UCMJ, but if the blog I quoted is correct then as they say "his 1970 meeting with NVA Communists in Paris was in direct violation of the UCMJ's Article 104 part 904, and U.S. Code 18 U.S.C. 953."
Could it be that an investigation was undertake, and perhaps for lack of ironclad proof it was dropped? If so would that be reflected in his files - the ones he wont release? The fact that an investigation was opened would seem to indicate probable cause - something one would not brag about. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mooncusser
Lieutenant
Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 245
Location: Missouri
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 06, 2004 3:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sorry to burst everyones bubble.
United States Senators are not held to same standards as us low-life citizens.
This will be a white wash. Just like ole neck-brace Kennedy.
If the average citizen done what Kennedy did...minumum charge..manslaughter.
_________________
MACV '64...65
Thu Thua, Long An
I actually won the election before I lost it.
"It is a good day to fight! It is a good day to die! Strong hearts, brave hearts to the front! Weak hearts and cowards to the rear!" (Crazy Horse) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ArmyWife
Lieutenant
Joined: 06 Aug 2004
Posts: 218
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 06, 2004 7:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| spectrout wrote: | Wally626 wrote:
| Quote: | | Good point on the amendment but if they didn't prosecute Hanoi Jane in the 70's they are not going after Kerry now. I pretty sure you would need a formal conviction to invoke this statute |
Only difference Hanoi Jane was merely a "citizen", but John Kerry was a Commissioned Officer in the United States Navy. Otherwise I agree. If they didn't prosecute Hanoi John then it's highly unlikely they'll do it now.
BTW it would seem a Naval Officer would need some sort of approval before undertaking such a venture, and I still think a very strong case could be made for "giving aid and comfort" |
From what I've read, Kerry was an officer in the Navy Reserve, and not on duty, at the time that he went to Paris. Reserve officers have greater freedom to engage in politics when they are not on duty, and they don't need to get permission. As an example of this, reserve officers can, for instance, hold elected political office during their off-duty time, while active component military folks cannot.
I agree with other posters here that if the Nixon Administration had thought they could win a case against John Kerry, they would have brought one back then. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DenisC
Seaman
Joined: 13 Aug 2004
Posts: 166
Location: Ft. Lauderdale, FL
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 06, 2004 10:19 pm Post subject: Question? |
|
|
Isn't it true that Flag Officer promotions have to be approved by Congress? If so, do you think the Navy will really touch this? That is why I think it will just sit in an In-Box.
_________________
DenisC
173rd Airborne, RVN '65-67' |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hondo
LCDR
Joined: 26 Aug 2004
Posts: 423
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 08, 2004 8:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Actually, ALL regular Armed Forces officer promotions must be confirmed by the Senate. Reserve promotions to O6 and above must also have Senate confirmation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sevry
Commander
Joined: 13 Aug 2004
Posts: 326
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 18, 2004 9:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| johncollins wrote: | | If there is an actual investigation |
Apparently, there was not. But they SAID there was. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
