Although this is a current topic of discussion, I placed it in the history section because it happened over 30 years ago.

Did John Kerry's testimony to congress in 1971 cause additional harm to POW's who were in Vietnam at the time?

Many POW's certainly think it did. Given that their Vietnamese captors haven't directly spoken to the matter (although they have honored Kerry, all the available evidence says that his testimony was harmful.

I, for one, would like to see what you mean by all the available evidence. Rarely is anything that one sided, but it doesn't matter, since you haven't cited any evidence.

Did John Kerry's testimony to congress in 1971 cause additional harm to POW's who were in Vietnam at the time?

No. John Kerry, along with the other Vietnam veterans were exercising a right that goes back in our English common law tradition to the Magna Carta of 1215. The principle was affirmed by the 1st Amendment to The Constitution of the United States in 1791: "Congress shall make no law respecting ... the right of the people to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

What is the purpose in fighting a war, if we try to nullify the 1st amendment to reign in protest against that war?

Kerry and the others were exercising their constitutional rights. As veterans, they knew what was going on in Vietnam. Without opposition, there would have been no pressure to eventually end the war. I think you can make a case for the idea that Kerry and his fellow protestors actually saved American lives and brought about an early end to the war and an earlier release of POWs.

Talk about dodging a direct question .

Here is the question:

You cite the 1st amendment? You cite the Magna Carta? Were Mr. Amendment or Mr. Carta Prisoners of War ?

The answer is obvious. If John Kerry's testimony before congress caused one additional pain to be inflicted on ANY SINGLE POW, whether that pain was physical or mental, then John Kerry's testimony DID "cause additional harm to POW'S", regardless if that Soldier/Airman etc, last name was Jones, Williams, Amendment or Carta.

Any other answer is simply running from the truth.

Like Redliner stated. I am not asking about the 1st amendment or even if anyone thought his statements were treasonous.

Is there any way anyone can seriously say no to this question. POWs were being tortured and forced to admit to war crimes they had not committed. Then along comes Kerry in April of 1971 saying the Americans in Vietnam were war criminals. The captors even used Kerry's own words and played them back to the POWs as they interrogated and tortured them.

I suppose in a Perry Mason show, simple "yes" or "no" answers have dramatic impact. Yet we are debating an issue here. Don't play TV lawyer games with me. I don't think anyone really knows whether a prisoner or prisoners were tortured because of Kerry's testimony.The My Lai case was documented as far back as 1968, so we and the world already knew about war crimes.

Like I said, I think we can make a case for the idea that Kerry and the other protestors actually helped end the war and get the prisoners released earlier than they might have been.

It is interesting to note that Nixon promised to end the war by the end of his first term. Kerry's words came near the end of Nixon's first term. Conveniently, Nixon ended the war at the beginning of his abbreviated second term. This was the same Nixon who Nixon who was friends with John O'Neill of Swift Boat fame. Perhaps Kerry would not have had to testify if Nixon had kept his promise.

By your logic, because Kerry was protesting a war he thought was wrong he is guilty of torturing prisoners. So would you also indict our government for putting those soldiers in that position since they sent them off to an unnecessary war? I would hope so regardless of your opinion of Kerry.

anything can be used against some one somehow.
So should Kerry have remained quiet and allowed the lives of American soldiers to be so casually wasted? You really find what Kerry did the greater evil here?

The actions of our military that gave us such icons of military intelligence like Hamburger Hill is the lesser offense?

The question posted was:

Does it take Perry Mason to get an answer to a simple question?

It appears to me that SOMEONE would know if it did, and the only testimony required would be of a POW that had additional hardships placed on him as a result of Kerry's statements. No Mr Amendment and Mr. Carta might have been in different POW camps, but some have said their captivity was affected. I tend to go with "first person" testimony.

The legal system cannot be skirted, just because it protects someone you disagree with. The first amendmen and its roots in English traditon were valid before this issue came up and will be valid long after it's gone.

Again, Nixon's prolonging of the war probably had more to do with POW suffering than anything Kerry did within his 1st Amendment rights.

My topic is not of that about President Nixon. If you would like to start a debate on Nixon's decisions in the past please do so. But it has nothing to do with the debate question I posed.

So BoF are you answering in the affirmative or negative to the debate question?

I'm sorry, Is this a question of law BoF?




Sue Nixon, see if anyone cares. The question is easily understandable. We have accounts from POW's that indicate that the answer to the question is Yes! I don't think a single POW was given an attorney while the ADDITIONAL beatings were administered, or do you have proof otherwise. If not then you are simply, and once again, dodging the question.