Full Version: Did John Kerry betray the US?
Many questions have been raised about John Kerry's actions after the war and during the war in Vietnam. The following is a sum up of Kerry's actions and the case against him.
Punitive Articles of the UCMJ
Article 104—Aiding the enemy
http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/mcm/bl104.htm
http://www.c-span.org/vote2004/jkerrytestimony.asp
This state's that if Kerry was not authorized to meet with the enemy then he has broken the UMJC code.
One of the citations for Kerry's medal was not even signed by the persons who's signature was on it.
www.suntimes.com/output/elect/cst-nws-lips28.html
Kerry's first purple heart has come into question because he did not recieve any enemy fire - via his own journal to aquire the award.
www.cnsnews.com/ViewCommentary.asp?Page=%5CCommentary%5Carchive%5C200408%5CCOM20040820b.html
John Kerry had to backtrack his "Christmas in Cambodia" story that was "seared" in his memory.
http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20040809-090612-9480r.htm
Kerry also ordered the "shredding" of documents pertaining to POW/MIA's in Vietnam to pave the way for normalizing relations in Vietnam.
http://www.powmiafamiliesagainstjohnkerry.com/
http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/staticpa...040531140357545
Photograph of John Kerry meeting with Comrade Do Muoi, General Secretary of the Communist Party of Vietnam. Photo is displayed in the War Remnants Museum (formerly the "War Crimes Museum") in Saigon.
Because of normalized relations with Vietnam. Kerry's cousin was also a contributer to a deal brokered in Vietnam.
http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_john_kerry2.htm
7. Kerry's cousin, C. Stewart Forbes, chief executive for Colliers International, assisted in brokering a $905 million deal to develop a deep-sea port at Vung Tau, Vietnam.
True. In 1993, under the direction of CEO C. Stewart Forbes (a relative of Kerry on his mother's side), Boston-based real estate giant Colliers International brokered just such a deal between an Asian subsidiary, Colliers Jardine, and the Vietnamese government to develop the port of Vung Tau.
Retired Gen. George S. Patton III says Kerry aided the enemy.
http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_john_kerry2.htm
4. Retired Gen. George S. Patton III charged that Mr. Kerry's actions as an anti-war activist 'gave aid and comfort to the enemy.'
True. Patton uttered the remark in his capacity as a veterans' spokesman for Ray Shamie, Kerry's Republican opponent in the 1984 Massachusetts Senate race.
From the New York Times, Oct. 30, 1984:
The most heated moment of the campaign this year came when John McManus, a spokesman for the John Birch Society, and Maj. Gen. George S. Patton Jr., retired, the chairman of a Veterans for Shamie group, charged that Mr. Kerry was a Communist sympathizer guilty of "near-treasonous activity" in the Vietnam War.
From the Washington Post, Oct. 24, 1984:
Joining McManus, retired general George S. Patton, son of the famous World War II general and honorary chairman of Shamie's veterans' committee, called Kerry "soft on communism" and said that, by protesting the war, Kerry "gave aid and comfort to the enemy and probably caused some of my guys to get killed."
The case against Kerry's traitorous actions.
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=3778
According to Steven Pitkin's, John Kerry coerced soldiers into telling lies.
Steven Pitkin's story.
http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/staticpa...hp?page=Pitkin1
...
I was wounded in 1969 and when well enough to walk and return to the US I was spit on, ridiculed and had feces thrown at my uniform. I was mad at my country for sending me to a war it was not committed to win and bitter at being vilified for serving my country.
After discharge from the Army I met a representative of “Vietnam Veterans Against the War.” He wore jungle fatigues, spoke like a Vietnam veteran and held out a hand of friendship, a kind of Vietnam era VFW. I joined, not knowing they were radicals.
...
I rode to Detroit with John Kerry and others in a freezing cold van. While Kerry was interested in atrocities, I hoped to meet pretty women.
In Detroit Kerry pressed me to testify but I told him I didn’t see any atrocities in Vietnam. They needed me for their purpose because I was one of the few present who had been in combat.
During a break, John Kerry and some moderators surrounded me. Kerry said, “I need you to say you saw war crimes and atrocities in Vietnam.” Others said “Come on man, the brothers need you!” and “Don’t you want to help save lives in Vietnam?” Someone whispered in my ear “It’s a long walk back to Baltimore.”
I reluctantly agreed to say something, and Kerry said “OK, we’re going to have a dialogue with you recorded before you go out there. I need you to talk about the beating of civilians and enemy personnel.”
Kerry coached me to “Specify indiscriminate artillery on villages, racism, brutality and rape.” He said he’d help me with specifics.
...
But I didn’t. Following Kerry’s prompting I told false stories, a rambling bunch of generalities sprinkled with references to racism, atrocities, and an organized underground in country, along with some half-truths to please the mob.
When it was over I went on with my life, rejoined the military, and buried VVAW as a dark memory. When I later discovered Kerry had been meeting with the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong in Paris and repeating their talking points in the US while our boys were still dying, I was sick at having helped him.
I have noted the backlash against veterans who speak out against Kerry now that he wants to be President. Many call it dirty politics. But it makes no difference to me whether Kerry is a Democrat or Republican; this is a matter of keeping faith with my country. Whatever you say about me, I now must tell the truth about Kerry and about myself.
Recently in Washington DC a group of Vietnam vets held a rally. At the last minute I was given a few moments to speak to the crowd of thousands. I nervously stepped up on the stage, gripped the podium with shaking hands and as I confessed to the crowd what I had done long ago I could see anger on their faces. But when I asked them to forgive me, I heard someone shout "You're already forgiven!" I saw aging veterans, wives and their adult children standing in the sun with tears on their faces. There were also smiles. From these people I felt closure, my dark conscience brightened. As I stepped off the stage, many lined up to shake my hand and hug me, and I was overwhelmed.
I failed those I owed the most loyalty long ago. That’s my fault, not John Kerry’s. But Kerry did use me, and he knowingly used lies to denounce a generation of fine American troops.
...
According to historian Guenter Lewy backed up with an investigation of the Naval Investigative Service he asserts that the VVAW was using false witnesses to achieve political gain.
http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/staticpa...040216201143824
"America in Vietnam", Guenter Lewy, Oxford University press, 1978, Chapter 9, Atrocities: Fiction and Fact, pgs. 316 - 322.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,132405,00.html
Steven Pitkin in a video taken during the Winter Soldier investigation.
Hanoi Approved of Role Played By Anti-War Vets
http://www.nysun.com/article/3756
The questions for debate are.
Did John Kerry aid the enemy during the Vietnam war?
Is John Kerry a traitor?
Does it matter for this election?
Punitive Articles of the UCMJ
Article 104—Aiding the enemy
http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/mcm/bl104.htm
QUOTE
(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.
(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.
http://www.c-span.org/vote2004/jkerrytestimony.asp
QUOTE
Mr. Kerry: My feeling, Senator, is undoubtedly this Congress, and I don't mean to sound pessimistic, but I do not believe that this Congress will, in fact, end the war as we would like to, which is immediately and unilaterally and, therefore, if I were to speak I would say we would set a date and the date obviously would be the earliest possible date. But I would like to say, in answering that, that I do not believe it is necessary to stall any longer. I have been to Paris. I have talked with both delegations at the peace talks, that is to say the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the Provisional Revolutionary Government and of all eight of Madam Binh's points it has been stated time and time again, and was stated by Senator Vance Hartke when he returned from Paris, and it has been stated by many other officials of this Government, if the United States were to set a date for withdrawal the prisoners of war would be returned.
This state's that if Kerry was not authorized to meet with the enemy then he has broken the UMJC code.
One of the citations for Kerry's medal was not even signed by the persons who's signature was on it.
www.suntimes.com/output/elect/cst-nws-lips28.html
Kerry's first purple heart has come into question because he did not recieve any enemy fire - via his own journal to aquire the award.
www.cnsnews.com/ViewCommentary.asp?Page=%5CCommentary%5Carchive%5C200408%5CCOM20040820b.html
John Kerry had to backtrack his "Christmas in Cambodia" story that was "seared" in his memory.
http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20040809-090612-9480r.htm
Kerry also ordered the "shredding" of documents pertaining to POW/MIA's in Vietnam to pave the way for normalizing relations in Vietnam.
http://www.powmiafamiliesagainstjohnkerry.com/
http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/staticpa...040531140357545
Photograph of John Kerry meeting with Comrade Do Muoi, General Secretary of the Communist Party of Vietnam. Photo is displayed in the War Remnants Museum (formerly the "War Crimes Museum") in Saigon.
Because of normalized relations with Vietnam. Kerry's cousin was also a contributer to a deal brokered in Vietnam.
http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_john_kerry2.htm
7. Kerry's cousin, C. Stewart Forbes, chief executive for Colliers International, assisted in brokering a $905 million deal to develop a deep-sea port at Vung Tau, Vietnam.
True. In 1993, under the direction of CEO C. Stewart Forbes (a relative of Kerry on his mother's side), Boston-based real estate giant Colliers International brokered just such a deal between an Asian subsidiary, Colliers Jardine, and the Vietnamese government to develop the port of Vung Tau.
Retired Gen. George S. Patton III says Kerry aided the enemy.
http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_john_kerry2.htm
4. Retired Gen. George S. Patton III charged that Mr. Kerry's actions as an anti-war activist 'gave aid and comfort to the enemy.'
True. Patton uttered the remark in his capacity as a veterans' spokesman for Ray Shamie, Kerry's Republican opponent in the 1984 Massachusetts Senate race.
From the New York Times, Oct. 30, 1984:
The most heated moment of the campaign this year came when John McManus, a spokesman for the John Birch Society, and Maj. Gen. George S. Patton Jr., retired, the chairman of a Veterans for Shamie group, charged that Mr. Kerry was a Communist sympathizer guilty of "near-treasonous activity" in the Vietnam War.
From the Washington Post, Oct. 24, 1984:
Joining McManus, retired general George S. Patton, son of the famous World War II general and honorary chairman of Shamie's veterans' committee, called Kerry "soft on communism" and said that, by protesting the war, Kerry "gave aid and comfort to the enemy and probably caused some of my guys to get killed."
The case against Kerry's traitorous actions.
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=3778
According to Steven Pitkin's, John Kerry coerced soldiers into telling lies.
Steven Pitkin's story.
http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/staticpa...hp?page=Pitkin1
...
I was wounded in 1969 and when well enough to walk and return to the US I was spit on, ridiculed and had feces thrown at my uniform. I was mad at my country for sending me to a war it was not committed to win and bitter at being vilified for serving my country.
After discharge from the Army I met a representative of “Vietnam Veterans Against the War.” He wore jungle fatigues, spoke like a Vietnam veteran and held out a hand of friendship, a kind of Vietnam era VFW. I joined, not knowing they were radicals.
...
I rode to Detroit with John Kerry and others in a freezing cold van. While Kerry was interested in atrocities, I hoped to meet pretty women.
In Detroit Kerry pressed me to testify but I told him I didn’t see any atrocities in Vietnam. They needed me for their purpose because I was one of the few present who had been in combat.
During a break, John Kerry and some moderators surrounded me. Kerry said, “I need you to say you saw war crimes and atrocities in Vietnam.” Others said “Come on man, the brothers need you!” and “Don’t you want to help save lives in Vietnam?” Someone whispered in my ear “It’s a long walk back to Baltimore.”
I reluctantly agreed to say something, and Kerry said “OK, we’re going to have a dialogue with you recorded before you go out there. I need you to talk about the beating of civilians and enemy personnel.”
Kerry coached me to “Specify indiscriminate artillery on villages, racism, brutality and rape.” He said he’d help me with specifics.
...
But I didn’t. Following Kerry’s prompting I told false stories, a rambling bunch of generalities sprinkled with references to racism, atrocities, and an organized underground in country, along with some half-truths to please the mob.
When it was over I went on with my life, rejoined the military, and buried VVAW as a dark memory. When I later discovered Kerry had been meeting with the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong in Paris and repeating their talking points in the US while our boys were still dying, I was sick at having helped him.
I have noted the backlash against veterans who speak out against Kerry now that he wants to be President. Many call it dirty politics. But it makes no difference to me whether Kerry is a Democrat or Republican; this is a matter of keeping faith with my country. Whatever you say about me, I now must tell the truth about Kerry and about myself.
Recently in Washington DC a group of Vietnam vets held a rally. At the last minute I was given a few moments to speak to the crowd of thousands. I nervously stepped up on the stage, gripped the podium with shaking hands and as I confessed to the crowd what I had done long ago I could see anger on their faces. But when I asked them to forgive me, I heard someone shout "You're already forgiven!" I saw aging veterans, wives and their adult children standing in the sun with tears on their faces. There were also smiles. From these people I felt closure, my dark conscience brightened. As I stepped off the stage, many lined up to shake my hand and hug me, and I was overwhelmed.
I failed those I owed the most loyalty long ago. That’s my fault, not John Kerry’s. But Kerry did use me, and he knowingly used lies to denounce a generation of fine American troops.
...
According to historian Guenter Lewy backed up with an investigation of the Naval Investigative Service he asserts that the VVAW was using false witnesses to achieve political gain.
QUOTE
From 31 January to 2 February 1971, the VVAW, with financial backing from actress Jane Fonda, convened a hearing, known as the Winter Soldier Investigation, in the city of Detroit. More than 100 veterans and 16 civilians testified at this hearing about "war crimes which they either committed or witnessed"; some of them had given similar testimony at the CCI inquiry in Washington. The allegations included using prisoners for target practice and subjecting them to a variety of grisly tortures to extract information, cutting off the ears of dead VCs, throwing VC suspects out of helicopters, burning villages, gang rapes of women, packing the vagina of a North Vietnamese nurse full of grease with a grease gun, and the like. Among the persons assisting the VVAW in organizing and preparing this hearing was Mark Lane, author of a book attacking the Warren Commission probe of the Kennedy Assassination and more recently of "Conversations with Americans", a book of interviews with Vietnam veterans about war crimes. On 22 December 1970 Lane's book had received a highly critical review in the "New York Times Book Review" by Neil Sheehan, who was able to show that some of the alleged "witnesses" of Lane's war crimes had never even served in Vietnam while others had not been in the combat situations they described in horrid detail.
-----
The results of this investigation, carried out by the Naval Investigative Service, are interesting and revealing.
Many of the veterans, though assured that they would not be questioned about atrocities they might have committed personally, refused to be interviewed. One of the active members of the VVAW told investigators that the leadership had directed the entire membership not to cooperate with military authorities. A black Marine who agreed to be interviewed was unable to provide details of the outrages he had described at the hearing, but he called the Vietnam War "one huge atrocity" and "a racist plot." He admitted that the question of atrocities had not occurred to him while he was in Vietnam, and that he had been assisted in the preparation of his testimony by a member of the Nation of Islam. But the most damaging finding consisted of the sworn statements of several veterans, corroborated by witnesses, that they had in fact not attended the hearing in Detroit. One of them had never been to Detroit in all his life. He did not know, he stated, who might have used his name. Incidents similar to some of those described at the VVAW hearing undoubtedly did occur. We know that hamlets were destroyed, prisoners tortured, and corpses mutilated. Yet these incidents either (as in the destruction of hamlets) did not violate the law of war or took place in breach of existing regulations. In either case, they were not, as alleged, part of a "criminal policy." The VVAW's use of fake witnesses and the failure to cooperate with military authorities and to provide crucial details of the incidents further cast serious doubt on the professed desire to serve the causes of justice and humanity. It is more likely that this inquiry, like others earlier and later, had primarily political motives and goals.
-----
The results of this investigation, carried out by the Naval Investigative Service, are interesting and revealing.
Many of the veterans, though assured that they would not be questioned about atrocities they might have committed personally, refused to be interviewed. One of the active members of the VVAW told investigators that the leadership had directed the entire membership not to cooperate with military authorities. A black Marine who agreed to be interviewed was unable to provide details of the outrages he had described at the hearing, but he called the Vietnam War "one huge atrocity" and "a racist plot." He admitted that the question of atrocities had not occurred to him while he was in Vietnam, and that he had been assisted in the preparation of his testimony by a member of the Nation of Islam. But the most damaging finding consisted of the sworn statements of several veterans, corroborated by witnesses, that they had in fact not attended the hearing in Detroit. One of them had never been to Detroit in all his life. He did not know, he stated, who might have used his name. Incidents similar to some of those described at the VVAW hearing undoubtedly did occur. We know that hamlets were destroyed, prisoners tortured, and corpses mutilated. Yet these incidents either (as in the destruction of hamlets) did not violate the law of war or took place in breach of existing regulations. In either case, they were not, as alleged, part of a "criminal policy." The VVAW's use of fake witnesses and the failure to cooperate with military authorities and to provide crucial details of the incidents further cast serious doubt on the professed desire to serve the causes of justice and humanity. It is more likely that this inquiry, like others earlier and later, had primarily political motives and goals.
http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/staticpa...040216201143824
"America in Vietnam", Guenter Lewy, Oxford University press, 1978, Chapter 9, Atrocities: Fiction and Fact, pgs. 316 - 322.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,132405,00.html
Steven Pitkin in a video taken during the Winter Soldier investigation.
QUOTE
WASHINGTON — A veteran who testified to John Kerry (search) about atrocities he committed in the Vietnam War (search) is now claiming that the Democratic presidential candidate coerced him to tell tales.
Hanoi Approved of Role Played By Anti-War Vets
http://www.nysun.com/article/3756
QUOTE
The Circular and the Directive are listed as items numbered 2150901039b and 2150901041 respectively. Their authenticity was confirmed by Stephen Maxner, archivist at the Vietnam Archive.
...
The CDEC cover sheet of the "Directive" indicates it was "acquired" on May 12, 1971. The cover sheet itself is dated June 30, 1971, and is entitled "VC Efforts to Back Antiwar Demonstrations in the United States." It shows a detailed knowledge of such VVAW activities as the Dewey Canyon demonstration on the Mall in Washington in April 1971, mentioning the "return of their medals." And the Saigon American military intelligence cover sheet dates the information in that document as being assembled in Vietnam only a week after the Washington VVAW demonstration had taken place.
The CDEC Viet Cong document titled "Circular on Antiwar Movements in the US" notes, "The spontaneous antiwar movements in the US have received assistance and guidance from the friendly (VC/NVN) delegations at the Paris Peace Talks."
...
FBI surveillance and Mr. Kerry's own statements have established his two visits to Paris to meet with the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong delegations to the Paris Peace Talks as taking place in June of 1970 and August of 1971.
An FBI surveillance report dated November 11, 1971, has also established that Mr. Kerry and Al Hubbard, the executive director of the VVAW who had brought Mr. Kerry into the organization, planned to return to meet with them again in Paris on November 15, 1971.
...
The CDEC cover sheet of the "Directive" indicates it was "acquired" on May 12, 1971. The cover sheet itself is dated June 30, 1971, and is entitled "VC Efforts to Back Antiwar Demonstrations in the United States." It shows a detailed knowledge of such VVAW activities as the Dewey Canyon demonstration on the Mall in Washington in April 1971, mentioning the "return of their medals." And the Saigon American military intelligence cover sheet dates the information in that document as being assembled in Vietnam only a week after the Washington VVAW demonstration had taken place.
The CDEC Viet Cong document titled "Circular on Antiwar Movements in the US" notes, "The spontaneous antiwar movements in the US have received assistance and guidance from the friendly (VC/NVN) delegations at the Paris Peace Talks."
...
FBI surveillance and Mr. Kerry's own statements have established his two visits to Paris to meet with the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong delegations to the Paris Peace Talks as taking place in June of 1970 and August of 1971.
An FBI surveillance report dated November 11, 1971, has also established that Mr. Kerry and Al Hubbard, the executive director of the VVAW who had brought Mr. Kerry into the organization, planned to return to meet with them again in Paris on November 15, 1971.
The questions for debate are.
Did John Kerry aid the enemy during the Vietnam war?
Is John Kerry a traitor?
Does it matter for this election?
I have a question:
...was Kerry still in uniform when he spoke to North Vietnamese in Paris?
QUOTE
This state's that if Kerry was not authorized to meet with the enemy then he has broken the UMJC code.
...was Kerry still in uniform when he spoke to North Vietnamese in Paris?
QUOTE(Vampiel @ Oct 28 2004, 09:01 AM)
The questions for debate are.
Did John Kerry aid the enemy during the Vietnam war?
No.
Is John Kerry a traitor?
No.
Does it matter for this election?
No.
Did John Kerry aid the enemy during the Vietnam war?
No.
Is John Kerry a traitor?
No.
Does it matter for this election?
No.
Welcome to The Perfect Storm of the Politics of Personal Destruction. Please put on your hazmat suit before entering.
It took a while but I think we have finally reached the point where we are not at the bottom of the barrel, but below the bottom of the barrel, where the soil is dark and moist and the nasty, wiggly things that hide from the light come crawling out.
In dwindling days of the election and fueled by their rabid hatred and contempt for Senator John Kerry, some of his most rabid detractors are actually trying to make a case that a decorated war hero, a prosecuting attorney, former Lt. Governor and four-term United States Senator is a traitor to his country.
Let us grant this absurd premise the benefit of the doubt. If by some macabre manipulation of events, Kerry is the true "Manchurian Candidate" who has betrayed his nation, what under the Uniform Code of Military Justice should be the penalty Kerry should pay for his crimes?
Maximum punishment. Death or such other punishment as a court-martial or military commission may direct.
I wonder how it is that Vampiel alone has discovered a hidden truth that the voters of Massachusetts, the Pentagon, the U.S. Senate, and Karl Rove did not? When will you be performing a citizen's arrest of Senator Kerry? Would you prefer Kerry be locked away for the rest of his life or executed by a firing squad?
It is tempting to dismiss this lunacy as the last desperate gasp by right-wing extremists to rewrite history to a version more their liking. Apparently, wallowing in the mud doesn't discourage them in the least. If you can't beat a man with the facts, screw the facts and pervert them instead to fit the agenda. If it weren't so disgusting an act of intellectual bankruptcy, it would just be sad
Perhaps the purpose of this thread is to serve as a reminder yet again that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
QUOTE(moif @ Oct 28 2004, 09:41 AM)
I have a question:
...was Kerry still in uniform when he spoke to North Vietnamese in Paris?
QUOTE
This state's that if Kerry was not authorized to meet with the enemy then he has broken the UMJC code.
...was Kerry still in uniform when he spoke to North Vietnamese in Paris?
That is debatable but insignificant legally. The UCMJ state's that citizens are also held accountable for the code relating to communicating with the enemy during a time of war.
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=3778
QUOTE
In the UCMJ, Article 104 has this under "Explanation" section:
Explanation.
(1) Scope of Article 104. This article denounces offenses by all persons whether or not otherwise subject to military law. Offenders may be tried by court-martial or by military commission.
This seems to imply that in the case of Article 104, Aiding the enemy, individuals become subject to the provisions of the UCMJ whether or not they are subject to military law as it states above in (1).
Explanation.
(1) Scope of Article 104. This article denounces offenses by all persons whether or not otherwise subject to military law. Offenders may be tried by court-martial or by military commission.
This seems to imply that in the case of Article 104, Aiding the enemy, individuals become subject to the provisions of the UCMJ whether or not they are subject to military law as it states above in (1).
QUOTE
wonder how it is that Vampiel alone has discovered a hidden truth that the voters of Massachusetts, the Pentagon, the U.S. Senate, and Karl Rove did not? When will you be performing a citizen's arrest of Senator Kerry? Would you prefer Kerry be locked away for the rest of his life or executed by a firing squad?
First of all thank you for degrading my intelligence.
Secondly your arguement about how if "someone is guilty then they must have allready been convicted because other people should know this" is laughable at best.
To quote Einstien "I thought of it while riding my bike".
Thirdly I am not the only one who can see the self admitted evidence. 185,831 other people have as well.
QUOTE
Perhaps the purpose of this thread is to serve as a reminder yet again that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
You can spin around, clap your hands, and say that ten times over. I completely agree.
Maximum punishment. Death or such other punishment as a court-martial or military commission may direct.
Yes, it is quite distrubing against Kerry isnt it?
QUOTE(Vampiel @ Oct 28 2004, 10:17 AM)
Secondly your arguement about how if "someone is guilty then they must have allready been convicted because other people should know this" is laughable at best.
To quote Einstien "I thought of it while riding my bike".
Thirdly I am not the only one who can see the self admitted evidence. 185,831 other people have as well.
Maximum punishment. Death or such other punishment as a court-martial or military commission may direct.
Yes, it is quite distrubing against Kerry isnt it?
To quote Einstien "I thought of it while riding my bike".
Thirdly I am not the only one who can see the self admitted evidence. 185,831 other people have as well.
Maximum punishment. Death or such other punishment as a court-martial or military commission may direct.
Yes, it is quite distrubing against Kerry isnt it?
Which proves what exactly? That you can fool 185,831 people? Porn gets a lot of hits on the Internet too. That doesn't make it a form of entertainment widely accepted in society.
"Self-admitted evidence," you say? By whom?
Well, if Kerry should happen to be elected the 44th President of the United States next week I'm sure he will immediately resign and have himself arrested. Or maybe he'll just take the Oath of Office from the Chief Justice, then pull out a sword and commit hari-kari while the world bears witness. If Bush is reelected he can make arresting Kerry for treason his first priority.
This is actually funny! 
And, not really worthy of any comment other than "THE VIETNAM WAR HAS ENDED!" It's a reminder that A LOT of people seem to need! I find it quite amusing that many posts bringing up "speculation" on past Bush exploits become closed quickly here because the "topic for debate is vague" or "relates to religion" or something else.
John Kerry served his country in a war. He won medals of honor. Bush did not. Cheney did not. It is really that simple. Bush may be a stronger candidate in some areas, you can make that argument (although I wouldn't agree with it), but you cannot say that military service is a negative for Kerry! It's an absurd argument that shows you are merely making accusations based on support of Bush. Now, if Kerry were running against Colin Powell, Wes CLark, etc., maybe you can debate who "the better" soldier was.
Personally, this election can't come fast enough for me!
And, not really worthy of any comment other than "THE VIETNAM WAR HAS ENDED!" It's a reminder that A LOT of people seem to need! I find it quite amusing that many posts bringing up "speculation" on past Bush exploits become closed quickly here because the "topic for debate is vague" or "relates to religion" or something else. John Kerry served his country in a war. He won medals of honor. Bush did not. Cheney did not. It is really that simple. Bush may be a stronger candidate in some areas, you can make that argument (although I wouldn't agree with it), but you cannot say that military service is a negative for Kerry! It's an absurd argument that shows you are merely making accusations based on support of Bush. Now, if Kerry were running against Colin Powell, Wes CLark, etc., maybe you can debate who "the better" soldier was.
Personally, this election can't come fast enough for me!
QUOTE(Pittslp @ Oct 28 2004, 11:35 AM)
This is actually funny! And, not really worthy of any comment other than "THE VIETNAM WAR HAS ENDED!" It's a reminder that A LOT of people seem to need! I find it quite amusing that many posts bringing up "speculation" on past Bush exploits become closed quickly here because the "topic for debate is vague" or "relates to religion" or something else.
John Kerry served his country in a war. He won medals of honor. Bush did not. Cheney did not. It is really that simple. Bush may be a stronger candidate in some areas, you can make that argument (although I wouldn't agree with it), but you cannot say that military service is a negative for Kerry! It's an absurd argument that shows you are merely making accusations based on support of Bush. Now, if Kerry were running against Colin Powell, Wes CLark, etc., maybe you can debate who "the better" soldier was.
Personally, this election can't come fast enough for me!
And, not really worthy of any comment other than "THE VIETNAM WAR HAS ENDED!" It's a reminder that A LOT of people seem to need! I find it quite amusing that many posts bringing up "speculation" on past Bush exploits become closed quickly here because the "topic for debate is vague" or "relates to religion" or something else. John Kerry served his country in a war. He won medals of honor. Bush did not. Cheney did not. It is really that simple. Bush may be a stronger candidate in some areas, you can make that argument (although I wouldn't agree with it), but you cannot say that military service is a negative for Kerry! It's an absurd argument that shows you are merely making accusations based on support of Bush. Now, if Kerry were running against Colin Powell, Wes CLark, etc., maybe you can debate who "the better" soldier was.
Personally, this election can't come fast enough for me!
I hear you Pittslp! I wish these elections would be over tomorrow...
In addition to comment "The Vietnam war has ended!" I'd like to add... "partially because of Kerry's courageous actions." Unlike some other boneheads in the military he saw that this war was leading the country nowhere, dragging United States behind economically and politically, sharply dividing the population, killing hundreds of American soldiers and thousands of Vietnamese... the Anti-War movement helped to end the war and saved thousands of American soldiers' lives - lives of the very same people who now spit at Kerry and make accusations.
QUOTE(moif @ Oct 28 2004, 06:41 AM)
I have a question:
...was Kerry still in uniform when he spoke to North Vietnamese in Paris?
QUOTE
This state's that if Kerry was not authorized to meet with the enemy then he has broken the UMJC code.
...was Kerry still in uniform when he spoke to North Vietnamese in Paris?
As near as I can tell, Moif, he was still active duty at that time, possibly in the Naval Reserve. Kerry met with the North Vietnamese in Paris in 1970 and according to Navy Records, he wasn't transferred to inactive status until April of 1972.
I have seen several of these threads sprouting like poisonous weeds here on AD. One gets closed, and its clone pops up in its place. The same people are slinging the same mud at the same adversaries. I only have one comment:
THE - VIETNAM - WAR - IS - OVER!! Done. Finished. Finito. Concluded. A fait accompli. Elvis has left the building.
THE - VIETNAM - WAR - IS - OVER!! Done. Finished. Finito. Concluded. A fait accompli. Elvis has left the building.
The entire argument is the desperate mechanations of conservatives that understand that they have a bunch of cowards in the white house that were not man enough back in the Vietnam era to go and support thier convictions. How many deferments did Cheney have? 
They absolutely HAVE to do thier best to denigrate Kerry's service in order to make Bush look better in thier own eyes- because, quite frankly, GW's record just plain is weak compared to Kerry's.
Vietnam was a useless, meaningless dirty war fought for political reasons that have no bearing whatsoever on National security or US safety. In this, Iraq is identical- and Kerry couragously spoke out against the powers that be, despite it harming his political career several times.
Bush "supported" the war while he hid out in a "Champagne" unit.
The only answer to that is to smear, smear, smear.
They absolutely HAVE to do thier best to denigrate Kerry's service in order to make Bush look better in thier own eyes- because, quite frankly, GW's record just plain is weak compared to Kerry's.
Vietnam was a useless, meaningless dirty war fought for political reasons that have no bearing whatsoever on National security or US safety. In this, Iraq is identical- and Kerry couragously spoke out against the powers that be, despite it harming his political career several times.
Bush "supported" the war while he hid out in a "Champagne" unit.
The only answer to that is to smear, smear, smear.
Vietnam is obviously a contentious issue, and one that raises the heckles of a few of our members. However you may feel about the subject, there are clear questions for debate:
Did John Kerry aid the enemy during the Vietnam war?
Is John Kerry a traitor?
Does it matter for this election?
Please adhere to these questions, and try and keep the discussion constructive. There are a lot of Vietnam threads, and they usually end up getting closed because people get too involved. If you can't keep your cool, don't ruin it for those who see this is a legitimate area of discussion. That goes for everyone, not just liberals or conservatives.
Did John Kerry aid the enemy during the Vietnam war?
Is John Kerry a traitor?
Does it matter for this election?
Please adhere to these questions, and try and keep the discussion constructive. There are a lot of Vietnam threads, and they usually end up getting closed because people get too involved. If you can't keep your cool, don't ruin it for those who see this is a legitimate area of discussion. That goes for everyone, not just liberals or conservatives.
QUOTE(vampiel)
Many questions have been raised about John Kerry's actions after the war and during the war in Vietnam. The following is a sum up of Kerry's actions and the case against him.
Punitive Articles of the UCMJ
Article 104—Aiding the enemy
http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/mcm/bl104.htm
QUOTE
(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.
http://www.c-span.org/vote2004/jkerrytestimony.asp
QUOTE
Mr. Kerry: My feeling, Senator, is undoubtedly this Congress, and I don't mean to sound pessimistic, but I do not believe that this Congress will, in fact, end the war as we would like to, which is immediately and unilaterally and, therefore, if I were to speak I would say we would set a date and the date obviously would be the earliest possible date. But I would like to say, in answering that, that I do not believe it is necessary to stall any longer. I have been to Paris. I have talked with both delegations at the peace talks, that is to say the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the Provisional Revolutionary Government and of all eight of Madam Binh's points it has been stated time and time again, and was stated by Senator Vance Hartke when he returned from Paris, and it has been stated by many other officials of this Government, if the United States were to set a date for withdrawal the prisoners of war would be returned.
This state's that if Kerry was not authorized to meet with the enemy then he has broken the UMJC code.
Punitive Articles of the UCMJ
Article 104—Aiding the enemy
http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/mcm/bl104.htm
QUOTE
(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.
http://www.c-span.org/vote2004/jkerrytestimony.asp
QUOTE
Mr. Kerry: My feeling, Senator, is undoubtedly this Congress, and I don't mean to sound pessimistic, but I do not believe that this Congress will, in fact, end the war as we would like to, which is immediately and unilaterally and, therefore, if I were to speak I would say we would set a date and the date obviously would be the earliest possible date. But I would like to say, in answering that, that I do not believe it is necessary to stall any longer. I have been to Paris. I have talked with both delegations at the peace talks, that is to say the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the Provisional Revolutionary Government and of all eight of Madam Binh's points it has been stated time and time again, and was stated by Senator Vance Hartke when he returned from Paris, and it has been stated by many other officials of this Government, if the United States were to set a date for withdrawal the prisoners of war would be returned.
This state's that if Kerry was not authorized to meet with the enemy then he has broken the UMJC code.
If this is the case, than any American who met with the enemy to conduct peace talks is also a traitor. After all, these meetings took place (obviously) before the end of any wars! Of course, this would be more true of people who negotiated settlements in cases where the US Congress had actually declared war. Hey - haven't members of Bush's team met with North Koreans? Technically, aren't we just at a cease fire with them? Let's hang these traitors!
QUOTE
One of the citations for Kerry's medal was not even signed by the persons who's signature was on it.
www.suntimes.com/output/elect/cst-nws-lips28.html
Kerry's first purple heart has come into question because he did not recieve any enemy fire - via his own journal to aquire the award.
www.cnsnews.com/ViewCommentary.asp?Page=%5CCommentary%5Carchive%5C200408%5CCOM20040820b.html
John Kerry had to backtrack his "Christmas in Cambodia" story that was "seared" in his memory.
http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20040809-090612-9480r.htm
Kerry also ordered the "shredding" of documents pertaining to POW/MIA's in Vietnam to pave the way for normalizing relations in Vietnam.
http://www.powmiafamiliesagainstjohnkerry.com/
www.suntimes.com/output/elect/cst-nws-lips28.html
Kerry's first purple heart has come into question because he did not recieve any enemy fire - via his own journal to aquire the award.
www.cnsnews.com/ViewCommentary.asp?Page=%5CCommentary%5Carchive%5C200408%5CCOM20040820b.html
John Kerry had to backtrack his "Christmas in Cambodia" story that was "seared" in his memory.
http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20040809-090612-9480r.htm
Kerry also ordered the "shredding" of documents pertaining to POW/MIA's in Vietnam to pave the way for normalizing relations in Vietnam.
http://www.powmiafamiliesagainstjohnkerry.com/
Um.. did you just throw these in there for good measure? They don't seem to have any bearing whatsoever on your topic.
But I'm glad you posted them. Vets everywhere should be disgusted by this. The system for awarding medals is obviously so flawed, you probably agree, vets everywhere should be stripped of their's, just because who knows, really, if they were properly earned! After all, if the US military could make such heinous, repeated mistakes with Kerry's medals, it calls into question every other medal awarded anyone.
That said, even if this were true, it would have no bearing on the topic you brought up for discussion.
QUOTE
Because of normalized relations with Vietnam. Kerry's cousin was also a contributer to a deal brokered in Vietnam.
http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_john_kerry2.htm
7. Kerry's cousin, C. Stewart Forbes, chief executive for Colliers International, assisted in brokering a $905 million deal to develop a deep-sea port at Vung Tau, Vietnam.
True. In 1993, under the direction of CEO C. Stewart Forbes (a relative of Kerry on his mother's side), Boston-based real estate giant Colliers International brokered just such a deal between an Asian subsidiary, Colliers Jardine, and the Vietnamese government to develop the port of Vung Tau
http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_john_kerry2.htm
7. Kerry's cousin, C. Stewart Forbes, chief executive for Colliers International, assisted in brokering a $905 million deal to develop a deep-sea port at Vung Tau, Vietnam.
True. In 1993, under the direction of CEO C. Stewart Forbes (a relative of Kerry on his mother's side), Boston-based real estate giant Colliers International brokered just such a deal between an Asian subsidiary, Colliers Jardine, and the Vietnamese government to develop the port of Vung Tau
So what? What does this have to do with anything? John Hinkley Jr was a friend of the Bush boys when they were all younger. And the point is.... what? Are people who do business with Vietnam now traitorous as well? Well gee, what about all the people doing business with Japan, Germany, and Italy? Hang 'em all!!!
Now we get to this groovy little trio:
QUOTE
Retired Gen. George S. Patton III says Kerry aided the enemy.
http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_john_kerry2.htm
4. Retired Gen. George S. Patton III charged that Mr. Kerry's actions as an anti-war activist 'gave aid and comfort to the enemy.'
True. Patton uttered the remark in his capacity as a veterans' spokesman for Ray Shamie, Kerry's Republican opponent in the 1984 Massachusetts Senate race.
From the New York Times, Oct. 30, 1984:
The most heated moment of the campaign this year came when John McManus, a spokesman for the John Birch Society, and Maj. Gen. George S. Patton Jr., retired, the chairman of a Veterans for Shamie group, charged that Mr. Kerry was a Communist sympathizer guilty of "near-treasonous activity" in the Vietnam War.
From the Washington Post, Oct. 24, 1984:
Joining McManus, retired general George S. Patton, son of the famous World War II general and honorary chairman of Shamie's veterans' committee, called Kerry "soft on communism" and said that, by protesting the war, Kerry "gave aid and comfort to the enemy and probably caused some of my guys to get killed."
http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_john_kerry2.htm
4. Retired Gen. George S. Patton III charged that Mr. Kerry's actions as an anti-war activist 'gave aid and comfort to the enemy.'
True. Patton uttered the remark in his capacity as a veterans' spokesman for Ray Shamie, Kerry's Republican opponent in the 1984 Massachusetts Senate race.
From the New York Times, Oct. 30, 1984:
The most heated moment of the campaign this year came when John McManus, a spokesman for the John Birch Society, and Maj. Gen. George S. Patton Jr., retired, the chairman of a Veterans for Shamie group, charged that Mr. Kerry was a Communist sympathizer guilty of "near-treasonous activity" in the Vietnam War.
From the Washington Post, Oct. 24, 1984:
Joining McManus, retired general George S. Patton, son of the famous World War II general and honorary chairman of Shamie's veterans' committee, called Kerry "soft on communism" and said that, by protesting the war, Kerry "gave aid and comfort to the enemy and probably caused some of my guys to get killed."
There have always been right-wing wackos who see protesting a war as equal to being a traitor. That's the beauty of living in America. They can say whatever they want. Heck, there's people like Ann Coulter who go so far as to say, with no tongue in her cheek, that all liberals are traitors. Another great thing about America, though, is that the rest of us are free to laugh at such ridiculous polemics.
The rest of your thread opener levels charges about the VVAW falsifying testimony, et cetera. From what I've seen, this stuff is chimeric at best, but even if it were true, it would have no bearing on this subject.
You ask if Kerry betrayed the US, but the only relevant parts of your post are the three guys who 'think' he is a traitor - well, one said near-treasonous. Everything else, your slew of 'supporting data,' has nothing whatsoever to do with your question. so,
1. Did John Kerry aid the enemy during the Vietnam war?
2. Is John Kerry a traitor?
3. Does it matter for this election?
1. No. You have presented absolutely no evidence that Kerry aided the enemy. Protesting a war, no matter how vocally, is not 'aiding the enemy.' I don't see how meeting both sides in peace talks could possibly be construed as 'aiding the enemy' - if it is, we better plan on throwing peace, or hope for peace, out the window for a long time to come!
2. Um, no.
3. No. Like the loonies on the left who can only come up with 'Bush is an idiot,' 'Bush is insane,' instead of looking at facts, these people are safely in the 'fringe' category - which is where they belong, along with the black helicopter people, the faked moon landing people, and the holocaust deniers.
Is John Kerry a traitor?
Bush, as Nixon before him, speaks of appointing strict constructionist judges to the fedeal courts. Under those guidelines it doesn’t matter. Article I action 8 of The Constitution of the United States: "Congress shall have power … to declare war." There was never a declaration of war in regards to Vietnam. I suppose one (Bush's followers though Bush himself hasn't called Kerry a tritor) embraces strict constructionists only when it is convenient.
Minus a declaration of war, there was no enemy to comfort. Therefore, accusations of treason are irrelevant.
This seems to have heated up since, Col. Day entered the picture. Being military hero doesn’t necessarily make someone astute in their politics. In fact, some military leaders, like the late General Edwin A. Walker--who was a member of the John Birch Society--were complete lunatics.
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKwalker.htm
I agree. This is symptomatic of a campaign that thought it was winning and now must throw all the mud they can to stay competitive.
The problem with this thread is that the questions are untimely and loaded.
Edited for clarification.
Bush, as Nixon before him, speaks of appointing strict constructionist judges to the fedeal courts. Under those guidelines it doesn’t matter. Article I action 8 of The Constitution of the United States: "Congress shall have power … to declare war." There was never a declaration of war in regards to Vietnam. I suppose one (Bush's followers though Bush himself hasn't called Kerry a tritor) embraces strict constructionists only when it is convenient.
Minus a declaration of war, there was no enemy to comfort. Therefore, accusations of treason are irrelevant.
This seems to have heated up since, Col. Day entered the picture. Being military hero doesn’t necessarily make someone astute in their politics. In fact, some military leaders, like the late General Edwin A. Walker--who was a member of the John Birch Society--were complete lunatics.
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKwalker.htm
QUOTE(DaffyGrl @ Oct 28 2004, 02:26 PM)
I have seen several of these threads sprouting like poisonous weeds here on AD. One gets closed, and its clone pops up in its place. The same people are slinging the same mud at the same adversaries.
I agree. This is symptomatic of a campaign that thought it was winning and now must throw all the mud they can to stay competitive.
The problem with this thread is that the questions are untimely and loaded.
Edited for clarification.
From another thread:
Senator John Kerry is not legally a traitor.
That was easy. Were his actions after his service in Vietnam bad judgement? I personally think so, however, being a former member of the Active Duty Navy and a current member of the Reserve Navy I am admittedly biased on the issue. We they illegal? Absolutely not. And I can't really say they were totally wrong, as every American has the right of Free Speech.
And this is where exactly in the UCMJ? Perhaps a link to this provision in the actual UCMJ rather then an article written about it would help. Do you have one?
Here's Mine:
SubChapter IV Uniform Code of Military Justice
I don't see anything about Jurisdiction over Civilians, and I missing it?
QUOTE(OverlandSailor)
The idea that Senator Kerry's actions post-Vietnam makes him a traitor is subjective and can't really be proven one way or the other. If you feel he is, then you feel he is and that's that. If you feel he is not, or that his post-war actions were heroic then you feel that way and that's that.
QUOTE(Vampiel)
Really? So you can tell me with a straight face, after the evidence given that he is legally not a traitor?
Senator John Kerry is not legally a traitor.That was easy. Were his actions after his service in Vietnam bad judgement? I personally think so, however, being a former member of the Active Duty Navy and a current member of the Reserve Navy I am admittedly biased on the issue. We they illegal? Absolutely not. And I can't really say they were totally wrong, as every American has the right of Free Speech.
QUOTE(moif)
I have a question:
...was Kerry still in uniform when he spoke to North Vietnamese in Paris?
QUOTE(Vampiel)
This state's that if Kerry was not authorized to meet with the enemy then he has broken the UMJC code.
...was Kerry still in uniform when he spoke to North Vietnamese in Paris?
QUOTE(Vampiel)
That is debatable but insignificant legally. The UCMJ state's that citizens are also held accountable for the code relating to communicating with the enemy during a time of war.
And this is where exactly in the UCMJ? Perhaps a link to this provision in the actual UCMJ rather then an article written about it would help. Do you have one?
Here's Mine:
SubChapter IV Uniform Code of Military Justice
QUOTE
817. ART. 17. JURISDICTION OF COURTS-MARTIAL IN GENERAL
(a) Each armed force has court-martial jurisdiction over all persons subject to this chapter. The exercise of jurisdiction by one armed force over personnel of another armed force shall be in accordance with regulations prescribed by the President.
(
In all cases, departmental review after that by the officer with authority to convene a general court-martial for the command which held the trial, where that review is required under this chapter, shall be carried out by the department that includes the armed force of which the accused is a member.
(a) Each armed force has court-martial jurisdiction over all persons subject to this chapter. The exercise of jurisdiction by one armed force over personnel of another armed force shall be in accordance with regulations prescribed by the President.
(
In all cases, departmental review after that by the officer with authority to convene a general court-martial for the command which held the trial, where that review is required under this chapter, shall be carried out by the department that includes the armed force of which the accused is a member.QUOTE
includes the armed force of which the accused is a member
I don't see anything about Jurisdiction over Civilians, and I missing it?
QUOTE
That is debatable but insignificant legally. The UCMJ state's that citizens are also held accountable for the code relating to communicating with the enemy during a time of war.
And legally, did the USA ever declare war on North Vietnam?
First allow me to ask if I were to concede, which I don't, that the actions of John Kerry were illegal, would that in any way be an affirmative to the questions of:
Did John Kerry aid the enemy during the Vietnam war?
Is John Kerry a traitor?
My point is you start with the premise that John Kerry broke the laws of UCMJ by talking to the enemy, you go on to state facts that support this premise, but what you don't do is show how his talking to the "enemy" has aided the enemy or how it was traitorous.
What was John Kerry's goal? Let's look at one of the original quotes I took the liberty to change the color of two important words
So in your own quote to justify your claims of the traitorous actions of aid of Kerry you embolden the fact that he went to "peace talks". Peace!! So here is John Kerry fighting against our nation for PEACE. Here is traitor who has the audacity to fight to SAVE American lives. It is bad enough that it is documented he saved lives when in the military on his swift boat, but he dares to try to save lives of Americans even after he is out.
I'll pick some lower estimate numbers of deaths in concern with the vietnam war.
American + 58,000
Vietnamese + 1 Million
So those who would call Kerry a traitor for talking peace, for wanting less American deaths, would you rather the war continued longer. Was 58,000 dead americans not enough??
However after seeing the numbers I can see where some people may be correct in saying Kerry was aiding the enemy. I mean for every U.S. who died there were 17 or more vietnamese no longer existing. Surely he aided the enemy in the sense they had more lives to gain from peace then we did, but how else was there aid given?? Did he tell them secret strategies or something??
I admit I am having fun with this topic and quite a few chuckles... If I take the opposite of what you are implying, people who would wish the war to continue and more American deaths, would be Patriots. "I'm working to make sure more Americans die in a pointless war and you're a traitor to take actions against that goal"
John Kerry talked to the enemy about peace... well tell me how the enemy stops being the enemy with out peace talks. Oh!!! I forgot only the government should talk peace... not a lone former soldier who saw the blood and death in Vietnam. Who gave him the right to be.... free??? Who gave him the right to use his free American voice outside of America?
Don't get me wrong, I don't think the the Kerry of today is half the man of yesterday. But here is a man that fought in battle and fought for peace compared to the current president that has done neither.
And again in a trying-to-be-subtle-but-failing-oh-so-miserably way there are those calling the warrior the traitor.
Once again I am reminded why I am very liberal
Did John Kerry aid the enemy during the Vietnam war?
Is John Kerry a traitor?
My point is you start with the premise that John Kerry broke the laws of UCMJ by talking to the enemy, you go on to state facts that support this premise, but what you don't do is show how his talking to the "enemy" has aided the enemy or how it was traitorous.
What was John Kerry's goal? Let's look at one of the original quotes I took the liberty to change the color of two important words
QUOTE
Mr. Kerry: My feeling, Senator, is undoubtedly this Congress, and I don't mean to sound pessimistic, but I do not believe that this Congress will, in fact, end the war as we would like to, which is immediately and unilaterally and, therefore, if I were to speak I would say we would set a date and the date obviously would be the earliest possible date. But I would like to say, in answering that, that I do not believe it is necessary to stall any longer. I have been to Paris. I have talked with both delegations at the peace talks, that is to say the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the Provisional Revolutionary Government and of all eight of Madam Binh's points it has been stated time and time again, and was stated by Senator Vance Hartke when he returned from Paris, and it has been stated by many other officials of this Government, if the United States were to set a date for withdrawal the prisoners of war would be returned.
So in your own quote to justify your claims of the traitorous actions of aid of Kerry you embolden the fact that he went to "peace talks". Peace!! So here is John Kerry fighting against our nation for PEACE. Here is traitor who has the audacity to fight to SAVE American lives. It is bad enough that it is documented he saved lives when in the military on his swift boat, but he dares to try to save lives of Americans even after he is out.
I'll pick some lower estimate numbers of deaths in concern with the vietnam war.
American + 58,000
Vietnamese + 1 Million
So those who would call Kerry a traitor for talking peace, for wanting less American deaths, would you rather the war continued longer. Was 58,000 dead americans not enough??
However after seeing the numbers I can see where some people may be correct in saying Kerry was aiding the enemy. I mean for every U.S. who died there were 17 or more vietnamese no longer existing. Surely he aided the enemy in the sense they had more lives to gain from peace then we did, but how else was there aid given?? Did he tell them secret strategies or something??
I admit I am having fun with this topic and quite a few chuckles... If I take the opposite of what you are implying, people who would wish the war to continue and more American deaths, would be Patriots. "I'm working to make sure more Americans die in a pointless war and you're a traitor to take actions against that goal"
John Kerry talked to the enemy about peace... well tell me how the enemy stops being the enemy with out peace talks. Oh!!! I forgot only the government should talk peace... not a lone former soldier who saw the blood and death in Vietnam. Who gave him the right to be.... free??? Who gave him the right to use his free American voice outside of America?Don't get me wrong, I don't think the the Kerry of today is half the man of yesterday. But here is a man that fought in battle and fought for peace compared to the current president that has done neither.
And again in a trying-to-be-subtle-but-failing-oh-so-miserably way there are those calling the warrior the traitor. Once again I am reminded why I am very liberal
Did John Kerry aid the enemy during the Vietnam war? Is John Kerry a traitor?
I was raised a pacifist. I am totally unfamiliar with UCMJ, and I won't pretend to be an attorney. I would have skipped this topic altogether, but someone asked PE to watch Stolen Honor on her computer, and she was running the clips over and over as she tried to take notes. I was sitting at the other computer in this room until I had to go buy new supply hoses for the washing machine and replace the old ones.
As I listened to these former POW's complain of their treatment, I asked myself:
How many of these men contacted the President or their Congressmen to ask that Prisoners at Gitmo, Abu Ghraib and elsewhere be accorded the privileges allowed POWs under the Geneva Convention? How many protested to Washington when photos came out showing how Americans were abusing Prisoners? I suspect that they said something along the line of "Serves the #*@%s right!" and went back to being angry about their own experience as a POW.
Why am I so cynical? I have listened to many veterans discuss what war is like.
From my High School History teacher.
I have heard stories from an American citizen of Japanese descent. He was born here, but was pulled out of college and shipped to an internment camp. He was not allowed to contribute to the war effort. He was not informed of his parent's deaths. His college would not take him back after the war. He finally got a degree and found work. He married. They wanted to buy a house, and were told that because he had been in the Internment camps, they were not eligible for a mortgage.
I recall hearing stories from a Korean POW...
More than one Vietnam Vet told me that they came home to America and promised themselves they would never go hungry again.
One co-worker told me, "My job in Viet-Nam was to sit on top of a hundred foot crane from sun-up to sundown, and shoot anything that moved that I could not identify as an American. It was made clear to me that if the crane operator died, I would be on my own to get back to the ground."
Another used to explain his interpretation of "All's fair in Love and War."
Another story was of tunnel rats, "First thing you do is to lob a few grenades in. Anything you found, you could keep."
War stories are almost always told in the first person. It is rare to hear anyone say he felt sorry for the enemy, or compassion for the relatives of the people he has killed. It is more likely to be, "The first person I killed was aiming a gun at me when I got off the plane. I threw up. The last person I shot was aiming at me while I was trying to board the plane. I was glad to get out of that..."
There is nothing humane about war. If the actions of John Kerry and Jane Fonda brought the Vietnam War to a faster end, perhaps it allowed the Hanoi Hilton alumni to come home alive. I see POW-MIA flags routinely flown to remind us that a great many Americans from that war are still unaccounted for.
Does it matter for this election?
Of course it matters. The Hanoi Hilton alumni club have made it clear that they have more respect for a "War President" whose combat experience is joining the soldiers for Thanksgiving dinner because he didn't think Laura planned to cook anything that day; than for a fellow combat Veteran whose opinions they disagreed with decades ago. The President has managed to sell these folks on the concept that John Kerry has not learned anything since Viet Nam, and is incapable of changing his views on anything.
My employer at the time of the Viet Nam war said, "We don't make Napalm" and "We don't make Agent Orange."
I worked with a fellow who told me he used to truck benzene out of the plant. I used to burn Bay gasoline in my car because it was the company brand. I spent a summer packaging polystyrene off the "Hot Line." I later learned that Napalm is made from benzene, gasoline, and polystyrene; specifically the finely ground polystyrene from the "Hot Line."
Agent Orange I learned, was "2-4D, 2-4-5T," basically a weed killer that was designed to be diluted about 100-1 with water. The military applied it, I understand undiluted, and the complications that caused to the people handling it, led to the outright ban of the product for home use. A few days before I retired, I was in the plant on a maintenance run. We were still manufacturing it.
I long ago learned that I could not trust what our government was telling us about wars and how we fight them. Perhaps if John Kerry is elected President, we will be able to have a better look at the process of war. I am a pacifist who sees no hope of attaining peace by electing a "War President."
Listening to Stolen Honor brought back a lot of memories of conversations held mostly in the middle of the night. As a pacifist, it did not sway me to suddenly vote for George W. Bush. It left me wondering... Why would someone who had been abused as a Prisoner of War want to vote to re-elect a President who so casually decided to go to war?
I was raised a pacifist. I am totally unfamiliar with UCMJ, and I won't pretend to be an attorney. I would have skipped this topic altogether, but someone asked PE to watch Stolen Honor on her computer, and she was running the clips over and over as she tried to take notes. I was sitting at the other computer in this room until I had to go buy new supply hoses for the washing machine and replace the old ones.
As I listened to these former POW's complain of their treatment, I asked myself:
How many of these men contacted the President or their Congressmen to ask that Prisoners at Gitmo, Abu Ghraib and elsewhere be accorded the privileges allowed POWs under the Geneva Convention? How many protested to Washington when photos came out showing how Americans were abusing Prisoners? I suspect that they said something along the line of "Serves the #*@%s right!" and went back to being angry about their own experience as a POW.
Why am I so cynical? I have listened to many veterans discuss what war is like.
From my High School History teacher.
QUOTE
It's fun to be part of an occupation army. We'd make the Frau cook us a meal, throw the dirty dishes out the window, help ourselves to the Frau perhaps, and when she had no more food or wine, we'd move on."
I have heard stories from an American citizen of Japanese descent. He was born here, but was pulled out of college and shipped to an internment camp. He was not allowed to contribute to the war effort. He was not informed of his parent's deaths. His college would not take him back after the war. He finally got a degree and found work. He married. They wanted to buy a house, and were told that because he had been in the Internment camps, they were not eligible for a mortgage.
I recall hearing stories from a Korean POW...
QUOTE
They lined us all up, and started at one end of the line with a machine gun. As he moved down the line, the gun nosed up in the air and he shot over my head. I dropped to the ground anyway, and pretended I was dead. I walked out of their in the middle of the night.
More than one Vietnam Vet told me that they came home to America and promised themselves they would never go hungry again.
One co-worker told me, "My job in Viet-Nam was to sit on top of a hundred foot crane from sun-up to sundown, and shoot anything that moved that I could not identify as an American. It was made clear to me that if the crane operator died, I would be on my own to get back to the ground."
Another used to explain his interpretation of "All's fair in Love and War."
QUOTE
In 'Nam, you could find a girl, agree on a price, and then shoot her when you were done. All you had to do was claim self-defense. There was the presumption that all the #*@%s were out to kill the Americans.
Another story was of tunnel rats, "First thing you do is to lob a few grenades in. Anything you found, you could keep."
War stories are almost always told in the first person. It is rare to hear anyone say he felt sorry for the enemy, or compassion for the relatives of the people he has killed. It is more likely to be, "The first person I killed was aiming a gun at me when I got off the plane. I threw up. The last person I shot was aiming at me while I was trying to board the plane. I was glad to get out of that..."
There is nothing humane about war. If the actions of John Kerry and Jane Fonda brought the Vietnam War to a faster end, perhaps it allowed the Hanoi Hilton alumni to come home alive. I see POW-MIA flags routinely flown to remind us that a great many Americans from that war are still unaccounted for.
Does it matter for this election?
Of course it matters. The Hanoi Hilton alumni club have made it clear that they have more respect for a "War President" whose combat experience is joining the soldiers for Thanksgiving dinner because he didn't think Laura planned to cook anything that day; than for a fellow combat Veteran whose opinions they disagreed with decades ago. The President has managed to sell these folks on the concept that John Kerry has not learned anything since Viet Nam, and is incapable of changing his views on anything.
My employer at the time of the Viet Nam war said, "We don't make Napalm" and "We don't make Agent Orange."
I worked with a fellow who told me he used to truck benzene out of the plant. I used to burn Bay gasoline in my car because it was the company brand. I spent a summer packaging polystyrene off the "Hot Line." I later learned that Napalm is made from benzene, gasoline, and polystyrene; specifically the finely ground polystyrene from the "Hot Line."
Agent Orange I learned, was "2-4D, 2-4-5T," basically a weed killer that was designed to be diluted about 100-1 with water. The military applied it, I understand undiluted, and the complications that caused to the people handling it, led to the outright ban of the product for home use. A few days before I retired, I was in the plant on a maintenance run. We were still manufacturing it.
I long ago learned that I could not trust what our government was telling us about wars and how we fight them. Perhaps if John Kerry is elected President, we will be able to have a better look at the process of war. I am a pacifist who sees no hope of attaining peace by electing a "War President."
Listening to Stolen Honor brought back a lot of memories of conversations held mostly in the middle of the night. As a pacifist, it did not sway me to suddenly vote for George W. Bush. It left me wondering... Why would someone who had been abused as a Prisoner of War want to vote to re-elect a President who so casually decided to go to war?
Did John Kerry aid the enemy during the Vietnam war?
No. He was not subject to the UCMJ at the time you allege he aided the enemy. See Article 3,I think, in the 1969 manual (don't have mine handy). So by definition, your argument fails ab initio I am sure I could find whole list of UCMJ offenses he violated after he left the service (his haircut was not regulation etc). Second, you rely upon the Code that was passed in 1983. If you want to be accurate, please use the 1969 Manual and code.
"Aiding the enemy" is a term of legal and military art. If I were not in a hotel business center I would find a discourse I had written on the topic. Needless to say, speaking out against a war does not meet the definition.
Is John Kerry a traitor?
No.
Does it matter for this election?
To some people yes. It is the politics of lies and distortion. People will believe what they want to believe, truth is almost irrelevant.
JW
No. He was not subject to the UCMJ at the time you allege he aided the enemy. See Article 3,I think, in the 1969 manual (don't have mine handy). So by definition, your argument fails ab initio I am sure I could find whole list of UCMJ offenses he violated after he left the service (his haircut was not regulation etc). Second, you rely upon the Code that was passed in 1983. If you want to be accurate, please use the 1969 Manual and code.
"Aiding the enemy" is a term of legal and military art. If I were not in a hotel business center I would find a discourse I had written on the topic. Needless to say, speaking out against a war does not meet the definition.
Is John Kerry a traitor?
No.
Does it matter for this election?
To some people yes. It is the politics of lies and distortion. People will believe what they want to believe, truth is almost irrelevant.
JW
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.