Jump to content
Indian Motorcycle Community

Kerry honorable discharge


Recommended Posts

Subject: Kerry Granted an Honorable Discharge 30 Years After His Service Term Ended

 

Unlike McCain, Bush, and Gore,,,,Kerry has adamantly refused to authorize the release of his military records. Most think it's because of his phony battle medals. I think the real reason is below. He was not granted an Honorable Discharge until March 2001, almost 30 years after his ostensible service term had ended! This is very much out of the ordinary, and highly suspect.

 

There are 5 classes of Discharge: Honorable, General, Other Than Honorable,

 

Bad Conduct, and Dishonorable. My guess is that he was Discharged in the '70s, but not Honorably. He appealed this sometime while Clinton was doing trouser-tricks in the Oval Office. Political pressure was applied, and the Honorable Discharge was then granted.

 

His file is probably rife with reports of this, submissions and hearings on the appeal, reports of his "giving aid and comfort" to the enemy, along with protests that were filed with respect to his alleged valor under fire.

 

This will blow up in his face before October 15th.

 

On 18 Feb. 1966 John Kerry signed a 6 year enlistment contract with

the Navy (plus a 6-month extension during wartime).

 

On 18 Feb. 1966 John Kerry also signed an Officer Candidate contract

for 6 years -- 5 years of ACTIVE duty & ACTIVE Naval Reserves, and 1 year of

inactive standby reserves (See items #4 & $5).

 

Because John Kerry was discharged from TOTAL ACTIVE DUTY of only 3

years and 18 days on 3 Jan. 1970, he was then required to attend 48 drills

per year, and not more than 17 days active duty for training. Kerry was

also subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Additionally, Kerry,

as a commissioned officer, was prohibited from making adverse statements

against his chain of command or statements against his country, especially

during time of war. It is also interesting to note t! hat Kerry did not

obtain an honorable discharge until Mar. 12, 2001 even though his service

obligation should have ended July 1, 1972.

 

Lt. John Kerry's letter of 21 Nov. 1969 asking for an early release

from active US Navy duty falsely states "My current regular period of

obligated service would be completed in December of this year."

 

On Jan. 3, 1970 Lt. John Kerry was transferred to the Naval Reserve

Manpower Center in Bainridge, Maryland.

 

Where are Kerry's Performance Records for 2 years of obligated Ready

Reserve, the 48 drills per year required and his 17 days of active duty per

year training while Kerry was in the Ready Reserves? Have these records

been released?

 

Has anyone ever talked to Kerry's Commanding Officer at the Naval

Reserve Center where Kerry drilled?

 

On 1 July 1972 Lt. John Kerry was transferred to Standby Reserve -

Inactive.

On 16 February 1978 Lt. John Kerry was discharged from US Naval

Reserve.

 

Below are some of the crimes Lt. Kerry USNR committed as a Ready

Reservist, while he was acting as a leader of Vietnam Veterans Against the

War:

 

1. Lt. Kerry attended many rallies where the Vietcong flag was

displayed while our flag was desecrated, defiled, and mocked, thereby giving

aid and comfort to the enemy.

2. Lt. Kerry was involved in a meeting that voted on assassinating

members of the US Senate.

3. Lt. Kerry lied under oath against fellow soldiers before the US

Senate about crimes committed in Vietnam.

4. Lt. Kerry professed to being a war criminal on national

television, and condemned the military and the USA.

5. Lt. Kerry met with NVA and Vietcong communist leaders in Paris,

in direct violation of the UCMJ and the U.S. Constitution.

 

Lt. Kerry by his own words & actions violated the UCMJ and the U.S.

Code while serving as a Navy officer. Lt. Kerry stands in violation of

Article 3, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution. Lt. Kerry's 1970 meeting

with NVA Communists in Paris is in direct violation of the UCMJ's Article

104 part 904, and U.S. Code 18 U.S.C. 953. That meeting, and Kerry's

subsequent support of the communists while leading mass protests against our

military in the year that followed, also place him in direct violation of

our Constitution! 's Article 3, Section 3, which defines treason as "giving

aid and comfort" to the enemy in time of warfare.

 

The Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment, Section 3, states, "No person

shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President

and Vice-President ... having previously taken an oath . to support the

Constitution of the United States, [who has] engaged in insurrection or

rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dont you know the Clintons granted him a pardon just like all the other criminals that Bill and Hillary gave pardons to! I wouldnt be surprised if they elevated John Kerrys rank to Admiral so he could reap the retiement benefits of a flag officer !

 

Its all coming to an end soon PorkChop the truth will be revealed shortly !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder... the other night on Drudge's radio show he said something big was coming out in the next few days. He claims he knew what it was but could not talk about it. He said it was going to eclipse all the other stories.

 

Could this be it? I don't think so but I wonder what he is refering to?

 

Or is it the story with Chung? The Korean Spy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A cursory review of the official Naval records (that Kerry has supposedly refused to release) will confirm the following:

 

Kerry was Honorably discharged in 1978, not 2001

 

Kerry was never obligated to report to the Ready Reserve, nor was he obligated to perform any Reserve training.

 

Kerry was commissioned on 16 Dec, 1966.  Since he was only obligated to 3 years of active duty, his "current regular period of obligated service" would end in December of 1969.  The letter of 21 Nov, 1969 did not contain any false statements.  Even the assertion that he was requesting "early release from active duty" is dubious, since the letter was dated only three weeks prior to the expiration of his obligated term of service, and rendered moot by the fact that his release from active duty did not occur until January of 1970.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A cursory review of the official Naval records (that Kerry has supposedly refused to release) will confirm the following:

Supposedly Refused to Release?

 

Supposedly?

 

Supposedly?

 

Supposedly?

 

Delusional Democrats

 

Man you cant bring yourself to believe your guy is a Loser.

 

Your gonna find out real soon when he drops out!

 

The Truth Bomb is coming

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A cursory review of the official Naval records (that Kerry has supposedly refused to release) will confirm the following:

Some not all.

 

Navy Contradicts Kerry on Release of Military Records

By Marc Morano

CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer

September 16, 2004

 

(CNSNews.com) - The U.S. Navy released documents Wednesday contradicting claims by Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry that all of his available military records have been released.

 

The Navy, responding to a Freedom of Information Act request from the legal watchdog group Judicial Watch, also referred interested parties to Kerry's campaign web site for government military documents.

 

Navy Personnel Command FOIA Officer Dave German wrote in an e-mail to Judicial Watch that the Navy "withheld thirty-one pages of documents from the responsive military personnel service records as we were not provided a release authorization."

 

A "release authorization" would have to come from Kerry filling out and signing a Standard Form 180, something he has yet to do. A Standard Form 180 would authorize the complete release of all his military records. Judicial Watch filed Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests in August to obtain Kerry's military records.

 

The official U.S. Navy response was received by Judicial Watch on Wednesday, the same day that Kerry told syndicated radio and MSNBC TV host Don Imus that "We've posted my military records that they sent to me, or were posted on my website. You can go to my website, and all my -- you know, the documents are there."

 

When Imus pressed Kerry as to whether all of his documents were in fact included on the campaign website, Kerry responded, "To the best of my knowledge. I think some of the medical stuff may still be out there. We're trying to get it.

 

"We released everything that they (the Navy) initially sent me," he added.

 

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said the Navy's correspondence confirms that Kerry has not been forthright in releasing his military files.

 

"It's written confirmation from the U.S. Navy that there are additional documents from Kerry's service record that have yet to be made publicly available," Fitton told CNSNews.com.

 

Fitton called the Kerry campaign's contention that all of the candidate's military files have been released, "wrong."

 

"They (the Kerry campaign) are either ignorant or misleading us. The simple solution is to authorize the release of all records related to his service," Fitton said.

 

German in a letter dated September 15, also referred Judicial Watch to Kerry's campaign website for more information on Kerry's military records.

 

"Numerous responsive U.S. Navy service record documents, as well as service record documents not subject to disclosure requirements under the FOIA, may be accessed at" the Kerry campaign's website applying to his military records, wrote German.

 

"Right now we are in the 'Alice in Wonderland' situation, where the U.S. Navy is telling us to go to a campaign Internet site to get government FOIA documents," Fitton said.

 

"I am not aware of any other instance where [a government agency] told us to go to a political website for documents," he added. "It's not a reliable repository of government documents."

 

In additional correspondence with Judicial Watch dated Sept. 15, the Navy stated that it did not have a copy of Kerry's Discharge Certificate (DD Form 256N), adding that the Navy did not keep files of the certificate in its records.

 

German wrote in a letter dated Sept. 15, "A copy of an honorable discharge certificate (DD256N) is not placed in the U.S. Navy Service record when issued."

 

Jerome Corsi, co-author of the best-selling book "Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry," told CNSNews.com the he was "surprised" the Navy did not have a copy of Kerry's discharge file.

 

"That means [Kerry's] got it," Corsi said. "It goes against his contention that he has released everything that is in his possession, because certainly that form is in his possession."

 

Corsi believes that the Navy's official response proves that "it's Kerry who is blocking the release of the [military] documents and nobody else."

 

"What's Senator Kerry got to hide?" Corsi asked. "By not releasing these files, he is creating the impression that there is something there he doesn't want anybody to see. What is it?"

 

Judicial Watch is also awaiting the U.S. Navy's response to its inquiry regarding Kerry's "Silver Star with combat V." The citation appears in Kerry's DD214 military form on his website, but according to military officials, no such medal exists.

 

"Kerry's record is incorrect. The Navy has never issued a 'combat V' to anyone for a Silver Star," said a Naval official to reporter Thomas Lipscomb in an article for the August 27th Chicago Sun Times.

 

According to the Sun Times article, "Naval regulations do not allow for the use of a 'combat V' for the Silver Star, the third-highest decoration the Navy awards. None of the other services has ever granted a Silver Star 'combat V,' either."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All of the documents that I used to refute Porkchop's original post are readily available.  

 

Last Resort, the sticking point for Kerry's military records seems to be Standard Form 180, which he has not signed.

 

Bush also has not signed a Standard Form 180.

 

My guess is that he was Discharged in the '70s, but not Honorably. He appealed this sometime while Clinton was doing trouser-tricks in the Oval Office. Political pressure was applied, and the Honorable Discharge was then granted.

 

30 Years later! Why?

 

You didn't refute anything in the post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's my understanding that Bush signed Form 180 months ago. It came after the Associated Press sued to see his military records. So he signed the forms to allow them access.

Besides, Bush is not using his military background as a platform. If Kerry doesn't want his military background scrutinized, then maybe he should talk about his time in the Senate.   Hmmmm. Not muh to talk about there. Imagine, 20 years and not much to show.

What qualifies this guy to be a leader? A short militray career? I spent 8 years in the Navy and had 20 men to supervise, but that doesn't mean I can lead the country. Kerry's four months with 6 men under him sure doesn't qualify him and IF he's done something as a Senator, then he better tell people quick. Running around the country whining about everything isn't helping him much. And please tell him no more pictures of him in bicycle shorts. Its just wrong on so many levels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John Kerry vs. George W. Bush [The Military Records]

 

By Sher Zieve

Sept. 22, 2004

 

In my search for President Bush’s National Guard record, I located an article by Byron York (9 September-The Hill) that contained and definitively identified the President’s service dates. As the Dems are still using the CBS/Rather National Guard document forgeries as the point of reference for their continued misinformation attacks on the president’s military service, it’s necessary to provide the actual facts. It’s ludicrous that this has to be done but, when a political party uses forgeries and lies to support its claims, it must be addressed. During President Bush’s service period, the National Guard operated on a point system; with 50 points/year required to meet the Guard’s minimum obligations.

 

Former Lt. George W. Bush’s National Guard service: • May 1968-1970: 6 full weeks basic training; 53 full weeks flight training; 21 weeks fighter inceptor training; additional training which brings the total to almost 2 years. 1968-1969=253 points; 1969-1970=340 points. Note: In 1970, Lt. George W. Bush’s evaluation stated: “an exceptionally fine young officer and pilot” [who] “continually flies intercept missions with the unit to increase his proficiency even further.”

 

• May 1970-1971=137 points.

 

• May 1971-1972=112 points. Note: In 1972, Lt. George W. Bush’s evaluation stated that he was “an exceptional fighter interceptor pilot and officer.”

 

• May 1972-1973=56 points. *During this period, George W. Bush formally requested permission from his superiors to go to Alabama to work on a Senate campaign. Col. William Campenni (Ret.), who flew with [then] Lt. George W. Bush in 1970 and 1971, said: “In 1972, there was an enormous glut of pilots,” and “The Vietnam War was winding down, and the Air Force was putting pilots in desk jobs. In ’72 or ’73, if you were a pilot, active or Guard, and you had an obligation and wanted to get out, no problem. In fact, you were helping them solve their problem.” Lt. Bush’s request was granted. He was not, as DNC operative Terry McAuliffe has said, “AWOL”. It was during this period that President Bush stopped flying.

 

• May 1973-1974=56 points. *In 1974, Lt. George W. Bush was granted an Honorable Discharge fro the Texas Air National Guard, after accumulating enough points to total almost 6 years of military service

 

Former Lt. [lower grade] John F. Kerry (from his voiced service record).

 

• 4 months in Viet Nam

 

President Bush (in February 2004) signed Standard Form 180, {I could not find solid back up for that claim L.R.} which allowed the release of ALL of his military records and removed the privacy associated with them. John F. Kerry still REFUSES to sign Standard Form 180.

 

All of President Bush’s records are available for scrutiny. John Kerry’s records are not. President Bush has been open and honest about his military records and John Kerry has not. Facts are facts.

 

Is the majority of the public interested in this information? I don’t know. However, I do know that the DNC and Kerry campaign continues to use all manner of falsehoods (including the now- infamous forgeries) to “support their case” against the President. Do people want the true facts? I hope so, as the truth presents a strong case against the lies that the DNC and Kerry campaign are perpetrating. Unfortunately, the truth no longer receives much attention from the mainstream media. Contrary to what the DNC and Kerry campaign would have you believe, the Presidency of the United States is the decision of the voters and that decision can still be based on the truth. As Fox News says: “We report, you decide”.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All of the documents that I used to refute Porkchop's original post are readily available.  

 

Last Resort, the sticking point for Kerry's military records seems to be Standard Form 180, which he has not signed.

 

Bush also has not signed a Standard Form 180.

 

My guess is that he was Discharged in the '70s, but not Honorably. He appealed this sometime while Clinton was doing trouser-tricks in the Oval Office. Political pressure was applied, and the Honorable Discharge was then granted.

 

30 Years later! Why?

 

You didn't refute anything in the post.

Silly me!

 

I thought that if one were presented with the facts, instead of another Internet conspiracy theory, one would be able to come to a rational conclusion.  Alas, rationality is apparently a concept foreign to some people.  Since you still seem to be confused, here are some pictures.  Hopefully, they will make it easier for you to understand.

 

The Dan Rather memos have more credibility than the horseshit you posted.

 

Kerry's HONORABLE discharge from OCS - December 15, 1966

dd214-1.jpg

 

Kerry's HONORABLE discharge from Active Duty - January 3, 1970

dd214-2.jpg

 

Kerry's HONORABLE discharge from the Naval Reserve - February 16, 1978

discharge-3.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Last Resort, the sticking point for Kerry's military records seems to be Standard Form 180, which he has not signed.

 

Bush also has not signed a Standard Form 180.

skielty1,

 

I think this is the issue.

 

Thursday, September 23, 2004

180 Proof

INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY

 

Media Bias: The press treats Sen. John Kerry's incomplete service record as a nonstory. But it toils to fill the gaps on President Bush. Is a double standard at work?

 

Yes, based on the evidence of the past couple of weeks.

 

The big news was CBS' fizzled bombshell of forged documents purporting to show that Bush shirked his duties more than 30 years ago in the Texas Air National Guard. But amid all this commotion over the gaps in Bush's record and the gaps in CBS' ethics, the Navy confirmed that Kerry still had some documents, possibly crucial ones, yet to disclose.

 

Responding last week to a request from the legal group Judicial Watch, the Navy said it had 31 pages of documents that it was not authorized to release under the Freedom of Information Act.

 

To make these private records public, the Navy needs Kerry's permission, which he could provide by filling out Standard Form 180. He hasn't done so, and very few in the media seem to care. (The missing documents may actually total more than 31 pages. An earlier FOIA request by The Washington Post netted only six pages of information from a file at least 100 pages long.)

 

A few columnists and organizations — such as Deroy Murdock, Zev Chafets, Nat Hentoff, the New York Post and this page — have noted Kerry's stonewalling. But most of the outcry is from talk radio, blogs, letters to the editor and Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

 

America's leading wire service, by way of contrast, has been clamoring for Bush documents and even going to court to get them. In a July hearing, AP lawyers argued that "the public has an intense and legitimate interest in knowing the facts concerning the president's military service." And not the facts concerning his challenger?

 

Last Thursday, a friendly federal judge ordered the Pentagon to make public any documents it had not disclosed.

 

For his part, Bush already authorized the release of all his Guard records, so his approval wasn't needed to disclose fresh material.

 

Bush seems to get no credit for openness, just as Kerry essentially gets a free pass for his obvious efforts to control the flow of information. When holes appear in Bush's record, the media act as if he's hiding something. When Kerry bars the public from seeing documents that are known to exist, the lack of outrage is deafening.

 

What is Kerry hiding? Maybe nothing. But his full record might clear up (or confirm) charges raised by critics, especially the Swiftees, that his war-hero biography rests on his own inflated reports of combat experience and injuries.

 

It thus might shed light on his honesty and character, relevant issues in judging a presidential hopeful.

 

Under FOIA, no court can compel Kerry to release private documents such as medical reports.

 

If he refuses to fill out Form 180, a long and loud public outcry may be the only force that can move him. We see calls for 180 proof rising from the grass roots.

 

But from the news and opinion leaders of the land we have heard mostly silence — a silence that speaks volumes about them.

 

I wish they would make issue of what is going on today. What Kerry has done in the last 10-15-20 years while in congress.

 

He chooses to make his service the central point of his campaign. If that is what he wants then the years directly after his four months should weigh just as heavily. His years of traitorous acts; they were the same time frame, right? What he did then is just as important as those 4 months.

 

If he wants to drop it and move on let’s do it. Let’s hear about his record in congress. He chooses not to make his recent record the central point of his platform. No one outside his group wrote his acceptance speech.

 

Why has he not resigned his seat in congress as Bob Dole and others have done?

 

Dole, a true war hero, did not make his service the center of his campaign; he had a congressional record he was proud of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

President Bush (in February 2004) signed Standard Form 180, {I could not find solid back up for that claim L.R.} which allowed the release of ALL of his military records and removed the privacy associated with them. John F. Kerry still REFUSES to sign Standard Form 180.

If Bush has, indeed, signed SF 180, it's news to his Press Secretary, not to mention the conservative press.

 

From the Washington Times, 8/18/04:

At the White House, press secretary Scott McClellan said he couldn't say specifically whether Mr. Bush signed Standard Form 180, but the president did request and release his own military records in February.  "I don't believe he signed any form, but he did authorize making his military records available publicly," Mr. McClellan said. "We have released all the records, and reporters were allowed to look at his medical records as well."

 

From the National Review Online, 8/22/04:

Clanton's statement may be perfectly valid, but how can anyone know for sure, any more than Americans can be perfectly confident about President Bush's also reputedly public service records? An SF 180 autographed by John Kerry indisputably will show that the Navy has disgorged itself of every paper bearing his name. The SF 180 also could free anything still lodged among the Pentagon's papers that a less formal "request" might have missed. What's good for the donkey is good for the elephant: Bush should sign an SF 180, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where is ABC, CBS and NBC on this? Seems to be at or above the research they find acceptable.

 

John Kerry, Criminal

By Henry Mark Holzer and Erika Holzer

FrontPageMagazine.com | September 17, 2004

 

For years it was said that Jane Fonda committed treason when she went to Vietnam in July 1972.  In the late 1990s, with increasingly widespread use of the Internet, the charge became a staple of discussion by conservatives and veterans.  However, their belief in Fonda’s criminality was not substantiated.  We undertook to do just that, and laid out the definitive case against her in our 2002 book, “Aid and Comfort”: Jane Fonda In North Vietnam.

 

A current parallel has arisen in connection with the presidential candidacy of John Kerry.  For the past several weeks, the Internet has been ablaze with charges—as yet unexplained, let alone legally substantiated— that by traveling to Paris for meetings with the North Vietnamese communists and their Viet Cong allies in 1970, Kerry violated American criminal statutes.  Indeed, one well-intentioned group, Patriot Petitions, has disseminated a petition to President of the Senate Richard Cheney, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, and Attorney General John Ashcroft, seeking Kerry’s prosecution.

 

Just as Fonda’s critics turned out to have been correct about their gut feelings regarding her treasonable actions in North Vietnam, so, too, Kerry’s critics—who feel strongly that his trip violated the law, without quite knowing why—are correct.

 

The explanation of Kerry’s criminal behavior in Paris is some thirty-four years overdue.

 

Our major premise—the legal one—is that one federal statute makes it a crime for American citizens to have “intercourse” with the “enemy,” while another federal statute similarly prohibits “intercourse” with “any foreign government.”

 

Our minor premise—the factual one—is that John Kerry confessed to engaging in  exactly that proscribed conduct.

 

Therefore, John Kerry is a criminal.

 

Kerry’s criminality has deep historical roots.  Americans acted similarly even before the Declaration of Independence.  Indeed, Article 28 of the American Articles of War of 1775 provided: “Whosoever belonging to the continental army, shall be convicted of holding correspondence with, or giving intelligence to, the enemy, shall suffer such punishment as by a general court-martial shall be ordered.”  The essence of this non-intercourse colonial statute has appeared in each subsequent military code since 1775.

 

Its modern embodiment is Title 10, Section 904 of the United States Code [uniform Code of Military Justice], which 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.

 

The meaning of this section—apart from the definition of “enemy,” which in the early 1970s certainly included the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese (see Title 18, United States Code, Section 11)—has been interpreted in four appellate cases.

 

Edward S. Dickenson was a turncoat American POW who collaborated with the Chinese Communists in a prison camp during the Korean War.  Upon his repatriation he was charged with violating Section 904’s predecessor.  The court’s most important ruling was that at the time Dickenson committed the acts charged, even though his enlistment had expired (due to incarceration in the POW camp), he remained subject to military jurisdiction.  This ruling was reinforced when Dickenson appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which noted that the defendant “had neither been discharged . . . nor had his military status been severed . . . .  He was a soldier, subject to the rules, discipline and jurisdiction of the Army and squarely within the provisions of Article 2 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice . . . which provides as subject: ‘All persons belonging to a regular component of the armed forces, including those awaiting discharge after expiration of their term of enlistment . . . .’”  (Emphasis added).

 

Claude J. Batchelor (see Why Not Call It Treason?) was another Korean War collaborator.  Upon his repatriation he, too, was charged with violating Section 904’s predecessor.  One of Batchelor’s defenses was that he had no criminal intent.  The United States Court of Military Appeals rejected that argument, holding that intent was not necessary for commission of the crime (unlike treason cases, where intent is an essential element).

 

A third Korean War collaborator was William H. Olson.  In affirming his conviction, the Court of Military Appeals said this:  “f the accused was the instrument used by the enemy to spread propaganda against his own country, and he did so voluntarily, he has thereby aided the enemy’s cause within the meaning of the statute.”  (Emphasis added).  The court then quoted the 1949 Manual for Courts-Martial for the proposition that “non-intercourse” has been the consistent interpretation of Section 904 and its predecessors:

 

Correspondence does not necessarily import a mutual exchange of communication.  The law requires absolute non-intercourse, and any unauthorized communication, no matter what may be its tenor or intent, is here denounced.  The prohibition lies against any method of communication whatsoever, and the offense is complete the moment the communication issues from the accused, whether it reaches its destination or not.

 

As to whether the charges of collaboration leveled against Olson were within the statute’s proscription, the court noted that “t is certain that communications, collaboration, and intercourse with the enemy which results in a program of psychological warfare inimical to this country is within [the statute’s] fair meaning.”

 

The fourth case, United States v. Johnson, arose during the Vietnam War. According to the United States Court of Military Appeals:

 

While on duty with the Marine Corps in Vietnam, the accused proceeded to Bangkok, Thailand, on authorized rest and recreation leave. When he did not return at its expiration, he was listed as being absent without leave. He was apprehended [and] returned him to Saigon. * * *  In his statement, the accused described in detail his whereabouts during his unauthorized absence and acknowledged that he intended to travel across Thailand and Laos and into Vietnam with the intent to contact the Viet Cong or North Vietnamese regulars and talk with them "of certain moral responsibilities: (1) Duties to God; (2) duties to fellow man. In other words, I feel that it is the responsibility of all men to go out and make peace regardless of what sacrifices they may have to make and it is for this reason that I decided to go out and attempt to meet with the enemy and teach him something of Christianity and of moral responsibilities.  * * * [Later, Johnson expressed to a government agent] his desire once more to contact the North Vietnamese in his crusade for peace and morality among the enemy. He was apprehended before he could begin his mission.

 

Charged with several crimes, including an attempt to violate Section 904—remember, Johnson never even reached the Vietnamese communists—his conviction was reversed by the Court of Military Appeals strictly on Miranda-like “failure to advise” grounds.  The opinion, however, is clear that one can be charged with even an attempt to violate Section 904 without ever having consummated the crime.

 

The second federal statute for consideration is Title 18, United States Code, Section 953, known as the Logan Act:

 

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

 

Section 953 was at the core of Agee v. Muskie, decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 1980.

 

Rogue CIA employee Philip Agee (represented by Melvin L. Wulf, late head of the ACLU) successfully challenged a State Department regulation allowing for revocation of an American citizen’s passport because he had not yet been charged with a crime.  However, certain aspects of the Agee case speak loudly about John Kerry’s criminal behavior.  Agee, at that time the most outspoken and vicious opponent of CIA clandestine activities, proposed to the Iranian militants that they offer a deal to our government: return of the embassy hostages in exchange for all CIA files on its Iran operations since 1950.

 

On that basis, the government prepared a draft indictment which appears as an appendix to the court’s opinion.

 

The Grand Jury charges:

 

From on or about the 4th day of November 1979 until on or about the 24th day of December, 1979, (an Iranian), and (an Iranian), and a large group of other Iranians whose names are to the Grand Jury unknown, hereinafter referred to as "Iranian Terrorists", constituted a "foreign government" as defined by 18 U.S.C. s 11, in that they were a faction and body of insurgents within Iran, a country recognized by the United States and with which country the United States was at peace; that during the aforesaid period Philip Agee, herein charged as the defendant, a citizen of the United States, then in the vicinity of Hamburg, Germany, did, without authority of the United States, directly and indirectly carry on correspondence and intercourse with the aforesaid body of insurgents constituting a foreign government and with officers and agents thereof, with intent to influence the measures and conduct of said foreign government and of the officers and agents thereof in relation to disputes and controversies between said foreign government and the United States, and to defeat the measures of the United States in such disputes and controversies, in that within a few weeks before the 23rd day of December 1979, the said Philip Agee did communicate, correspond, and have intercourse with the aforementioned Iranian Terrorists by counseling, and suggesting to them, in relation to their dispute and controversy with the United States that they could prevail in their unlawful demands on the United States by forcing the United States contrary to the authority thereof, by extortion, to deliver into the possession of the aforesaid Iranian Terrorists constituting said foreign government, certain United States property, to wit, all records of the Central Intelligence Agency of the United States (CIA) on CIA intelligence operations in Iran for the past 30 years, in return for the release by said Iranian Terrorists of upwards of 50 citizens of the United States who were duly accredited to the official staff of the United States Embassy in Tehran, Iran, and who were then being threatened with execution and being unlawfully held and confined within the United States Embassy at Tehran, Iran by force by said foreign government as hostages in its dispute and controversy with the United States; all in violation of 18 U.S.C. ss 953.

 

Given Title 10, Section 904 and Title 18, Section 953, there is no doubt whatsoever that intercourse with the enemy and intercourse with a foreign government with intent to “defeat the measures of” the United States constitute federal crimes.

 

There is also no doubt that under Dickenson, Batchelor, Olson and Johnson, respectively, reservists are subject to Section 904, criminal intent is not necessary for conviction, providing propaganda to the enemy can constitute commission of the crime, and even an unsuccessful attempt is punishable.

 

By logical extension, the same is true under Section 953 of the Logan Act, as the draft indictment of Philip Agee makes eminently clear.

 

Our major premise having been established, this leaves only our minor premise to be examined.  

 

It has long been well known that in the early 1970s, the North Vietnamese and their southern Viet Cong allies maintained representatives in Paris, and that various American citizens—among them Jane Fonda—made pilgrimages to meet with them, absorb the current party line, and spread their communist propaganda.

 

In 1970, John Kerry was one of those pilgrims.  When he went to Paris, he was a citizen of the United States.  He was still a member of the United States Navy.  And clearly he lacked any authority from the government to act on its behalf.

 

We do not have to speculate about Kerry’s activities in Paris because he openly admitted what he did there.  During the question and answer period following his April 22, 1971 televised testimony before the Armed Services Committee of the United States Senate, Kerry said:

 

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.

 

Even today, knowing what we know about the Vietnamese communists and about John Kerry, it is difficult to grasp the enormity of what he was confessing to.  As an American citizen and a member of the United States Navy—while his former comrades and countless others were fighting and dying in Vietnam at the hands of Viet Cong guerillas and North Vietnamese regulars—Kerry consorted with the Viet Cong representative and discussed (“talked with,” he euphemized) her “plan.”  That obscene plan included a trade: the return of our POWs for a withdrawal of American forces.  As John O’Neill expressed in his important bestselling book Unfit For Command, “. . . America could have its POWs back only if we agreed that we lost, then surrendered, and then set a date to leave.”

 

Kerry’s wartime trip to Paris was confirmed about six months ago by a campaign spokesman, who tossed it off as a mere “fact-finding” excursion.

 

Yet Kerry was apparently so impressed with the “facts” he found in company with the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese that a few months after his return from Paris he had the effrontery to urge the President of the United States to accept his communist hosts’ plan for “peace” in Vietnam.

 

In sum, John Kerry—an American citizen and a naval officer, with no authority granted by his government—made arrangements while in the United States to meet with America’s enemies.  He then traveled across the Atlantic, conferred with the communists in Paris, absorbed their terms for “peace” in Vietnam, returned to the United States to publicly endorse monstrous plans that trafficked in the lives of our POWs, and by so doing “defeat[ed] the measures of the United States.”

 

In this, John Kerry shares the unpatriotic company of Dickensen, Batchelor, Olson, Johnson, Agee and Hanoi Jane Fonda—all violators of federal “intercourse with the enemy” laws.

 

All criminals.

 

*

 

Henry Mark Holzer, Professor Emeritus at Brooklyn Law School, specializes in federal appeals.  Erika Holzer, a lawyer and novelist, is co-author, with Professor Holzer, of Fake Warriors: Identifying, Exposing and Punishing Those Who Falsify Their Military Service.  A second edition is forthcoming with a new preface entitled “John Kerry: The Ultimate Fake Warrior.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

President Bush (in February 2004) signed Standard Form 180, {I could not find solid back up for that claim L.R.} which allowed the release of ALL of his military records and removed the privacy associated with them. John F. Kerry still REFUSES to sign Standard Form 180.

If Bush has, indeed, signed SF 180, it's news to his Press Secretary, not to mention the conservative press.

 

From the Washington Times, 8/18/04:

At the White House, press secretary Scott McClellan said he couldn't say specifically whether Mr. Bush signed Standard Form 180, but the president did request and release his own military records in February.  "I don't believe he signed any form, but he did authorize making his military records available publicly," Mr. McClellan said. "We have released all the records, and reporters were allowed to look at his medical records as well."

 

From the National Review Online, 8/22/04:

Clanton's statement may be perfectly valid, but how can anyone know for sure, any more than Americans can be perfectly confident about President Bush's also reputedly public service records? An SF 180 autographed by John Kerry indisputably will show that the Navy has disgorged itself of every paper bearing his name. The SF 180 also could free anything still lodged among the Pentagon's papers that a less formal "request" might have missed. What's good for the donkey is good for the elephant: Bush should sign an SF 180, too.

At very least, President Bush is not filtering his released documents thru his campaign website.

 

Fitton called the Kerry campaign's contention that all of the candidate's military files have been released, "wrong."

 

"They (the Kerry campaign) are either ignorant or misleading us. The simple solution is to authorize the release of all records related to his service," Fitton said.

 

German in a letter dated September 15, also referred Judicial Watch to Kerry's campaign website for more information on Kerry's military records.

 

"Numerous responsive U.S. Navy service record documents, as well as service record documents not subject to disclosure requirements under the FOIA, may be accessed at" the Kerry campaign's website applying to his military records, wrote German.

 

"Right now we are in the 'Alice in Wonderland' situation, where the U.S. Navy is telling us to go to a campaign Internet site to get government FOIA documents," Fitton said.

 

"I am not aware of any other instance where [a government agency] told us to go to a political website for documents," he added. "It's not a reliable repository of government documents."

 

WASHINGTON (Talon News)

 

...................

Earlier this year, the Democratic Party made a media spectacle out of viewing all of President George W. Bush's military records.

 

The intense scrutiny by Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe, among others, made headlines for weeks after Bush promised to release them on NBC's "Meet the Press."

 

Ironically, Kerry was on "Meet the Press" on Sunday and made a similar announcement that he would disclose all of his military records and make them available at his campaign headquarters.

 

"I've shown them -- they're available for you to come and look at," Kerry proclaimed on "Meet the Press."

 

He even said that "people can come and see [the records] at [the Kerry campaign] headquarters."

 

However, a reporter with the Boston Herald attempted to see the military records on Monday and was told by Michael Meehan, a Kerry spokesman, that no new documents would be released, including military evaluations, medical records, and other documents.

 

"He is releasing all military records he has released to The Boston Globe," Meehan told the Boston Globe.

 

Meehan said the Kerry campaign would only release limited documents to what he described as "legitimate" new sources, a slight at the Boston Globe and other news organizations out of favor with the Kerry campaign.

 

By contrast, Bush released over 300 pages of papers after there were questions about his National Guard service after his February 8 appearance on "Meet the Press."

 

Dan Bartlett, communications director for Bush, said Bush made a promise and kept it.

 

"The president made a pledge before the American people, and he made his complete file available to the media and the public," Bartlett told the Boston Herald. "They were able to review all of his medical records, and we fully released the remainder of his military files, including evaluations and performance sheets as well as days served."

 

He continued, "The president lived up to his commitment he made to the public, and we should expect the same from his opponent."

 

................

 

However, Meehan has disallowed any copies of the military records from being copied by reporters because Kerry states those are private.

 

Bush reelection campaign chairman Ken Mehlman said this is yet another example of how Kerry promises one thing, but delivers another.

 

"Senator Kerry's record of nondisclosure and his flip-flop on this issue should concern voters," Mehlman told the Associated Press.

 

......................

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey skielty1 (While you are down there)Refute this.

 

And don't be using any more Burkett/Rather Documents OK.

 

 

Below are some of the crimes Lt. Kerry USNR committed as a Ready

Reservist, while he was acting as a leader of Vietnam Veterans Against the

War:

 

1. Lt. Kerry attended many rallies where the Vietcong flag was

displayed while our flag was desecrated, defiled, and mocked, thereby giving

aid and comfort to the enemy.

2. Lt. Kerry was involved in a meeting that voted on assassinating

members of the US Senate.

3. Lt. Kerry lied under oath against fellow soldiers before the US

Senate about crimes committed in Vietnam.

4. Lt. Kerry professed to being a war criminal on national

television, and condemned the military and the USA.

5. Lt. Kerry met with NVA and Vietcong communist leaders in Paris,

in direct violation of the UCMJ and the U.S. Constitution.

 

Lt. Kerry by his own words & actions violated the UCMJ and the U.S.

Code while serving as a Navy officer. Lt. Kerry stands in violation of

Article 3, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution. Lt. Kerry's 1970 meeting

with NVA Communists in Paris is in direct violation of the UCMJ's Article

104 part 904, and U.S. Code 18 U.S.C. 953. That meeting, and Kerry's

subsequent support of the communists while leading mass protests against our

military in the year that followed, also place him in direct violation of

our Constitution! 's Article 3, Section 3, which defines treason as "giving

aid and comfort" to the enemy in time of warfare.

 

The Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment, Section 3, states, "No person

shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President

and Vice-President ... having previously taken an oath . to support the

Constitution of the United States, [who has] engaged in insurrection or

rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."

 

The crucks of the bisquit!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey PorkChop dont you know that Democrats never concede? Just look at poor little Al Gore , he has never conceded ! And Skielty wont either !

 

"Im the only one who's right and rest of you are wrong" , thats there thinking.

 

Prove to me something Skielty and I'll concede my point of view was wrong , but so far you havent shown me shit , other than the "flip-flop" spin there your leader throws out!

 

Ill give you this much , I'd vote for you before I voted for Kerry , at least you stick by your story (even if its flip-flop story)!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...