Obama throws Wes Clark under the bus

[DiamondDave]

larkin... just because it goes against your leftist stance or it confuses you, does not make the Article within UCMJ "unclear"... it is very clear....

Kerry is VERY lucky he was not prosecuted for his actions.... for he was still under the jurisdiction of UCMJ as a member of the military... this is completely clear

 

[Larkinn]

WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG

It is completely relevant

There is an important difference between being in the Naval Reserves on inactive duty and being in the Standby Reserves on inactive duty. Standby Reserve status would permit a person to argue that he was a civilian for all intents and purposes. A person in the Naval Reserves is still considered in the Military... P-E-R-I-O-D

there is no argument

go get a clue... you need one

The distinction isn't whether you are a "Civilian for all intents and purposes" or whether you are in the military "for all intents and purposes". It has to do with Article 2 of the UCMJ.

Learn something about the law before you try to apply it, yes?

 

[Larkinn]

larkin... just because it goes against your leftist stance or it confuses you, does not make the Article within UCMJ "unclear"... it is very clear....

Kerry is VERY lucky he was not prosecuted for his actions.... for he was still under the jurisdiction of UCMJ as a member of the military... this is completely clear

American Thinker: Did Navy Lt. Kerry violate The UCMJ?

Two readers, one of them from the JAG corps, have written in to supply the information that Kerry is in the clear, with regard to the UCMJ:

(3) Members of a reserve component while on inactive—duty training, but in the case of members of the Army National Guard of the United States or the Air National Guard of the United States only when in Federal Service.

are still subject to this body of law.

See Baldilocks; and

See 10 U.S.C. 802(a)(1) and (3) (which is Article 2, UCMJ); see also Rules for Courts—Martial (RCM) 202 (found in the Manual for Courts—Martial, or MCM).

There are also cases interpreting this, but the statute is clear enough. You have to be serving in a regular component, i.e., active—duty, or performing inactive—duty training in order to be subject to the UCMJ.

 

[CSM]

The distinction isn't whether you are a "Civilian for all intents and purposes" or whether you are in the military "for all intents and purposes". It has to do with Article 2 of the UCMJ.

Learn something about the law before you try to apply it, yes?

Bullshit. It is very clear.

Furthermore:

803. ART. 3. JURISDICTION TO TRY CERTAIN PERSONNEL

...

(d) A member of a reserve component who is subject to this chapter is not, by virtue of the termination of a period of active duty or inactive-duty training, relieved from amenability to the jurisdiction of this chapter for an offense against this chapter committed during such period of active duty or inactive-duty training.


Maybe your JAG friend needs to brush up a bit.

 

[jreeves]

American Thinker: Did Navy Lt. Kerry violate The UCMJ?

Could you cite the relevant case law? I don't know that much about military law but I am curious.

 

[Larkinn]

Bullshit. It is very clear.

Furthermore:

803. ART. 3. JURISDICTION TO TRY CERTAIN PERSONNEL

...

(d) A member of a reserve component who is subject to this chapter is not, by virtue of the termination of a period of active duty or inactive-duty training, relieved from amenability to the jurisdiction of this chapter for an offense against this chapter committed during such period of active duty or inactive-duty training.


Maybe your JAG friend needs to brush up a bit.

Umm, thats nice. Also irrelevant. Was the "offense" committed during active duty or inactive-duty TRAINING? No, it was not. And I think he knows the law just a wee bit better than you do.

 

[CSM]

Umm, thats nice. Also irrelevant. Was the "offense" committed during active duty or inactive-duty TRAINING? No, it was not. And I think he knows the law just a wee bit better than you do.

You and your supposed JAG buddy are full of crap...my opinion you understand...

Also, you have no idea how much I know about UCMJ.

 

[Larkinn]

You and your supposed JAG buddy are full of crap...my opinion you understand...

Also, you have no idea how much I know about UCMJ.

So you turn to nothing but insults, eh? And hes not my buddy, hes my boss. And I know you aren't a lawyer, and never practiced under the UCMJ, so someone who did for ten years knows a LOT more about it than you.

Especially when you don't seem to realize that the difference between inactive duty and inactive duty training is a big one.

 

[Larkinn]

Could you cite the relevant case law? I don't know that much about military law but I am curious.

No, sorry. I know some of it decently, but not enough to cite case law off of the top of my head.

 

[Ravi]

If he was guilty of treason, why wasn't he prosecuted?

I think Larkinn's got it right.

 

[DiamondDave]

Bullshit. It is very clear.

Furthermore:

803. ART. 3. JURISDICTION TO TRY CERTAIN PERSONNEL

...

(d) A member of a reserve component who is subject to this chapter is not, by virtue of the termination of a period of active duty or inactive-duty training, relieved from amenability to the jurisdiction of this chapter for an offense against this chapter committed during such period of active duty or inactive-duty training.


Maybe your JAG friend needs to brush up a bit.

DING DING DING DING

Correctamundo....

Kerry would have POSSIBLY had an argument after mid 1972.... when he was put into Standby Reserve.... POSSIBLY....

It is so clear that he was still a member of the military, and under the realm of UCMJ.... but this and many other whack-job lefties just refuse to see the situation because of their political stance...

 

[DiamondDave]

If he was guilty of treason, why wasn't he prosecuted?

I think Larkinn's got it right.

He was quite lucky he was not... probably because of the politics of the situation at the time....

The thing is, he could have been... and in my opinion SHOULD have been, like any other traitor

 

[Larkinn]

DING DING DING DING

Correctamundo....

Kerry would have POSSIBLY had an argument after mid 1972.... when he was put into Standby Reserve.... POSSIBLY....

It is so clear that he was still a member of the military, and under the realm of UCMJ.... but this and many other whack-job lefties just refuse to see the situation because of their political stance...

As I said before, and you refuse to see, the difference is not whether you think he was a member of the military or not, its whether he falls under Article 2, which he does not.

CSM has already given his best shot, and failed, at trying to point to where he was covered. Care to give your own shot?

 

[CSM]

As I said before, and you refuse to see, the difference is not whether you think he was a member of the military or not, its whether he falls under Article 2, which he does not.

CSM has already given his best shot, and failed, at trying to point to where he was covered. Care to give your own shot?

NOW HEAR THIS....LARKIN IS TECHNICALLY CORRECT. I ADMIT THAT MY INTERPRETATION OF UCMJ WAS IN ERROR. KERRY WAS NOT ON ORDERS AT THE TIME OF HIS ACTIVITY. After reading some of the case law to which Larkin refers I am convinced.

Kerry is still a traiterous piece of shit, slime ball, however. Strictly my opinion and NO amount of legaleeze will convince me otherwise.

 

[CSM]

So you turn to nothing but insults, eh? And hes not my buddy, hes my boss. And I know you aren't a lawyer, and never practiced under the UCMJ, so someone who did for ten years knows a LOT more about it than you.

Especially when you don't seem to realize that the difference between inactive duty and inactive duty training is a big one.

You found my opinion an insult? How very interesting.

 

[CSM]

He was quite lucky he was not... probably because of the politics of the situation at the time....

The thing is, he could have been... and in my opinion SHOULD have been, like any other traitor

It would appear that Larkin is correct and there are no grounds to try Kerry under UCMJ. Doesn't mean Kerry is anything but a traitor...you just can't convict him of being one under UCMJ.

 

[WhoisJohnGault]

See, I don't think Clark said anything wrong. Being a POW doesn't qualify McCain for the job of president. It means he should be respected for his service, but doesn't have anything to do with addressing his other shortcomings.

And the funny thing is Clark's said this before... notably on Scarborough's show.... and then McCain's campaign realized they had another opportunity to try to keep anyone from talking about McCain. So now, we're not allowed to talk about his age (even though it impacts on his decision-making ability) or the fact that his service doesn't make him presidential material.

See, I don't think Clark said anything wrong. Being a POW doesn't qualify McCain for the job of president. It means he should be respected for his service, but doesn't have anything to do with addressing his other shortcomings.

And the funny thing is Clark's said this before... notably on Scarborough's show.... and then McCain's campaign realized they had another opportunity to try to keep anyone from talking about McCain. So now, we're not allowed to talk about his age (even though it impacts on his decision-making ability) or the fact that his service doesn't make him presidential material.

I do not recall anyone claiming that McCain's service entitled him to be president. But also there is nothing that qualifies Obama to be prez either. As for not being "able" to speak about McCain? Well, we can't mention Obama's quite questionable associations now can we??

As for age being a factor; how so you decide that? According to you, then, Ben Franklin who was 70 when the Revolutionary War was ending, was too old to make decisions, and he was 81 when he attended the Constitutional Convention. Many cultures respect and revere the elderly among them. They look to them for wisdom won only by living. This country has been terrible towards it's elderly, making them the butt of degrading jokes....have little or no time for them and then wonder why they are "vague" uninteresting. You show me an elderly person whose family has kept them included in their lives and they are funny, happy, outgoing individuals. McCain has some super genes going on in his body; look at his mother for instance not to mention his ability to have withstood the torture for more than five years. Then would not leave when he was able to.....he wouldn't leave his friends behind. I wonder if Obama has such fortitude, such loyalty under extreme duress. I wonder if Clarke has it? Both men must prove their qualifications; not rest on any "laurels"....real or imagined...but once you begin with the comparing, quite frankly Obama pales in comparison overall. Sorry, but it's the truth. The only thing Obama has going over McCain is his age and being young does not necessarily mean you are the smarter fox.
__________________

 

[WhoisJohnGault]

He was quite lucky he was not... probably because of the politics of the situation at the time....

The thing is, he could have been... and in my opinion SHOULD have been, like any other traitor

Ah Kudos to your post; I concur totally. I miss Reagan so...........

btw, though my "name'is John.......I am a female. LOL I'm sure you all know who John Galt refers to. My favorite book.

 

[AllieBaba]

And Reagan was old, too. And he was one of, if not the, best presidents we ever had.

 

[Larkinn]

Technically correct?....you mean actually correct.

From US v. Schuering

A reservist is subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice only under limited circumstances. These are as follows: (1) He must actually be “on inactive duty training”; (2) the training must be performed pursuant to written orders; (3) the orders must specify that he is amenable to the Uniform Code during his training or drill periods; and (4) the orders must have voluntarily been accepted by him.

But thanks for admitting it CSM.