JFKerry Treason Thread

Is there enough evidence to bring John Kerry up on charges of treason?


  • Total voters
    10

pegwinn

Top of the Food Chain
Joined
Apr 17, 2004
Messages
2,549
Reaction score
330
Points
98
Location
Texas
Please read the whole thing before voting.

DISCLAIMER: This document reflects only the result of the work of the author. No agency, group, or individual other than is represented here.

This is a JAG Manual Format (Command Investigation) project. The text is based on the Investigating Officers report to the Commanding Officer and consists of four distinct parts.

The first statement is the subject line. It is intended to concisely describe the specific purpose of the investigation. For those inclined to Nitpick, see chapter 2 of the JAG Manual.

The next section is Findings of Fact. Each fact connected with the investigation is listed sequentially. Each fact must be supported by an item or items of evidence. For this project the sources will be internet based and linked in the body of each fact asserted.

After findings of fact come the Opinions section. Each opinion must be based on facts. The facts must be cited.

Finally the last section is recommendations. Each recommendation must be based on one or more of the opinions presented. The opinions must be cited.

Once completed the JAG is turned into the Commanding Officer for review. He/She will then add an endorsement page with his/her decision. Obviously this project will stop short of a decision.

Subj: Investigation concerning post Vietnam actions undertaken by John Forbes Kerry to determine if his actions were treason.

FINDINGS OF FACT:

1. That John F. Kerry enlisted in the US Navy Reserve on February 18, 1966. Encl 1

2. That John Kerry was on active duty in the U.S. Navy for three years and eight months, from August 1966 until March 1970. Encl 1

3. That John F. Kerry served in the US Navy Reserve from March 2 1970 until February 1972. Encl 1

4. That John F. Kerry received an Honorable discharge from the Naval Reserve on February 16, 1978. Encl 6

5. That John F. Kerry received his commission on December 16 1966. Encl 1

6. That the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) applies to all military personnel worldwide to include members of the inactive reserve. Encl 5, Encl 7

7. That article 104 of the UCMJ is applicable to all persons whether civil or military. Encl 7

8. That John F. Kerry was subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice from February 18, 1966 to February 16, 1978. Encl 1, Encl 5, Encl 6

9. That John F. Kerry visited Paris in June of 1970 and met with Madame Nguyen Thi Binh. Encl 7, Encl 8

10. That John F. Kerry testified before Congress on April 23, 1971. Encl 9

11. That during Senate testimony John F. Kerry stated that he witnessed various atrocities during his tour of duty in Vietnam. Encl 9

12. That John F. Kerry stated that the atrocities were known to all levels of command. Encl 9

13. That John F. Kerry stated that he participated in the atrocities referred to during his Senate testimony. Encl 9

14. That John F. Kerry specifically endorsed the proposals of the communist delegation he had met with in June 1970 during his Senate testimony. Encl 6

15. That the North Vietnamese Government benefited from John F. Kerry's testimony. Encl 10 Encl 11 Encl 15

16. That the North Vietnamese Government created propaganda based in part on John F. Kerry's antiwar activities. Encl 10 Encl 11 Encl 15

17. That The Constitution of the United States , Art. III, defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort. This offence is punished with death. By the same article of the Constitution, no person shall be convicted of treason, unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court. Encl 12

18. That Per the US Supreme Court ruling in Gorin v. United States treason requires a specific intent, and a specific intent both to aid the enemy and to injure the United States. Encl 13

19. That Chief Justice Marshall, in explanation of the Levying War Clause in Article III stated that an overt act was needed to fulfill the requirement. He further clarified the statement by saying "if a body of men be actually assembled for the purpose of effecting by force a treasonable purpose, all those who perform any part, however minute, or however remote from the scene of action, and who are actually leagued in the general conspiracy, are to be considered as traitors." Encl 14

20. That TITLE 18 CHAPTER 115--TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES Sec. 2381 states: "Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States." Encl 16</ol>

OPINIONS:

1. John Kerry was legally accepted into the US Naval Reserve, was Commissioned, served on Active Duty in the Southeast Asia theater of operations and was lawfully required to adhere to the customs, regulations, and orders pertaining to service in the United States Navy. Thus John F. Kerry was "owing allegiance to the United States". (Finding of Facts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 20)

2. John Kerry was subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, specifically Article 104, during his visit to Paris. (Finding of Facts 8, 9)

3. By his own admission John Kerry violated Article 104 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. (Finding of Facts 10)

4. By his own admission John Kerry was aware of alleged war crimes and failed to either correct the situation or report same to his superiors as was his sworn duty. (Finding of Facts 11)

5. By his own admission, John Kerry committed atrocities which violated the law of land warfare. (Finding of Facts 13)

6. That John Kerry's open endorsement of the communist delegation proposals constituted adhering to the enemy. (Finding of Facts 14, 17)

7. That his actions in total constituted giving aid and comfort to the enemy. (Finding of Facts 14, 15, 16)

8. That the preceeding actions in total meet the legal definition of Treason. (Finding of Facts 17, 18, 19, 20)</ol>

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. That John Kerry be further investigated under article 32 of the UCMJ to specifically create appropriate charges for violation of article 104. (Opinion 3)

2. That John Kerry be further investigated under article 32 to address the potential charges that may be levied at trial for crimes against humanity. (Opinion 5)

3. That John Kerry be suspended from his duties as a Senator of these United States until questions of treason are lawfully addressed. (Opinion 8)
 

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
I think probably, but to what point now? To me, the man is a disgrace, but then again the people of MA have elected him again and again. Then again, they did the same with Teddy, who should have been brought up on DUI, reckless homicide, etc.
 

maineman

Rookie
Joined
Dec 29, 2006
Messages
13,003
Reaction score
572
Points
0
Location
guess
fact: naval reservists are only subject to the uniform code of military justice when they are in an official drill status.... that means ONLY when they are actually attending drills or when they are on active duty for training.

The statement above: "That John F. Kerry was subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice from February 18, 1966 to February 16, 1978." therefore, is a LIE.


why am I not surprised?
 

Gurdari

Egaliterra
Joined
Feb 2, 2007
Messages
1,019
Reaction score
40
Points
36
Location
the West
Standing up and stating the very military he was involved in was erring, was acting un-American is a tough, patriotic thing to do... I doubt Kerry was trying to weaken and destroy America, or somehow help Vietnamese forces to kill more GIs... the letter of the law and the spirit should be taken into account. To not report attrocities would be treasonous as well. Perhaps if there were Vietnamese troop son US soil invading/bombing US cities the situation would be different, but the US was not at war like the people of Vietnam were...i.e. living through it, they were watching it on TV.
 
OP
pegwinn

pegwinn

Top of the Food Chain
Joined
Apr 17, 2004
Messages
2,549
Reaction score
330
Points
98
Location
Texas
fact: naval reservists are only subject to the uniform code of military justice when they are in an official drill status.... that means ONLY when they are actually attending drills or when they are on active duty for training.

The statement above: "That John F. Kerry was subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice from February 18, 1966 to February 16, 1978." therefore, is a LIE.


why am I not surprised?
A lie? Moi? Have you known me to post lies before? If so please source them.

Your opening move is a personal attack instead of rational discussion. Why am I not surprised?

Ah well. Each Fact was sourced, therefore I have proven my assertions unless you choose to challenge the source. In that case it is up to you to disprove it. In other words, you have the opportunity to engage in a discussion instead of a personal attack. Whatever will you do with it?
 
OP
pegwinn

pegwinn

Top of the Food Chain
Joined
Apr 17, 2004
Messages
2,549
Reaction score
330
Points
98
Location
Texas
Standing up and stating the very military he was involved in was erring, was acting un-American is a tough, patriotic thing to do... Respectfully, I disagree for the reasons stated above. There is a line where dissent becomes sedition or even treason depending on the circumstances. If he'd reported it via the chain of command, as he was obligated to do, and then blown the whistle....... OR, had he appeared in uniform without having been to Paris.....

I doubt Kerry was trying to weaken and destroy America, or somehow help Vietnamese forces to kill more GIs... No sir, he was attempting to get the USA to capitulate on the North Vietnamese terms.

the letter of the law and the spirit should be taken into account. Again, with respect, I disagree. You cannot divine the spirit of the law unless you wrote it. "Interpretation" isn't a viable method because none of us is a mind reader. If the letter of the law is vague, or could be taken to have multiple meanings, then the proper thing to do is amend it with clear concise language.

To not report attrocities would be treasonous as well. He didn't report atrocities as was his duty. And by his own statement he participated in them.

Perhaps if there were Vietnamese troop son US soil invading/bombing US cities the situation would be different, but the US was not at war like the people of Vietnam were...i.e. living through it, they were watching it on TV. How is that any different than any other war fought away from home? By that logic only the Revolution and Civil War would qualify. I'm afraid I don't get your point.[/
I understand and respect your disagreement. Thanks for not engaging in pointless attacks on the messenger. Cool points for you.
 

maineman

Rookie
Joined
Dec 29, 2006
Messages
13,003
Reaction score
572
Points
0
Location
guess
A lie? Moi? Have you known me to post lies before? If so please source them.

Your opening move is a personal attack instead of rational discussion. Why am I not surprised?

Ah well. Each Fact was sourced, therefore I have proven my assertions unless you choose to challenge the source. In that case it is up to you to disprove it. In other words, you have the opportunity to engage in a discussion instead of a personal attack. Whatever will you do with it?

your statement that he fell under the jurisdiction of the UCMJ for the period from February 18, 1966 to February 16, 1978. Is not a true statement.

I can also point out that your little bit about Kerry being honored in a Hanoi museum for his anti-war activities is also not a true statement...the photo of Kerry was taken in '93 when he and John McCain made a trip to discuss normalizing relations regarding the search for POW/MIAs.... I really have no desire to pick apart any more of your poorly researched cut and paste character assassination of John Kerry... two for two ....two statements that were not true out of two I briefly looked into...I have seen enough.....and where I come from...if you say something that is not true, we have a word for it... and that word is LIE.

If the shoe fits, wear it with pride, pal.
 

maineman

Rookie
Joined
Dec 29, 2006
Messages
13,003
Reaction score
572
Points
0
Location
guess
A lie? Moi? Have you known me to post lies before? If so please source them.

Your opening move is a personal attack instead of rational discussion. Why am I not surprised?

Ah well. Each Fact was sourced, therefore I have proven my assertions unless you choose to challenge the source. In that case it is up to you to disprove it. In other words, you have the opportunity to engage in a discussion instead of a personal attack. Whatever will you do with it?
Are you suggesting that I am wrong about the UCMJ applying to reservists only when they are on drill status?
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj.htm#802.&#37;20ART. 2. PERSONS SUBJECT TO THIS CHAPTER

from that link:

802. ART. 2. PERSONS SUBJECT TO THIS CHAPTER
(a) The following persons are subject to this chapter:

(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.


so....your well sources FACT was, in fact, NOT a fact...but a LIE


again....why am I not surprised? and why are you not apologizing to John Kerry for slandering him?
 
OP
pegwinn

pegwinn

Top of the Food Chain
Joined
Apr 17, 2004
Messages
2,549
Reaction score
330
Points
98
Location
Texas
your statement that he fell under the jurisdiction of the UCMJ for the period from February 18, 1966 to February 16, 1978. Is not a true statement. Yes it is. You even posted the pertinent section above. Do you somehow interpret inactive duty training differently than the US Military? IF so, that is your problem. In any event, if someone were to demonstrate that I was mistaken, then it would be retracted.

I can also point out that your little bit about Kerry being honored in a Hanoi museum for his anti-war activities is also not a true statement...the photo of Kerry was taken in '93 when he and John McCain made a trip to discuss normalizing relations regarding the search for POW/MIAs.... Please show where I used that as a Finding of Fact. I in fact left that one out because I could not find a reasonably unbiased source, or failing that two sources total. Apparently you are not well versed in reading a JAG. Please refer back to the opening post where it is described in detail.

I really have no desire to pick apart any more of your poorly researched cut and paste character assassination of John Kerry While I did cut and paste a few areas, all of it is factual (unless you can prove otherwise) and more importantly ... rational. ... two for two ....Actually, you disputed one and tried to imply something that wasn't there. Please, along with rational, try to be accurate. two statements that were not true out of two I briefly looked into... Which two would that be? You quoted one and I believe you are mistaken on it.

I have seen enough.....and where I come from...if you say something that is not true, we have a word for it... and that word is LIE. Then where you come from they apparently don't speak English properly.
If the shoe fits, wear it with pride, pal.
Still no rational discussion or rebuttal on your part. Pity. As you said, why am I not surprised?
 

Gurdari

Egaliterra
Joined
Feb 2, 2007
Messages
1,019
Reaction score
40
Points
36
Location
the West
Respectfully, I disagree for the reasons stated above. There is a line where dissent becomes sedition or even treason depending on the circumstances. If he'd reported it via the chain of command, as he was obligated to do, and then blown the whistle....... OR, had he appeared in uniform without having been to Paris.....

No sir, he was attempting to get the USA to capitulate on the North Vietnamese terms.

Now I'm confused... why would that be his goal? He can't have a change of heart about US practices after witnessing horrible shit firsthand?

Again, with respect, I disagree. You cannot divine the spirit of the law unless you wrote it. "Interpretation" isn't a viable method because none of us is a mind reader. If the letter of the law is vague, or could be taken to have multiple meanings, then the proper thing to do is amend it with clear concise language.

The spirit of the law IS interpreted all the time, and no minds need be read, people are capable of deciding when reason and the law collide, even if those that wrote the law are dead. ANd perhaps Kerry had no time to amend the law itself, with any type of language.

He didn't report atrocities as was his duty. And by his own statement he participated in them.

He was reporting attrocities (I saw it on TV) - if he was doing so outside of regular protocol, so what... seems small concern given the subject matter.
 

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
I can no longer tell which is which. Too confusing.
 
OP
pegwinn

pegwinn

Top of the Food Chain
Joined
Apr 17, 2004
Messages
2,549
Reaction score
330
Points
98
Location
Texas
Respectfully, I disagree for the reasons stated above. There is a line where dissent becomes sedition or even treason depending on the circumstances. If he'd reported it via the chain of command, as he was obligated to do, and then blown the whistle....... OR, had he appeared in uniform without having been to Paris.....

No sir, he was attempting to get the USA to capitulate on the North Vietnamese terms.

Now I'm confused... why would that be his goal? He can't have a change of heart about US practices after witnessing horrible shit firsthand?
Of course he can have a change of heart. I cannot read minds and tell you whether or not he had a change of heart. However, I can tell you what he actually did. Literally speaking, he may have had the best of intentions, but his actions were illegal. Just how illegal is the point of this thread. IOW did his actions (not his thoughts) equal treason? Why or why not? I've posted my analysis. Now it's everyone else's turn.
Again, with respect, I disagree. You cannot divine the spirit of the law unless you wrote it. "Interpretation" isn't a viable method because none of us is a mind reader. If the letter of the law is vague, or could be taken to have multiple meanings, then the proper thing to do is amend it with clear concise language.

The spirit of the law IS interpreted all the time, and no minds need be read, people are capable of deciding when reason and the law collide, even if those that wrote the law are dead. ANd perhaps Kerry had no time to amend the law itself, with any type of language.
You are correct in that the spirit is interpreted all the time. That doesn't make it right or factual. Take a look at all the different interpretations of the first amendment. I could interpret the ninth amendment to mean that I can smoke dope and consort with the Swedish bikini team. Further, the law in this case is remarkably concise and well printed. Finally, of course Kerry didn't have the option of amending the law. At that time he was an Officer in the US Navy reserve and as such had no authority to do so.
He didn't report atrocities as was his duty. And by his own statement he participated in them.

He was reporting attrocities (I saw it on TV) - if he was doing so outside of regular protocol, so what... seems small concern given the subject matter.
The problem with "so what" is that you have now decided which laws should be obeyed or ignored. A military member doesn't get that option. Part of the contract he signed and the oath that he swore was to obey those orders no matter how small the concern. Additionally you are overlooking the fact that he openly stated that he participated in the same violations of the law of land warfare.
Hope the formatting allows others to follow the conversation.
 

Gurdari

Egaliterra
Joined
Feb 2, 2007
Messages
1,019
Reaction score
40
Points
36
Location
the West
It seems you know the specifics and it's simple legal math.
However, some all laws are not created equal. And yes, we do pick and chose (that's why some laws no longer exist, and new ones have formed).

Sure Kerry is a traitor who reported attrocities that he also committed and later objected too. I guess as 'presiding judge' I would look at the big picture (IMO) and say protocol means less than human rights violations, thanks for reporting what must have been traumatic, then big hugs. War can create an unreasonable climate.
 
OP
pegwinn

pegwinn

Top of the Food Chain
Joined
Apr 17, 2004
Messages
2,549
Reaction score
330
Points
98
Location
Texas
It seems you know the specifics and it's simple legal math.
However, some all laws are not created equal. And yes, we do pick and chose (that's why some laws no longer exist, and new ones have formed). Very Good. Which was why I noted earlier that interpretation of the spirit of the law is wrong. Picking and choosing is also wrong in my view.

Sure Kerry is a traitor who reported attrocities that he also committed and later objected too. So, because he "reported" them, he gets a pass for actually doing it? If one child molester reports another...... I guess as 'presiding judge' I would look at the big picture (IMO) and say protocol means less than human rights violations, thanks for reporting what must have been traumatic, then big hugs. War can create an unreasonable climate. I suppose that is your right. But, I cannot understand how you can excuse everything just because war is tough. How many folks have gone to war, seen the ugly, and smelled the offensive, then not committed treason?
Are you a proponent of jury nullification?
 

Gurdari

Egaliterra
Joined
Feb 2, 2007
Messages
1,019
Reaction score
40
Points
36
Location
the West
Are you a proponent of jury nullification?
No, I felt my example required a general title for myself in the manner I employed to rebut.
I DO prefer 'justice' but judge sounded nicely frontier.
 
OP
pegwinn

pegwinn

Top of the Food Chain
Joined
Apr 17, 2004
Messages
2,549
Reaction score
330
Points
98
Location
Texas
No, I felt my example required a general title for myself in the manner I employed to rebut.
I DO prefer 'justice' but judge sounded nicely frontier.
Fair enough. It was the "so what" mention that caused me to ask the question.
 

maineman

Rookie
Joined
Dec 29, 2006
Messages
13,003
Reaction score
572
Points
0
Location
guess
Still no rational discussion or rebuttal on your part. Pity. As you said, why am I not surprised?
yousaid:

Yes it is. You even posted the pertinent section above. Do you somehow interpret inactive duty training differently than the US Military? IF so, that is your problem.

Look...I used to command a naval reserve training center. I am very well versed in what INACTIVE DUTY TRAINING means. There are two specific types of inactive duty training: There are regularly scheduled drills for those reservists who have a drilling obligation. They must perform 48 four hour drill periods in a given year. That is usually accomplished by spend all day saturday and all day sunday one weekend a month at an event known as a "drill weekend". And then, for those reservists with a drilling obligation, they must also attend two weeks of ACDUTRA..which is active duty for training - usually at their mobilization site or a school designed to give them more skills in their mobilization billet. If those reservists are NOT attending a drill, or NOT on ACDUTRA, they are NOT subject to the UCMJ. Period. Now...in John Kerry's case, once he left active duty, he HAD no drilling obligation.... he was in what is know as the IRR or INDIVIDUAL READY RESERVE. IRR personnel HAVE NO DRILLING OBLIGATION. They have no requirements to EVER go into an INACTIVE DUTY TRAINING status. Therefore...they are NEVER subject to the UCMJ.
 
OP
pegwinn

pegwinn

Top of the Food Chain
Joined
Apr 17, 2004
Messages
2,549
Reaction score
330
Points
98
Location
Texas
Hey, it's my maine man! How's it going?

Look...I used to command a naval reserve training center. I am very well versed in what INACTIVE DUTY TRAINING means. That's nice. I did two tours of I&I Duty myself. Since you are so well versed....

There are two specific types of inactive duty training: There are regularly scheduled drills for those reservists who have a drilling obligation. They must perform 48 four hour drill periods in a given year. That is usually accomplished by spend all day saturday and all day sunday one weekend a month at an event known as a "drill weekend". And then, for those reservists with a drilling obligation, they must also attend two weeks of ACDUTRA..which is active duty for training - usually at their mobilization site or a school designed to give them more skills in their mobilization billet. For the benefit of those w/o a .mil background he is talking about what the Marines call the SMCR or Selected Marine Corps Reserve.

If those reservists are NOT attending a drill, or NOT on ACDUTRA, they are NOT subject to the UCMJ. Period. Now...in John Kerry's case, once he left active duty, he HAD no drilling obligation.... he was in what is know as the IRR or INDIVIDUAL READY RESERVE. IRR personnel HAVE NO DRILLING OBLIGATION. They have no requirements to EVER go into an INACTIVE DUTY TRAINING status. Therefore...they are NEVER subject to the UCMJ. Pretty definite there aren't you? Good. Since I am not perfect I will simply ask you to provide a link to the pertinent regulation that definitively backs you up. If you can prove me wrong, then I have no problem at all admitting the mistake and continuing onward.
Tag, you're it.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top