jb2000

As they shouldn't. Common sense should prevail. He was out of the service. As an enlisted man I was in what is called the inactive reserve for four years after separation. Whatever, nothing I might have done during that time would the military take any interest in prosecuting me for. I was a civilian, simple as that.

No, here are some things that would actually change my position on things:

1) Was John contacted by JAG or a superior officer and informed that his actions were in violation of the UCMJ, and that he must cease and desist? If so and he didn't, then I grant you that.

2) Was John ever given an order to cease any of his post-separation activities?

3) Was John ever brought before his commanding officer over any of these issues?

I am not sure what your military experience was. Personally, I was only an enlisted man, but I did have the opportunity to experience the military justice system. First to remember, there is a reason there is a military justice system. The UCMJ is written knowing that there are codes in it that are not always crimes and should not always be punished. That is where the principle of discretion comes in, very different than a civilian criminal court.

If someone is going to try and read the UCMJ, then apply it to a situation, then assume if they can that means a crime is commited, has a very poor understanding of what it is for and how it works. It is a very discretionary document.

The first level is the Commanding Officer, who, after determining that an event has taken place that does violate the words of the UCMJ, can dismiss the case, assign non-judicial punishment, or refer the matter to courts-martial. Now why would a commander--not even a judge or legal expert--be able to outright dismiss a case after it was determined that the person committed the act? Because it is understood that commission of acts that can be legitimately determined to be violations of the code of the UCMJ alone doesn't constitute a crime, and thus should not be punished.

Obviously, since as far as I know John Kerry was not assigned non-judicial punishment, nor was his case referred to courts-martial, that he committed no crime. This is again a case of anti-Kerry folks trying to call Kerry to question on issues determined way above his head.

Anti-Kerry people try and blame him for dishonesty regarding his medals of valor, but newsflash: you don't award yourself medals! They are only given after investigation, and your testimony may or may not even be considered.

Same thing with this. Now you want to say that he commited a crime against the UCMJ? That's really grasping at straws! If he did, I hardly think that the senior leaders of the Navy (who weren't overly happy with him and his anti-war folks) would have hesitated to bring him under the lash. Yet you want me to believe that a lay person thirty years later has suddenly cracked the case and revealed his great treason?

Perhaps, but even asking questions about Bush's records is inflammatory and slanderous? ....okay.