irateplatypus

Maybe this will help clear things up...

Kerry was separated from active duty in 1970... before the congressional testimony and meeting with the north vietnamese

http://www.johnkerry.com/about/john_..._timeline.html

but wasn't granted his discharge until 1978.

http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilse...om_Reserve.pdf

Kerry was under the direct authority of the UCMJ until 1978. It's kind of a legal quagmire... the definitions for the words in context are obscure. the site above lists kerry in 1970 as a "Registrant who has completed service." this designation isn't about active duty or reserve status, it is to classify kerry as a person who is ineligible for the draft through Selective Service because he has already fulfilled his service obligations.

even so, kerry was undoubtedly a commissioned reserve naval officer through 1978. he joined the veteran's groups and met with the enemy under those legal conditions. the poster above me (rat) hit the nail on the head. this is a clear violation of the UCMJ and certainly a breech of discipline in a legal sense. granted, it isn't the same as if he had done it on active duty... but i'm certain the then mr. kerry was fully aware of his reserve status and the legal obligations that it entails.

of course, no one cares...

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

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.

irateplatypus

lol, i can't tell who you are arguing with jb. your post seems to address mine, yet you go back in forth between the discussion of this thread and your gripes with the right side of the aisle in general.

you do demonstrate a very thorough knowledge of the UCMJ and its practical implementation. while you may have felt yourself a civilian in the regular sense after your active duty enlistment period ended, legally you could still be possibly held accountable in military courts. you and i can both agree that the likelihood of all but the most egregious violations would be ignored by the military under normal circumstances.

the problem with kerry is that he was an officer in the military at a time of war who was meeting with the enemy. that is a lot different from your situation or nearly anyone elses. it's clear that the circumstances were exceptional and the stakes unusually high. i'm not suggesting that the navy convene a general courts-martial to review the case... but i do think it is a telling detail to senator kerry's career. i believe it shows a lack of discipline, going further to confirm my perception of kerry as a shameless self-promoter. a person who's convictions only go as far as a vote or fame will take him. this situations, admittedly, reinforces preconceived notions on my part... but i do believe a strong argument can be made from my perspective.

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

cthulu23

I believe that this post deserves a giant, glowing "IANAL, but..."

Of course, if we are talking about a lack of discipline, it's only fair to bring up Dubya's lost year. At least Kerry completed his service.

irateplatypus

i'm unfamiliar with the acronym IANAL

i'm assuming by shifting the focus to Bush that you have no rebuttal to my post. unless of course, a rebuttal is summed up in IANAL. hopefully not.

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

Superbelt

I am not a lawyer.. It's a usenet thing.

cthulu23

As Superbelt says, it means "I am not a lawyer," meaning I suspect that you may be talking about things that you are not an expert on. This is standard operating procedure for internet message boards, myself included, but when dealing with legal matters, it's nice to have a disclaimer. Are you adept at the uniform code or are you extrapolating from limited knowledge?

jb2000

I do try and correlate what may be a discussion on a particular detail with the larger context in which it resides, and so indeed, parts of my posts may not be focussed on the detail of the issue at hand.

I'm sorry that you seem so eager to reinforce those preconceived notions to the point where you don't see the sillyness in trying to accuse John of some kind of UCMJ violation that the military leadership of the time, who obviously would not have shed a tear at him and his like being dragged before courts martial, didn't even see fit to accuse him of.

If you think it was just bad to be anti-war back then, fine. Stand opposed on the matter straight up, but to claim that his activities are somehow criminal because he was once in the service and thus technically could be brought under military justice although the military never thought to do this, seems a bit of a reach to me.

I guess it all comes down for me as a case where common sense trumps a technicality that may or may not really apply, and doubtfully would pass muster in any court, civil or military.

As for being a self-promoter, okay, that sounds real bad to anyone who considers modesty a virtue, myself included. But think for a second, if you aren't a self-promoter you can't get elected to much in this country. That in itself doesn't make me like it any more, but on the other hand, seeing as some of the greatest leaders and statesmen of all time have been brazenly self-promoting, I can't say that it lessens one's ability to be a leader.

Ustwo

Hehe the NEW new swiftboat add is even more fun.

Its the wives of former POW's talking about their husbands being tortured to produce false confessions of war crimes while Kerry volunteers to report on crimes he never saw.

There is no transcript of it I can find to post yet.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

jb2000

Well it's not on their site yet at least. Given their reputation though, one can't have very high expectations of it being honest in the least.

Note, just because there are facts in it doesn't make it honest. The world's greatest liars all rely heavily on facts to make their pitches.

I'm sure that the ad will try and portray it as if Kerry was there eagerly awaiting the word from the torture rooms of a new confession from a POW, by cleverly splicing the tales of torture with Kerry's report on war crimes.

Kerry didn't need POW confessions. He witnessed war crimes with his own eyes, and heard the reports from his fellow sailors and soldiers about what they had witnessed.

You might not like it (and I can't say it makes me feel good either), but when Kerry reported before Congress, he was telling the truth. You might feel that he should have turned a blind eye to those things, but he has more courage and integrity than that. I would hope that in the same situation, I can muster that kind of bravery and commitment to the wellbeing of this country to do what John Kerry did to help rescue America from one of its most difficult entrapments.

Ustwo

Ummmm no point in getting into it again, but look up the winter soldier investigations, and how it has been soundly discredited.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Lebell

My understanding was that Kerry didn't see anything with his own eyes. At least that was the testimony that I read.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

cthulu23

Right, Kerry said that some of the policies of the US military in Vietnam constituted war crimes, such as free-fire zones, but he said that he never witnessed rapes or torture although such actions were common knowledge amongst the soldiers. This has been covered and recovered here.

Superbelt

You should have been a grunt on Hamburger Hill.

jb2000

I hope that noone here is denying that war crimes and inappropriate actions were perpetrated by US troops and officers in Vietnam at an unfortunately breath-taking rate.

Simply true folks;

Kerry was right, war crimes were being committed.

Kerry was right, consciencious Americans have a duty to condemn such acts.

Kerry was right, they are the innevitable consequence of sending drafted kids out to fight a war without a winnable scenario in place.

Kerry was right. Say what you want, but that fact remains. He was right.

irateplatypus

i posted on this earlier in another thread... kerry did say that he witnessed and took part in war crimes on his appearance on Meet the Press 1971.

http://www.wintersoldier.com/audio/kerry2.mp3

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

cthulu23

Kerry is speaking of systemic US military policies that equated with atrocities, not specific war crimes that he had perpretrated. He has specifically stated in the past that he personally witnessed no torture or rape, allthough such occurences were common knowledge amongst the soldiers.