cthulu23

so you support locking up those only guilty of supporting unpopular political views? Should we reinstate the Sedition Acts? How can any American wish for a return to those days?

Mephisto2

Another way of putting it was that he attended the Paris Peace Talks.

He didn't spy for the NVA. He didn't commit acts of sabotage. Opposing the war and working towards its end is not treason in my opinion.

If he is honestly guilty of treason, don't you think he would have been charged?

I'm not familiar with Vallandigham, but am very interested in the history of the American Civil War. If you think the current environment is divisive, it pales into comparison with what happened during the Civil War. I don't believe the analogy fits today's circumstances.

The Rosenbergs were tried and executed. I don't think that was right, but it happened.

If you honestly believe Moore and Penn are guilty, or deserve to be charged with, treason then there's not much I can do to change your mind. We simply disagree.

By these same lines, Oliver North and many of his cohorts in the Reagan Administration (up to and including the President) should have been charged with treason and taken out and hanged.

Silly when you think about it, no?


Mr Mephisto

daswig

There's a difference between supporting unpopular views, and working actively to give a propaganda victory to the enemy. Where the line is crossed is a matter of debate, but there's no doubt that at some point the line can indeed be crossed.

cthulu23

And you accused Michael Moore of coming close to this "line." That doesn't exhibit much tolerance for the other side(s), IMHO. One of the greatest aspects of the US is our fierce protection of free speech. Any times in the past where our government and society have failed the "free speech" test are black eyes on this nations history.

daswig

He had no authority to attend the peace talks, and military regs prohibited him from meeting with the enemy. We don't know if he was charged, but certain discrepancies in his military records that HAVE been released suggest that he may have in fact received a discharge under less than honorable circumstances in 1972.



Vallandigham was a congressman from Ohio who was one of the leaders of the "Copperhead" movement that favored coming to an arrangement with the Confederacy. Basically, he said "Wrong time, wrong place, wrong enemy." He was arrested, tried by a military tribunal, convicted, stripped of his citizenship, and deported. I'm curious why you think the execution of the Rosenbergs was wrong. They were in fact guilty of the crimes that they were charged with. There's more than just the trial record to support this, records obtained after the fall of the Soviet Union verified that in fact they were in the employment of the USSR, and did what they were accused and convicted of.

Moore is a close call. I'm not sure how that would go down. But Penn and Jane Fonda are, IMHO, guilty of treason beyond a reasonable doubt.

I disagree. they were acting in accordance with the NCA. Reagan WAS the NCA. Now, if Kerry had gone and talked with the NVA as part of a sanctioned move by the State Department or other government agency implementing properly formulated foreign policy, that would NOT be treason. But that's not what happened.

cthulu23

So illegaly funding a congressionaly prohibited war is okay, but speaking out against a war is not? We are through the looking glass here, people.

daswig

Congress can't prohibit a war per se, their power is based upon the pursestrings. On top of that, the line between "war" and "police action" has blurred to the point that it's not really meaningful any more. Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Iraq I, Somalia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq II, were all never declared to be wars by Congress. Indeed, the last time the US Congress declared war, IIRC, was on December 8, 1941. We've bombed a LOT of people since then.

Kalibah

Swift Vets put it best- and Im not implying they are non-partisan despite the fact that some are Democrats- simply saying they put it best


It is a matter of public record that John Kerry lied before Congress when he falsely portrayed his fellow service personnel in Vietnam as rapists and baby killers. John Kerry claimed that American troops were guilty of “crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command,” and that we “personally raped” and otherwise brutalized innocent civilians. Kerry specifically accused Swift boat personnel of “showing the flag and firing at sampans and villages along the banks” and “butchering a lot of innocent people.” None of that is true




That said - I wanted to ask kerry about why he has the flag upside down on his book....

cthulu23

Kerry never said that all of the troops were willing "rapists" or "baby killers" (I defy you to show me a Kerry quote that actually uses the term "baby killer"). He said that some of the military policies of the US were themselves war crimes (free fire zones, burning villages, etc) and that the horror of the war drove many good men to do terrible things. You can gloss over the nightmare of the Vietnam war if you like but it will take more then this campaign to remove the stain of that conflict from our national mind. I like to think that most folks don't confuse anti-war thought with anti-soldier thougth. In fact, the oldest trick in the book is to equate one with the other.

shakran

That is bullshit. If NCA tells you to go rape a 6 year old, you are still guilty of a crime if you do it. Reagan's wishes were illegal and treasonous, and anyone who helped him with it was guilty of treason as well.

daswig

Sometimes, they are the same.

<img src="http://www.code7r.org/Bintoons/images/protest_photo02.gif" img>

Mephisto2

I'm quite familiar with the case. I think it's wrong because I don't support the death penalty. Another argument, another time.

Well, all I can say is that I'm happy the vast majority of America, and the American Administration and Attorney General don't agree with your extremist point of view. You're certainly entitled to it, but I doubt many (more than 10%) agree with it.

As far as I remember, Iran was (and still is) "the enemy". North was selling them arms, illegally, even after they attacked the United States.

THAT is much more treasonous than meeting with foreign representatives in an attempt to support peace talks.


Mr Mephisto

daswig

So you're saying that supporting the Contras against a communist dictatorship is the moral equivalent of raping a 6 year old?

Whatever you say, Comrade...

Mephisto2

And that's just stupid. The people in this photograph are not guilty of treason. They're just stupid. And wrong.

Mr Mephisto

Mephisto2

That's patently not what he said. And the Contras were democratically elected and recognized by the UN.

Get your facts right.


Mr Mephisto

daswig

Would it change your mind if you were told that the organization that held the "protest" that the picture was taken at was actually a thinly veiled front group with direct ties to Saddam Hussein? Ever hear of Ramsey Clarke? He's the head of the group that put on that "protest". He's also Saddam's Attorney of record in the US, and has taken millions of dollars from Saddam for various "causes", ALL of which have one central purpose...to oppose any action against Saddam.

Mephisto2

Actually, once again, you're wrong.

some of it is patently, verifiably and proven to be true.

Innocent civilians WERE butchered. On both sides, of course, but don't go fooling yourself that US forces never committed crimes in Vietnam.

Ever hear of My Lai? Ever read any personal memoirs where US personnel recount how some people were shot illegally, or villages burned, or innocents killed? Or do you believe the vast majority of published material recounting such events are false?

I respected your opinion earlier, but now you seem to be going even more extreme. By denying simple facts and adopting double-standards you are undermining your point of view.

Mr Mephisto

daswig

My, what delicious irony...

Mephisto2

No it wouldn't.


Mr Mephisto

Mephisto2

Opps... I got my factions mixed up.

It was the Sandanistas that were democratically elected and the Contras who were illegally funded by Reagan.

Mea culpa.


Mr Mephisto

cthulu23

Actually, your pic shows anti-officer, not foot soldier, hostility. Regardless, the idiots that made that banner are like the fools that picket the funerals of gay men that died from AIDS...they don't represent anyone but themselves.

Regardless of this latest obfuscation, I'm still waiting for the Kerry "baby killer" quote.

Speaking of baby killers, did someone bring up the contras? They were certainly a bloody gang of rapists, killers and thugs.Of course, if one is trying to redeem the Vietnam war then support for the contras is hardly surprising.

daswig

where Kerry went wrong was when he claimed that the atrocities were NOT limited aberrations, but were SOP approved by the chain of command. There were atrocities committeed. The VAST majority were committed by the NVA/VC. There were some atrocites committed by US troops, but they were rare. I've never, EVER heard of a documented case of US troops beheading people, as he claimed. The ROK troops did, but not the US troops.

It's interesting to note that Kerry admitted in his testimony to PERSONALLY committing war crimes. Why on earth would we want to elect a war criminal, much less a serial murderer? Please remember, if he was committing war crimes like he claimed, it was murder, and he claimed to do it repeatedly.

daswig

I didn't think it would....Appeasers refuse to rid themselves of their delusions until it is far too late...

daswig

So was Stalin and Pol Pot. Your point?

Mephisto2

I agree that they were not the fule and were probably so uncommon as to warrant the descirption "rare", but above you simply stated that it never happened.

Well, you bring up a valid point (rather than the skewed political spin shwon heretofore). I suspect he meant "war crimes" in the context of his engagement in an unjust war. I'm not sure he personally admitted to murder.

Mr Mephoisto

Mephisto2

Stalin and Pol Pot were NOT democratically elected.

You show an alarming lack of undestanding of European politics and history if you think Stalin was elected. LOL

Additionally, Pol Pot came to power after a coup. Since when is a coup an election?


Mr Mephisto

daswig

Can you find a SINGLE case of even anecdotal evidence that US troops beheaded Vietnamese people as Kerry claimed? Kerry's "Ghengis Khan" speech was a direct insult to every American over there. He based his statements upon the Winter Soldier "investigation", which was completely discredited, since a large percentage of the people involved in it could NOT have committed the acts that they described, due to silly things like never having BEEN in Vietnam in the first place (it's hard to behead Vietnamese people when you're stationed in Germany).

Mephisto2

And those with extreme views tend to degenerate into personal attacks when their hypocracy and inconsistency is shown.

I respect you, and have stated so publically. I have also shown where you got your facts wrong. And you "label" me as an appeaser and imply I'm deluded.

That speaks volumes.


Mr Meph

Mephisto2

Can I find a single documented case of US forces beheading Vietnamese troops? No.

But I can find a case where US troops murdered innocent civilians and were prosecuted for it. And I can find innumerable anecdotal cases where US forces admitted to or described other crimes.

Both of which you denied ever happening.

Again, you make a statement and when that is proven wrong you retort with some counter-point that is not relevant to the disproval of your original claim.


Mr Mephisto

daswig

So the Soviet Union didn't hold "elections"? Really? Are you SURE you want to say that? How about Iraq? They periodically held elections. Last election, I heard Saddam got 103% of the vote.

shakran

OK, if you wanna play that way, our electoral system is a sham too. Keep in mind our current president was appointed by a Council of Judicial Ministers (aka the supreme court), not the people. The point here being that you can have elections, or you can have "elections" in which the result is rigged or ignored, and therefore they do not really count as elections. I would lump the USSR in the latter category.

And no, I am not saying that supporting the Contras is the moral equivalent of raping a six year old. You seem to be having difficulty making rational interpretations of statements. Let me help you along with that. I am saying that breaking the law of our land is breaking the law of our land, whether or not the president tells you to do it. No one may use the president's illegal actions as a shield to protect themselves from the prosecution of their illegal actions.

Dant0007

I personally don't see the similarties, I think it's more prevelant in the private sector.

Mephisto2

Yes I am sure. And no, the Soviet Union did not hold democratic elections.

In 1919 Stalin was appointmented a full member of the Politburo. The same year he was nominated people's commissar for state control and then in 1920 served as people's commissar for workers' and peasants' inspection. In 1922 he was appointed as the party secretariat in the capacity of General Secretary. Initially he allied himself with Bukharin and Zinoviev these were sidelined and eventually executed during the great purges of the 1930's

Trotsky, his other great rival, was also murdered.

Elections paid no part in it.

If you want to quote historical precendents from Russia and Cambodia (or Kampuchea) at least get your facts straight.


Mr Mephisto

tspikes51

First off, I'm a registered Republican. (As Arnold so eloquently put it: If you think that you can spend your money better than your government: you are a Republican). I also like to think of Orwell's masterpiece as my second Bible. I have read it over five times, and have done many reports on it. I also see the similarities between the PATRIOT Act and the book's Thought Police, and I don't support it. However, saying that President Bush, and the Republican Party is at fault for the passage of the PATRIOT Act is totally false and unfounded. As the Democrats' beloved Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 stated, the PATRIOT Act had been something on the bi-partisan FBI/CIA's agenda for a long time. The incident on 9/11/2001 just pushed the envelope far enough for Congress, a mostly bi-partisan group, to pass it.

__________________
"I'm telling you, we need to get rid of a few people or a million."
-Maddox

cthulu23

Policies such as "free fire zones" were standard Pentagon tactics and constituted war crimes. "Shoot anything that moves" sounds pretty bad to me.

Stories of ear necklaces and other such atrocities were common in Vietnam. This is the consequence of placing men in awful, dehumanizing conditions.

Kerry admitted that tactics such as the aforementioned "free fire zones," amounted to war crimes, nothing else. If you are accusing him of criminality then you must indict the Pentagon's Vietnam policy as well. Unless you blame the soldier and absolve the generals, of course.

daswig

actually, I don't accuse him of anything for his conduct in Vietnam, I'm merely pointing out that he confessed, in effect, to being both a war criminal and a serial murderer. Now his conduct AFTER Vietnam is another matter...

cthulu23

And many have pointed out that interpretations of Kerry's service such as your's is a blatant distortion of the truth.

daswig

cthulu, I obviously don't see it that way.

host

daswig, re: your post #34 in this thread. You made some serious accusations.
Care to defend them with evidence.....here's some references to refute what
you are saying. Please refrain from undocumented attacks.

Your accusations that Kerry "made statements before the Fulbright Commission which were not only fraudulent" in his 1971 testimony, directly contradicts the research and conclusions of the experts at <a href="http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docid=244">FACTCHECK.org</a> Here is the information from their website, complete with links:
<table width="758" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">
I find this article about Colin Powell and his link to My Lai interesting.
You can click anywhere on the quote below to read the whole salon.com source.
<a href="http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:9NvjdxRqv7sJ:www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2004/03/06/kerry/+%22my+lai+was+an+isolated+incident%22&hl=en">
" Kerry's critics argue that My Lai was an isolated incident, but at least one celebrated general doesn't agree.

Secretary of State Colin Powell held a command position in the Army's Americal Division, which had included Calley's unit, and he was asked to investigate the earliest allegations about My Lai. He failed to uncover the massacre and was later accused of facilitating the coverup. Whether that accusation is fair or not, Powell knows what happened in Vietnam.

"My Lai was an appalling example of much that had gone wrong in Vietnam," he wrote in his bestselling autobiography, "My American Journey." "The involvement of so many unprepared officers and noncoms led to breakdowns in morale, discipline and professional judgment -- and to horrors like My Lai -- as the troops became numb to what appeared to be endless and mindless slaughter." </a>

daswig

Host, you're quoting a Conason article as being credible? What's next, a Jason Blair or Bellesiles article?