Traitor Kerry Meeting With Iran...

[Leonhard]

If he had actually "thrown back medals", Leon, that would be one thing. He didn't throw his OWN medals back - he lied about it. He has come up with multiple lies to try to justify his deception. He KEPT his medals, but joined in with others who were actually throwing their own medals back - so Kerry was a fraud. A faker. A phony. He PRETENDED to be throwing back his own medals, and bragged about throwing them back, then later, bragged about having them.

He used these medals for his own self interests.

Ugh, yeah that's just a little bit too machiavellian for me. You won't find me defending him on that. I thought you were just annoyed about him saying 'medals' vs 'ribbons'.

[Cow Poke]

Ugh, yeah that's just a little bit too machiavellian for me. You won't find me defending him on that. I thought you were just annoyed about him saying 'medals' vs 'ribbons'.

No sir - I posted a link to the recent ABC article on this very thing -- he has a track record for doing whatever is in his own political best interest, including FAKING throwing medals back, and later bragging that he "earned" them, and somehow that makes him a more honorable man. The "ribbons vs medals" was only ONE of numerous prevarications he offered. The guy gives me the creeps.

"In a real sense, this administration forced us to return our medals because beyond the perversion of the war, these leaders themselves denied us the integrity those symbols supposedly gave our lives," Kerry said the following day.

But in 1984, when he first ran for the U.S. Senate, Kerry revealed he still had his medals. According to a Boston Globe report on April 15, 1984, union officials had expressed uneasiness with Kerry's candidacy because he had thrown his medals away. Kerry acknowledged the medals he threw away were, in fact, another soldier's medals. He reportedly invited a union official home to personally inspect his Silver Star, Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts, awarded for his combat duty as a Navy lieutenant.

In the 1971 Viewpoints interview, he made no mention of the ribbons or the medals belonging to another veteran.

And in 1988, Kerry again clarified his statement by saying he threw out ribbons he had been awarded for three combat wounds, but not his medals. "I was proud of my personal service and remain so," he told the National Journal.

Eight years later in 1996, Kerry said while he did throw out his ribbons, he didn't throw out his own medals because he "didn't have time to go home [to New York] and get them," he told The Boston Globe.

He's a liar and a fraud.

[Mountain Man]

The Logan Act...

§ 953. Private correspondence with foreign governments.

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply himself, or his agent, to any foreign government, or the agents thereof, for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.

Doesn't say we have to be at war with them.

In that case, Kerry definitely broke the law, no question.

[seer]

I might be sounding a bit dumb seer, but I wanna know what you think. I have a feeling you're talking about more than medals being thrown over a fence in a protest. I did some google searching, and I hear he was at a hearing where he, and 150 other soldiers confessed to having seeing US soldiers torturing the Vietnamese, civilians getting massacred, men raping women and things like that?

Is that what you're talking about?

Yes, and I don't know what these other soldiers said, but I know what he said.

I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command.

They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, tape wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the country side of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.

I would like to talk to you a little bit about what the result is of the feelings these men carry with them after coming back from Vietnam. The country doesn't know it yet, but it has created a monster, a monster in the form of millions of men who have been taught to deal and to trade in violence, and who are given the chance to die for the biggest nothing in history; men who have returned with a sense of anger and a sense of betrayal which no one has yet grasped.

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/...toryId=3875422

[Terraceth]

Is there a law that was actually broken? We're not at war with Iran, so he can't be charged with conspiring with the enemy (although they're certainly not our friends, either). Is there a rule that says that private citizens can't conduct unofficial political business with foreign governments?

I agree with you that it's sketchy, but I'm not certain he committed a crime.

There is the Logan Act (passed 1799), but it's extraordinarily unlikely Kerry, or anyone else, would ever be convicted under that. In the history of the country, only two people have ever been indicted under it (in 1802 and 1852), and neither was convicted. The big problem with the Logan Act is its constitutionality is highly dubious due to the First Amendment. This has never been actually evaluated by any court because, as noted, no one's ever been indicted under it for over 150 years (and no one's ever been convicted of violating it), but should anyone ever actually be charged about it, expect the law itself to be immediately called into question and likely overturned.

So while it's technically a crime under the Logan Act, practically speaking it falls into the category of just being one of those old laws that no one ever enforces anymore but no one has actually bothered to officially repeal yet.

[Leonhard]

Yes, and I don't know what these other soldiers said, but I know what he said.

Actually that's pretty much what they said. I looked up this Winter Soldier Investigation, and apparently it was mainly veterans, and some civilians, who were reporting on war crimes they had taken part in during those hearings. Apparently the US Military considered it important enough to do their own investigation, though like usual they kept it classified. Now that decades have passed, the classifications have been lifted, and its pretty clear that these men reported just the things that were talked about.

As militaries tend to sweep embarrassing things under the rug, and some leeway can always be granted them since war is chaotic and hellish, it does appear that war crimes like that did take place.

I don't think that makes these men traitors to report on it.

I don't think John Kerry is a traitor either for taking part in it, though it does look rather self serving.

As Google has a dumb policy against linking directly to news more than 5 years old, I had to get this from the wayback machine, of when the papers became declassified in 2005. I'll see if I can find the actual papers online, though I doubt they've been put on the net.

https://web.archive.org/web/20050901...56936%2C1.html

Source: From the National Archives: New proof of Vietnam War atrocities - Village Voice

The archives have hundreds of files of official U.S. military investigations of such atrocities committed by American soldiers. I've pored over those records�which were classified for decades�for my Columbia University dissertation and, now, this Voice article. The exact number of investigated allegations of atrocities is unknown, as is the number of such barbaric incidents that occurred but weren't investigated. Some war crimes, like the Tiger Force atrocities exposed last year by The Toledo Blade, have only come to light decades later. Others never will. But there are plentiful records to back up Kerry's 1971 testimony point by point. Following (with the names removed or abbreviated) are examples, directly from the archives:

On August 12, 1967, Specialist S., a military intelligence interrogator, "raped . . . a 13-year-old . . . female" in an interrogation hut in a P.O.W. compound. He was convicted of assault and indecent acts with a child. He served seven months and 16 days for his crimes.

On August 9, 1968, a seven-man patrol led by First Lieutenant S. entered Dien Tien hamlet. "Shortly thereafter, Private First Class W. was heard to shout to an unidentified person to halt. W. fired his M-16 several times, and the victim was killed. W. then dragged the body to [the lieutenant's] location. . . . Staff Sergeant B. told W. to bring back an ear or finger if he wanted to prove himself a man. W. later went back to the body and removed both ears and a finger." W. was charged with assault and conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline; he was court-martialed and convicted, but he served no prison time. B. was found guilty of assault and was fined $50 a month for three months. S. was discharged from the army before action could be taken against him.

On January 10, 1968, six Green Berets in Long Hai, South Vietnam, "applied electrical torture via field telephones to the sensitive areas of the bodies of three men and one woman . . . " Four received reprimands and "Article 15s"�a nonjudicial punishment meted out by a commanding officer or officer in charge for minor offenses. A fifth refused to accept his Article 15, and no other action was taken against him. No action was taken against the sixth Green Beret.

© Copyright Original Source

[seer]

Actually that's pretty much what they said. I looked up this Winter Soldier Investigation, and apparently it was mainly veterans, and some civilians, who were reporting on war crimes they had taken part in during those hearings. Apparently the US Military considered it important enough to do their own investigation, though like usual they kept it classified. Now that decades have passed, the classifications have been lifted, and its pretty clear that these men reported just the things that were talked about.

Leonhard in every war there are atrocities, (on both sides) Kerry was broad brushing. The vast majority of men who served in country were honorable. And like with Jane Fonda he did this at a time when we were trying to negotiate a peace. They both were taking the enemy's side, trying to undermine our resolve. Sorry, I will always see him (and her) as traitors and him as a political opportunist.

[Cow Poke]

I don't think that makes these men traitors to report on it.

In many cases, it was to relieve their own consciences.

I don't think John Kerry is a traitor either for taking part in it, though it does look rather self serving.

I don't think Kerry was a "traitor" for opposing the war, but I think was - and is - a fraud for wanting all the glory of being a "war hero", then opposing the war, then subsequently reinstating his "war hero" status.

[Leonhard]

Leonhard in every war there are atrocities, (on both sides) Kerry was broad brushing. The vast majority of men who served in country were honorable. And like with Jane Fonda he did this at a time when we were trying to negotiate a peace. They both were taking the enemy's side, trying to undermine our resolve. Sorry, I will always see him (and her) as traitors and him as a political opportunist.

Alright, I can sympathise with that, though I disagree. As for what sort of war crimes happened during the Vietnam war, I don't know enough about it. I wouldn't immediately cast the crime of 'traitor' on any veteran who reported before a congress what they had done or had seen.

[Leonhard]

In many cases, it was to relieve their own consciences.

I can't blame them. And the Army did do its own internal investigation and eventually declassified the testimonies. They weren't simply shredded. I'll grant them that.

I don't think Kerry was a "traitor" for opposing the war, but I think was - and is - a fraud for wanting all the glory of being a "war hero", then opposing the war, then subsequently reinstating his "war hero" status.

Yeah the behaviour is definitely cheesy.

[seer]

Alright, I can sympathise with that, though I disagree. As for what sort of war crimes happened during the Vietnam war, I don't know enough about it. I wouldn't immediately cast the crime of 'traitor' on any veteran who reported before a congress what they had done or had seen.

I still have a problem with someone running down fellow service men when they are still in the field risking their lives. This is by definition giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

[Terraceth]

I still have a problem with someone running down fellow service men when they are still in the field risking their lives. This is by definition giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

Even if that counted as giving aid and comfort to an enemy, the definition of treason requires adherence to the enemy as well. As was stated in Cramer v. United States, one of the few Supreme Court decisions regarding the definition of treason:

"...a citizen may take actions which do aid and comfort the enemy — making a speech critical of the government or opposing its measures, profiteering, striking in defense plants or essential work, and the hundred other things which impair our cohesion and diminish our strength — but if there is no adherence to the enemy in this, if there is no intent to betray, there is no treason."

[seer]

Even if that counted as giving aid and comfort to an enemy, the definition of treason requires adherence to the enemy as well. As was stated in Cramer v. United States, one of the few Supreme Court decisions regarding the definition of treason:

"...a citizen may take actions which do aid and comfort the enemy — making a speech critical of the government or opposing its measures, profiteering, striking in defense plants or essential work, and the hundred other things which impair our cohesion and diminish our strength — but if there is no adherence to the enemy in this, if there is no intent to betray, there is no treason."

You mean like Jane Fonda? And even if Kerry did not meet the exact definition, I'm telling you how many of us who were serving at the time saw him - and still see him.

[shunyadragon]

Former Presidents, Vice-Presidents and Secretary of State persons have visited heads of state around the world for many years. Why is this a problem now?

No laws were broken nor National Security secrets involved.