NationStates Jolt Archive

On June 13, 1866, in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War, Congress passed the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which was ratified by the states and became part of our Constitution on July 9, 1868.

The 14th Amendment, or Article 14, is commonly known as the ''Equal Rights Amendment,'' for it contains in Section 1 the now-famous injunction that ''No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.'' This section has been the pivot point for much of the most important legislation and jurisprudence of the last half century.

And, in the shadow of Section 1, the rest of Article 14 has been mostly ignored and largely forgotten, because much of it deals with the consequences of insurrection and rebellion within the United States, and we haven't had many of those since 1868.

But lurking in the heart of Article 14, Section 3, is a very important and potent clause of our Constitution which was originally adopted to bar officers of the United States military and members of Congress who had defected to the Confederacy, or given aid and comfort to the Confederacy, from Federal office.

And Article 14, Section 3, now becomes John Kerry's Constitutional Conundrum.

I quote in full:

''Section 3. No person shall be a senator or representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two thirds of each House, remove such disability.''

Constitution of the United States, Article 14, Section 3 (emphasis added).

When John Kerry joined the navy and became a commissioned officer, he took an oath, an oath to protect and defend the United States and the Constitution of the United States against all enemies.

When he returned from Vietnam, while still a naval officer, John Kerry quickly became an anti-war protester, and a prominent leader of the anti-war activist organization, Vietnam Veterans Against the War.

While giving him the benefit of the doubt, I will assume that John Kerry intended his activism to shorten the war and save lives. But he made a catastrophic error in judgment. It did not. It prolonged the war, and it cost more American lives, and more Vietnamese lives. To be blunt, the anti-war activism of John Kerry and others like him had the unintended consequence of killing people, and their blood is on his hands.

How many people? It is impossible to know, with any certainty, but in his 1985 memoir, North Vietnamese General Vo Nguyen Giap wrote that if it had not been for anti-war activists such as John Kerry, North Vietnam, militarily beaten after the Tet Offensive, would have surrendered; but the anti-war movement, and in particular John Kerry's congressional testimony in April 1971, convinced the North Vietnamese that if they could hold on a little longer the growing anti-war movement and sentiment in America would turn America's military victory into a political defeat, and North Vietnam's military defeat into a political victory.

John Kerry was the point man for the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, and with his April 1971 testimony before Congress, under oath, charging that Americans in Vietnam were committing war crimes on a daily basis as a matter of operational policy, he gave the North Vietnamese what they hadn't been able to get out of American POWs in the Hanoi Hilton: a confession of war crimes. A false confession, but a confession nonetheless.

An ex-POW, now Senator John McCain, wrote in an article for U.S. News & World Report (14 May 1972) that John Kerry's testimony was ''the most effective propaganda tool they had to use against us.'' Today, John Kerry's photograph is prominently displayed in the room of tribute to American anti-war protesters in the Vietnamese Communist War Remnants Museum in Ho Chi Minh City (formerly Saigon). You can go see it at www.WinterSoldier.com.

Later, while still a naval officer, John Kerry met illegally with a North Vietnamese delegation in Paris to conduct unauthorized private diplomacy, for which he is reported to have lost his top secret security clearance, and although the documentation is not fully public (John Kerry will not release his full service records) there is reason to believe that he may have received a dishonorable discharge (see The New York Sun, October 13, 2004, ''Mystery Surrounds Kerry's Navy Discharge.'')

Because of the anti-war activism of John Kerry and others like him, the Vietnam war lasted several years longer than it might have. Several thousand American names are engraved on The Wall now, names of men who died after John Kerry took up the enemy's cause, men who might otherwise be alive today. And after the United States, internally defeated by the anti-war politics of the American left, abandoned South East Asia, more than four million Vietnamese and Cambodians died in the communist purges that followed.

Today in the presidential campaign, John Kerry continues to give aid and comfort to another enemy, calling America's war on terrorism in Iraq ''the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time.''

John Kerry's public record of giving ''aid and comfort'' to the enemy is so public, and so indisputable, that I believe it is a fact, commonly known and not subject to plausible controversion, of which any Federal Court could, or must, take judicial notice.

The presidency is both a civil office, and as commander in chief a military office, of the United States.

And that returns us to Article 14, Section 3, of the United States Constitution, which bars from all civil and military offices of the United States any person who, having once taken an oath as an officer of the United States, has given aid and comfort to an enemy of the United States, i.e., John Kerry.

John Kerry took an oath as a naval officer, before he became a prominent anti-war activist. He took another oath to protect and defend the Constitution when he was sworn in as a senator, before he called America's war on terrorism in Iraq "the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time." Now, he seeks to become president, and commander in chief, and will, if he is elected, take the oath again, to protect and defend the Constitution.

But if he fulfills that oath, as he should, if he is elected, and if he is to defend the Constitution, then his first official act as President must be to resign from the office of president, because he is barred from the presidency by Article 14, Section 3, of the Constitution of the United States, which he will have sworn (again) to protect and defend.

This is John Kerry's Constitutional Conundrum: If he is elected, the Constitution requires him to resign, or to be removed from office.

The demand for John Kerry's resignation if, and after, he is elected or inaugurated, will create a political eruption unlike any we have seen in many years, or generations. It would elevate John Edwards, a man whose qualifications for the Presidency seem slight, to the White House.

I believe this is an issue that should be grappled with before the election, not afterward. At the least, it should become central to the public debate during the next two weeks.

I also believe that some person, or persons, or one or more organizations, such as the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth, or the Vietnam Veterans Against John Kerry, should file a lawsuit in Federal Court seeking a determination, based on public records and documents, that John Kerry has given aid and comfort to enemies of the United States, and an injunction barring him from the presidency, pursuant to Article 14, Section 3, of the Constitution of the United States.

This will not be a criminal proceeding. It is not a prosecution for treason or sedition. It does not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt; only to a ''preponderance of the evidence,'' evidence that it is more probable than not that John Kerry has given aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States. He will not go to jail, he will not risk paying any fines or damages. There will only be, or, in my opinion, there should be, a judgment that, having given aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States, he is barred by Article 14, Section 3, of the Constitution of the United States, from the presidency.



About the Writer: Raymond Kraft is a lawyer and writer living and working in

How did it prolong the war?

On June 13, 1866, in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War, Congress passed the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which was ratified by the states and became part of our Constitution on July 9, 1868.

The 14th Amendment, or Article 14, is commonly known as the ''Equal Rights Amendment,'' for it contains in Section 1 the now-famous injunction that ''No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.'' This section has been the pivot point for much of the most important legislation and jurisprudence of the last half century.

And, in the shadow of Section 1, the rest of Article 14 has been mostly ignored and largely forgotten, because much of it deals with the consequences of insurrection and rebellion within the United States, and we haven't had many of those since 1868.

But lurking in the heart of Article 14, Section 3, is a very important and potent clause of our Constitution which was originally adopted to bar officers of the United States military and members of Congress who had defected to the Confederacy, or given aid and comfort to the Confederacy, from Federal office.

And Article 14, Section 3, now becomes John Kerry's Constitutional Conundrum.

I quote in full:

''Section 3. No person shall be a senator or representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two thirds of each House, remove such disability.''

Constitution of the United States, Article 14, Section 3 (emphasis added).

When John Kerry joined the navy and became a commissioned officer, he took an oath, an oath to protect and defend the United States and the Constitution of the United States against all enemies.

When he returned from Vietnam, while still a naval officer, John Kerry quickly became an anti-war protester, and a prominent leader of the anti-war activist organization, Vietnam Veterans Against the War.

While giving him the benefit of the doubt, I will assume that John Kerry intended his activism to shorten the war and save lives. But he made a catastrophic error in judgment. It did not. It prolonged the war, and it cost more American lives, and more Vietnamese lives. To be blunt, the anti-war activism of John Kerry and others like him had the unintended consequence of killing people, and their blood is on his hands.

How many people? It is impossible to know, with any certainty, but in his 1985 memoir, North Vietnamese General Vo Nguyen Giap wrote that if it had not been for anti-war activists such as John Kerry, North Vietnam, militarily beaten after the Tet Offensive, would have surrendered; but the anti-war movement, and in particular John Kerry's congressional testimony in April 1971, convinced the North Vietnamese that if they could hold on a little longer the growing anti-war movement and sentiment in America would turn America's military victory into a political defeat, and North Vietnam's military defeat into a political victory.

John Kerry was the point man for the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, and with his April 1971 testimony before Congress, under oath, charging that Americans in Vietnam were committing war crimes on a daily basis as a matter of operational policy, he gave the North Vietnamese what they hadn't been able to get out of American POWs in the Hanoi Hilton: a confession of war crimes. A false confession, but a confession nonetheless.

An ex-POW, now Senator John McCain, wrote in an article for U.S. News & World Report (14 May 1972) that John Kerry's testimony was ''the most effective propaganda tool they had to use against us.'' Today, John Kerry's photograph is prominently displayed in the room of tribute to American anti-war protesters in the Vietnamese Communist War Remnants Museum in Ho Chi Minh City (formerly Saigon). You can go see it at www.WinterSoldier.com.

Later, while still a naval officer, John Kerry met illegally with a North Vietnamese delegation in Paris to conduct unauthorized private diplomacy, for which he is reported to have lost his top secret security clearance, and although the documentation is not fully public (John Kerry will not release his full service records) there is reason to believe that he may have received a dishonorable discharge (see The New York Sun, October 13, 2004, ''Mystery Surrounds Kerry's Navy Discharge.'')

Because of the anti-war activism of John Kerry and others like him, the Vietnam war lasted several years longer than it might have. Several thousand American names are engraved on The Wall now, names of men who died after John Kerry took up the enemy's cause, men who might otherwise be alive today. And after the United States, internally defeated by the anti-war politics of the American left, abandoned South East Asia, more than four million Vietnamese and Cambodians died in the communist purges that followed.

Today in the presidential campaign, John Kerry continues to give aid and comfort to another enemy, calling America's war on terrorism in Iraq ''the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time.''

John Kerry's public record of giving ''aid and comfort'' to the enemy is so public, and so indisputable, that I believe it is a fact, commonly known and not subject to plausible controversion, of which any Federal Court could, or must, take judicial notice.

The presidency is both a civil office, and as commander in chief a military office, of the United States.

And that returns us to Article 14, Section 3, of the United States Constitution, which bars from all civil and military offices of the United States any person who, having once taken an oath as an officer of the United States, has given aid and comfort to an enemy of the United States, i.e., John Kerry.

John Kerry took an oath as a naval officer, before he became a prominent anti-war activist. He took another oath to protect and defend the Constitution when he was sworn in as a senator, before he called America's war on terrorism in Iraq "the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time." Now, he seeks to become president, and commander in chief, and will, if he is elected, take the oath again, to protect and defend the Constitution.

But if he fulfills that oath, as he should, if he is elected, and if he is to defend the Constitution, then his first official act as President must be to resign from the office of president, because he is barred from the presidency by Article 14, Section 3, of the Constitution of the United States, which he will have sworn (again) to protect and defend.

This is John Kerry's Constitutional Conundrum: If he is elected, the Constitution requires him to resign, or to be removed from office.

The demand for John Kerry's resignation if, and after, he is elected or inaugurated, will create a political eruption unlike any we have seen in many years, or generations. It would elevate John Edwards, a man whose qualifications for the Presidency seem slight, to the White House.

I believe this is an issue that should be grappled with before the election, not afterward. At the least, it should become central to the public debate during the next two weeks.

I also believe that some person, or persons, or one or more organizations, such as the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth, or the Vietnam Veterans Against John Kerry, should file a lawsuit in Federal Court seeking a determination, based on public records and documents, that John Kerry has given aid and comfort to enemies of the United States, and an injunction barring him from the presidency, pursuant to Article 14, Section 3, of the Constitution of the United States.

This will not be a criminal proceeding. It is not a prosecution for treason or sedition. It does not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt; only to a ''preponderance of the evidence,'' evidence that it is more probable than not that John Kerry has given aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States. He will not go to jail, he will not risk paying any fines or damages. There will only be, or, in my opinion, there should be, a judgment that, having given aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States, he is barred by Article 14, Section 3, of the Constitution of the United States, from the presidency.



About the Writer: Raymond Kraft is a lawyer and writer living and working in

....This has to be the one of the most seditious, venomous, biased, downright bad arguments I've read in a long time. So, anyone who protests any war we have, Iraq, Vietnam, Gulf War, is a traitor to the state? Wasn't the state founded on free speech (Bill of Rights, Article 1?)? The fact remains, the war could NOT be won. Vietnam was a zero sum game, and a LOSING zero sum game. It's a lousy argument. Vietnam is recorded, in history, as the war the United States did not lose and could not win not because our enemy was better armed, but because our enemy knew their terrain and had nothing to lose. The parallels are frightening. And this argument makes any veteran against any war a traitor on any other veterans say-so, which is even more frightening.

ARE YOU BLIND? Goodness Gracious, I feel like hurling at the moment. For those of you who actually bothered to read more than the first line that said Kerry was a traitor, I do now quote:

How many people? It is impossible to know, with any certainty, but in his 1985 memoir, North Vietnamese General Vo Nguyen Giap wrote that if it had not been for anti-war activists such as John Kerry, North Vietnam, militarily beaten after the Tet Offensive, would have surrendered; but the anti-war movement, and in particular John Kerry's congressional testimony in April 1971, convinced the North Vietnamese that if they could hold on a little longer the growing anti-war movement and sentiment in America would turn America's military victory into a political defeat, and North Vietnam's military defeat into a political victory.

Read before insulting others arguements. Your Constitutional arguement is trumped by his. He readily agreed to limit his free speech when he volunteered to joine the navy.

Kraft, I know you'll hate me, but I have to say that that is the most absurd thing about Kerry I have ever heard. It was NIXON, not the antiwar protestors, who prolonged the conflict needlessly and bloodily. The massive "strategic bombings"? Remember those? Both ineffective, and targeted against civilians. The Vietnamese won that war fair and square, and there's no indisputable evidence that American protestors affected the outcome in any discernable way at all, good or bad.
Besides, you want treason, there's Bush's boys and Valerie Plame. That's treason. Speaking out against a war you disagree with--that's protected by the Constitution.

I read the first line. But that passage is way below the first line.

lol

omg, he reported horrible and attrocious acts being commited by the American Military

he is obviously an American Insurgent

fuck, he should be up for a peace prize for standing up to the propoganda machine that is the american government

grow up you stupid conservatives

oh yes protesting a war is giving aid and comfort to the enemy!!!

lets see how many presidents are ACTUALLY war criminals?


oh yes, Ronald Reagan for starters, im sure i could get Dubya on it if i did a bit of research

You shouldn't need to do any research.

....This has to be the one of the most seditious, venomous, biased, downright bad arguments I've read in a long time. So, anyone who protests any war we have, Iraq, Vietnam, Gulf War, is a traitor to the state? Wasn't the state founded on free speech (Bill of Rights, Article 1?)? The fact remains, the war could NOT be won. Vietnam was a zero sum game, and a LOSING zero sum game. It's a lousy argument. Vietnam is recorded, in history, as the war the United States did not lose and could not win not because our enemy was better armed, but because our enemy knew their terrain and had nothing to lose. The parallels are frightening. And this argument makes any veteran against any war a traitor on any other veterans say-so, which is even more frightening.

As usual you leftists don't read what is posted, or you don't understand it. The article never suggested that EVERY one who protests should be prosecuted, it never suggested that EVERY veteran who protests should be prosecuted, it NEVER suggested that freedom of speech should in any way be abridged. It only suggests that when a soldier WHO IS STILL FULFILLING HIS SERVICE AGREEMENT ( can you read THAT? ) gives aid and comfort to the enemy, he or she should be held responsible for it!

You have ignored the basic argument, set up a straw man, and then attacked it vigorously ... something the leftists are very prone to do. I wonder why that is? Hmmm.

Despite the blearing generalisations and simplifications in your statement. I will ask you, do you actually know the oath kerry took? How can you say he is disqualified from running for office till you actualy know what he's bound by?

Don't you need to be an officer to be a pilot? If so, where does this leave Bush?

Don't you need to be an officer to be a pilot? If so, where does this leave Bush?

A two-term President.

By reporting atrocities in Vietnam, Kerry was doing all that is required of a soldier. It is the soldiers sworn duty to uphold the Geneva Conventions, particularly:

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/93.htm

Article 10.-Protection and care

1. All the wounded, sick and shipwrecked, to whichever Party they belong, shall be respected and protected.
2. In all circumstances they shall be treated humanely and shall receive, to the fullest extent practicable and with the least possible delay, the medical care and attention required by their condition. There shall be no distinction among them founded on any grounds other than medical ones.

Article 11.-Protection of persons

1. The physical or mental health and integrity of persons who are in the power of the adverse Party or who are interned, detained or otherwise deprived of liberty as a result of a situation referred to in Article I shall not be endangered by any unjustified act or omission. Accordingly, it is prohibited to subject the persons described in this Article to any medical procedure which is not indicated by the state of health of the person concerned and which is not consistent with generally accepted medical standards which would be applied under similar medical circumstances to persons who are nationals of the Party conducting the procedure and who are in no way deprived of liberty.
2. It is, in particular, prohibited to carry out on such persons, even with their consent:

(a) Physical mutilations;

(b) Medical or scientific experiments;

(c) Removal of tissue or organs for transplantation,

except where these acts are justified in conformity with the conditions provided for in paragraph 1.

3. Exceptions to the prohibition in paragraph 2 (c) may be made only in the case of donations of blood for transfusion or of skin for grafting, provided that they are given voluntarily and without any coercion or inducement, and then only for therapeutic purposes, under conditions consistent with generally accepted medical standards and controls designed for the benefit of both the donor and the recipient.

4. Any wilful act or omission which seriously endangers the physical or mental health or integrity of any person who is in the power of a Party other than the one on which he depends and which either violates any of the prohibitions in paragraphs 1 and 2 or fails to comply with the requirements of paragraph 3 shall be a grave breach of this Protocol.

5. The persons described in paragraph I have the right to refuse any surgical operation. In case of refusal, medical personnel shall endeavour to obtain a written statement to that effect, signed or acknowledged by the patient.

6. Each Party to the conflict shall keep a medical record for every donation of blood for transfusion or skin for grafting by persons referred to in paragraph 1, if that donation is made under the responsibility of that Party.

In addition, each Party to the conflict shall endeavour to keep a record of all medical procedures undertaken with respect to any person who is interned, detained or otherwise deprived of liberty as a result of a situation referred to in Article 1. These records shall be available at all times for inspection by the Protecting Power.



Article 35.-Basic rules

1. In any armed conflict, the right of the Parties to the conflict to choose methods or means of warfare is not unlimited.

2. It is prohibited to employ weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering.

3. It is prohibited to employ methods or means of warfare which are intended, or may be expected, to cause widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment.

Article 31.-Neutral or other States not Parties to the conflict
1. Except by prior agreement, medical aircraft shall not fly over or land in the territory of a neutral or other State not a Party to the conflict. However, with such an agreement, they shall be respected throughout their flight and also for the duration of any calls in the territory. Nevertheless they shall obey any summons to land or to alight on water, as appropriate.
2. Should a medical aircraft, in the absence of an agreement or in deviation from the terms of an agreement, fly over the territory of a neutral or other State not a Party to the conflict, either through navigational error or because of an emergency affecting the safety o the flight, it shall make every effort to give notice of the flight and to identify itself. As soon as such medical aircraft is recognized, that State shall make all reasonable efforts to give the order to land or to alight on water referred to in Article 30, paragraph 1, or to take other measures to safeguard its own interests, and in either case, to allow the aircraft time for compliance, before resorting to an attack against the aircraft.

3. If a medical aircraft, either by agreement or in the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 2, lands or alights on water in the territory of a neutral or other State not Party to the conflict, whether ordered to do so or for other reasons, the aircraft shall be subject to inspection for the purposes of determining whether it is in fact a medical aircraft. The inspection shall be commenced without delay and shall be conducted expeditiously. The inspecting Party shall not require the wounded and sick of the Party operating the aircraft to be removed from it unless their removal is essential for the inspection. The inspecting Party shall in any event ensure that the condition of the wounded and sick is not adversely affected by the inspection or the removal. If the inspection discloses that the aircraft is in fact a medical aircraft, the aircraft with its occupants, other than those who must be detained in accordance with the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, shall be allowed to resume its flight, and reasonable facilities shall be given for the continuation of the flight. If the inspection discloses that the aircraft is not a medical aircraft, it shall be seized and the occupants treated in accordance with paragraph 4.

4. The wounded, sick and shipwrecked disembarked, otherwise than temporarily, from a medical aircraft with the consent of the local authorities in the territory of a neutral or other State not a Party to the conflict shall, unless agreed otherwise between that State and the Parties to the conflict, be detained by that Sate where so required by the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, in such a manner that they cannot again take part in the hostilities. The cost of hospital treatment and internment shall be borne by the State to which those persons belong.

5. Neutral or other States not Parties to the conflict shall apply any conditions and restrictions on the passage of medical aircraft over, or on the landing of medical aircraft in, their territory equally to all Parties to the conflict.

Article 51.-Protection of the civilian population
1. The civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy general protection against dangers arising from military operations. To give effect to this protection, the following rules, which are additional to other applicable rules of international law, shall be observed in circumstances.
2. The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited.

3. Civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this Section, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.

4. Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. Indiscriminate attacks are:

(a) Those which are not directed at a specific military objective;

(b) Those which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective; or

(c) Those which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by this Protocol; and consequently, in each such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction.

5. Among others, the following types of attacks are to be considered as indiscriminate:

(a) An attack by bombardment by any methods or means which treats as a single military objective a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located in a city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians or civilian objects; and

(b) An attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.

6. Attacks against the civilian population or civilians by way of reprisals are prohibited.

7. The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favour or impede military operations. The Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations.

8. Any violation of these prohibitions shall not release the Parties to the conflict from their legal obligations with respect to the civilian population and civilians, including the obligation to take the precautionary measures provided for in Article 57.

On and on it goes......read the rules before dumping on Kerry?

As usual you leftists don't read what is posted, or you don't understand it. The article never suggested that EVERY one who protests should be prosecuted, it never suggested that EVERY veteran who protests should be prosecuted, it NEVER suggested that freedom of speech should in any way be abridged. It only suggests that when a soldier WHO IS STILL FULFILLING HIS SERVICE AGREEMENT ( can you read THAT? ) gives aid and comfort to the enemy, he or she should be held responsible for it!

You have ignored the basic argument, set up a straw man, and then attacked it vigorously ... something the leftists are very prone to do. I wonder why that is? Hmmm.
And he gave aid and comfort how?

wait, so by speaking out against the Vietnam War, John Kerry was able to increase the length of that police action? WOW. he is one powerful guy, if that's true, and i certainly would love to have a President with that kind of power.

Anyone know Bush's E-Mail address? I need to get this information to his team pronto.

When Kerry "testified" before Congress in 1971, he was still bound by the terms of his contract with the US Navy, that is, his commission as an officer in the Naval Reserve. He gave testimony that, false as it was, gave aid and comfort to the North Vietnamese, by supporting their positions.

Even worse is his meeting in Paris with representatives of the VietCong and North Vietnam. At the time, he was still a member of the Naval Reserve, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice deals severely with activities that are even borderline treasonous. Maybe that's why Kerry's discharge had to be reviewed by a board of officers in 1978.

And he gave aid and comfort how?
By meeting, in France, with both members of the Viet Cong and the NVA, which is treasonous.

When Kerry "testified" before Congress in 1971, he was still bound by the terms of his contract with the US Navy, that is, his commission as an officer in the Naval Reserve. He gave testimony that, false as it was, gave aid and comfort to the North Vietnamese, by supporting their positions.

Even worse is his meeting in Paris with representatives of the VietCong and North Vietnam. At the time, he was still a member of the Naval Reserve, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice deals severely with activities that are even borderline treasonous. Maybe that's why Kerry's discharge had to be reviewed by a board of officers in 1978.

I hope that wasn't pointed at me. This is good reason to distrust Kerry now. Had he been president during the Cold War, we would probably still have the USSR and be under Soviet control right now.

LOL... if Kerry really was in violation of the Constitution, the Democrats wouldn't have picked him to run, now would they? :rolleyes:

this is a load of steaming bullshit, as is the most of the republicans complaints about stuff

They're just making stuff up at this point becasue they don't want Acting President Bush to pony up to his crimes. They don't want to be in a position where they actually have to defend their views and actions.

By meeting, in France, with both members of the Viet Cong and the NVA, which is treasonous.
Er...no, not really. That in and of itself is not treasonous. By that definition, anyone meeting to discuss anything during wartime is guily of treason.

I'm not sure that the NVA and Vietcong would be very welcome in France, anyway...

I hope that wasn't pointed at me. This is good reason to distrust Kerry now. Had he been president during the Cold War, we would probably still have the USSR and be under Soviet control right now.
No, it wasn't aimed at you. However, I think it's worthy to know why Kerry is found so contemptible by so many of those currently or formerly in the Armed Forces. The constitutional aspect alone, of Kerry's actions after Vietnam, can make him ineligible for the office of President.

I'm not sure that the NVA and Vietcong would be very welcome in France, anyway...
Then you truly missed the whole thing about the Vietnam Peace Talks being held in Paris. Which, not coincidentally, is where Kerry met with representatives of the NVA and VC, then said he had met with all sides. He even used talking points from the NVA and VC when he addressed Congress.

Whatever you say. All I know is that talking with a few members of the enemy during, as you said, peace talks (kind of the point), is a hell of alot better than all the things Dubya's gotten us into.

Whatever you say. All I know is that talking with a few members of the enemy during, as you said, peace talks (kind of the point), is a hell of alot better than all the things Dubya's gotten us into.
Too bad he wasn't an official representative of the US...and that the US representatives didn't know about him being there...and that he never bothered meeting with anyone from South Vietnam. Not to mention, he was STILL a member of the US Armed Forces at the time, and he was negotiating against the US!

But then again, it shows a Kerry trend; and it shows how willing all you Kerry kool-aid drinkers are to overlook his obvious faults in your pursuit of "anyone but Bush."

To be very blunt, your argument is just stupid. You are taking a section out of the constitution and blowing it out of proportion. Kerry did serve his country and did protest against the war, but he did not engage in a violent rebellion against the government. Now this concept would be relevant if you were talking about someone like John Walker who was found in Afghansitan fighting against the US. The downfall in your argument is found in your own quote of Section 3 that states...." shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof." Kerry did not take part in any insurrection, he took part in a protest. This can never be applied to him because he did not aid the enemy (North Vietnamese)in the war, he just exercised his God given right to protest against the US. The only thing that I don't agree with Kerry doing is taking part in negotiations to end the war. He was a private citizen who had no power to do that.

Too bad he wasn't an official representative of the US...and that the US representatives didn't know about him being there...and that he never bothered meeting with anyone from South Vietnam. Not to mention, he was STILL a member of the US Armed Forces at the time, and he was negotiating against the US!

But then again, it shows a Kerry trend; and it shows how willing all you Kerry kool-aid drinkers are to overlook his obvious faults in your pursuit of "anyone but Bush."
and you overlook obvious faults and blatant character flaws in your boy bush in order to keep the nutjobs in office

"Anyone but Bush" is exactly my goal. But don't go talking about how "desperate for power" the Kerry supporters are, considering Acting President Bush started an illegal war that cost us human lives and increased global terrorism just so that he could stay in office on the "war president" label. No president has ever been elected out of office during wartime, so he started a war. Want to run a little quote behind you, it sounds like everything the conservatives represent:

"The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
- Hermann Goering, Nuremberg Trials

And he gave aid and comfort how?
You have strategically ignored the fact that this point has been answered twice, once by the original post, and then a second time by another poster. If you didn't read either post, then you are not worth arguing with.

Second, like it or not, the logic here is fairly well used. Not to say infallible, but still he has used excellent logic. If John Kerry committed actions while an officer that incurred a dishonorable discharge, due to unapproved talk with enemy representatives, and therefore violates said clause of the 14th amendment, then he would indeed be unable to serve as president.

Also, to take this matter to court would be extremely easy. Indeed, if it is proven, as was stated in Vo Nguyen's 1985 memoir, that the anti-war movement in America provided a motivational boost for Communist forces in North Vietnam, especially since the Tet Offensive effectively crushed their military capabilities, and that Kerry was a leader in said movement, and that said movement did indeed spur on the North Vietnamese, enabling them to hold out longer, and thus cost more American lives, then there is no doubt that Kerry would be found guilty. This should come as no surprise to you, when a burglar can sue a man for having an unsafe roof which he fell through while trying to break into the man's house.

Our legal system is extremely easy to manipulate, and thus it seems to me, as a law student, and an employee at a law firm, that there is at least a viable case against Kerry.

Nixon had wanted to crucify this guy. If it was possible to do so then, it would have been done. There isn't anything for Kerry to worry about.

how nobody cares that we actually DID commit war crimes!

you put people in a place they dont wanna be with guns and an enemy who hides behind civilians and that tends to happen.

he was right to come back and speak up.
they try to make it out like he was saying ALL the soldiers did those things, but he was just saying those things DID happen. cause they did. sorry if some of you wanna live in ur lil sheltered world , but that war was a mess no matter how you look at it.
just look at some of the poor veterans who hadta serve over there. most of them are disturbed from all the horrible things they hadta witness. so dont u tell me they didnt see those things n that they never happened.

it takes a brave man to go fight for his country, and an even braver one to come home and admit we had made a mistake.

yah, that communism, it was really worth it. wasnt it guys?
looks like we did a little to much focusing on the wrong 'bad guys', dont ya think?
people try and act like Reagan brought an end to the soviet union, when infact the soviet union brought an end to itself. you can spend all your money on the military while your people starve and expect to be around forever as a government. they made themselves collapse.

wake up people
youve all been dupped by elitest trying to make a few more bux in their pocket.
welcome to the reality of the few exploiting the many.
it happens everytime.

Can anyone here supply a definition for "aid and comfort" from a reliable source (such as the Supreme Court)?

It's a rather vague phrase, and if nobody can say what it means, legally, in the context of the US Constitution then none of us are qualified to talk about this.

What a load of crap! Had USA not gone into "democracy is the best mode" the Vietnam war wouldnt have happened. America should have not gone to Vietnam. To link expressing opinions to prolonging the war is most dangerous indeed. So if I say Bush lied and made mistakes in his handling of Iraq I'm already prolonging the war? Again the person who wrote this is the example of the fear and lies being propgated by Bush to stay in power! I dont want to live in fear! I WILL VOTE AND CAMPAIGN FOR KERRY!

No person shall be a senator or representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.

Most people won't actually read the whole article. I have highlighted the key points in the quote above. Notice it doesn't specify if you have finished your term of service. It states if you have ever taken an oath!

how nobody cares that we actually DID commit war crimes!

you put people in a place they dont wanna be with guns and an enemy who hides behind civilians and that tends to happen.

he was right to come back and speak up.
they try to make it out like he was saying ALL the soldiers did those things, but he was just saying those things DID happen. cause they did. sorry if some of you wanna live in ur lil sheltered world , but that war was a mess no matter how you look at it.
just look at some of the poor veterans who hadta serve over there. most of them are disturbed from all the horrible things they hadta witness. so dont u tell me they didnt see those things n that they never happened.

it takes a brave man to go fight for his country, and an even braver one to come home and admit we had made a mistake.

yah, that communism, it was really worth it. wasnt it guys?
looks like we did a little to much focusing on the wrong 'bad guys', dont ya think?
people try and act like Reagan brought an end to the soviet union, when infact the soviet union brought an end to itself. you can spend all your money on the military while your people starve and expect to be around forever as a government. they made themselves collapse.

wake up people
youve all been dupped by elitest trying to make a few more bux in their pocket.
welcome to the reality of the few exploiting the many.
it happens everytime.

Paco Kerry himself has his service record on his website. One particular piece shows that he himself requested to be transferred there.

4. I consider the opportunity to serve in Vietnam an extremely important part of being in the Armed Forces and believe that my request is in the best interests of the Navy.

You can read this at the following link.

http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilservice/Request_For_Swiftboat_Duty.pdf

So your statement you put people in a place they dont wanna be with guns and an enemy who hides behind civilians and that tends to happen. has no basis!

and you overlook obvious faults and blatant character flaws in your boy bush in order to keep the nutjobs in office
Typical liberal tactic of "change the subject." The subject of the thread is Kerry's potential problems with the Constitution.

You have strategically ignored the fact that this point has been answered twice, once by the original post, and then a second time by another poster. If you didn't read either post, then you are not worth arguing with.

Second, like it or not, the logic here is fairly well used. Not to say infallible, but still he has used excellent logic. If John Kerry committed actions while an officer that incurred a dishonorable discharge, due to unapproved talk with enemy representatives, and therefore violates said clause of the 14th amendment, then he would indeed be unable to serve as president.

Also, to take this matter to court would be extremely easy. Indeed, if it is proven, as was stated in Vo Nguyen's 1985 memoir, that the anti-war movement in America provided a motivational boost for Communist forces in North Vietnam, especially since the Tet Offensive effectively crushed their military capabilities, and that Kerry was a leader in said movement, and that said movement did indeed spur on the North Vietnamese, enabling them to hold out longer, and thus cost more American lives, then there is no doubt that Kerry would be found guilty. This should come as no surprise to you, when a burglar can sue a man for having an unsafe roof which he fell through while trying to break into the man's house.

Our legal system is extremely easy to manipulate, and thus it seems to me, as a law student, and an employee at a law firm, that there is at least a viable case against Kerry.
I don't know about anybody else on these boards, but I would suggest that then President Nixon, who was doing everything in his power to try and discredit the actions of John Kerry and who would have had far greater tools to do so than the bunch of hacks in here have suggested, then he would have acted on those abilities?

If Nixon couldn't pin down John Kerry, what makes you people think that you have suddenly discovered ultimate wisdom in this regard?

Nixon had wanted to crucify this guy. If it was possible to do so then, it would have been done. There isn't anything for Kerry to worry about.
Then why did his discharge require review by a board of officers during the Carter malaise? Why did his medals require re-issuance, more recently in 1986 (without approval of John Lehman, then Secretary of the Navy)?

Where there's smoke, there is or there has been fire, and Kerry still has to explain his actions in 1971.

On June 13, 1866, in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War, Congress passed the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which was ratified by the states and became part of our Constitution on July 9, 1868.

The 14th Amendment, or Article 14, is commonly known as the ''Equal Rights Amendment,'' for it contains in Section 1 the now-famous injunction that ''No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.'' This section has been the pivot point for much of the most important legislation and jurisprudence of the last half century.

And, in the shadow of Section 1, the rest of Article 14 has been mostly ignored and largely forgotten, because much of it deals with the consequences of insurrection and rebellion within the United States, and we haven't had many of those since 1868.

But lurking in the heart of Article 14, Section 3, is a very important and potent clause of our Constitution which was originally adopted to bar officers of the United States military and members of Congress who had defected to the Confederacy, or given aid and comfort to the Confederacy, from Federal office.

And Article 14, Section 3, now becomes John Kerry's Constitutional Conundrum.

I quote in full:

''Section 3. No person shall be a senator or representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two thirds of each House, remove such disability.''

Constitution of the United States, Article 14, Section 3 (emphasis added).

When John Kerry joined the navy and became a commissioned officer, he took an oath, an oath to protect and defend the United States and the Constitution of the United States against all enemies.

When he returned from Vietnam, while still a naval officer, John Kerry quickly became an anti-war protester, and a prominent leader of the anti-war activist organization, Vietnam Veterans Against the War.

While giving him the benefit of the doubt, I will assume that John Kerry intended his activism to shorten the war and save lives. But he made a catastrophic error in judgment. It did not. It prolonged the war, and it cost more American lives, and more Vietnamese lives. To be blunt, the anti-war activism of John Kerry and others like him had the unintended consequence of killing people, and their blood is on his hands.

How many people? It is impossible to know, with any certainty, but in his 1985 memoir, North Vietnamese General Vo Nguyen Giap wrote that if it had not been for anti-war activists such as John Kerry, North Vietnam, militarily beaten after the Tet Offensive, would have surrendered; but the anti-war movement, and in particular John Kerry's congressional testimony in April 1971, convinced the North Vietnamese that if they could hold on a little longer the growing anti-war movement and sentiment in America would turn America's military victory into a political defeat, and North Vietnam's military defeat into a political victory.

John Kerry was the point man for the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, and with his April 1971 testimony before Congress, under oath, charging that Americans in Vietnam were committing war crimes on a daily basis as a matter of operational policy, he gave the North Vietnamese what they hadn't been able to get out of American POWs in the Hanoi Hilton: a confession of war crimes. A false confession, but a confession nonetheless.

An ex-POW, now Senator John McCain, wrote in an article for U.S. News & World Report (14 May 1972) that John Kerry's testimony was ''the most effective propaganda tool they had to use against us.'' Today, John Kerry's photograph is prominently displayed in the room of tribute to American anti-war protesters in the Vietnamese Communist War Remnants Museum in Ho Chi Minh City (formerly Saigon). You can go see it at www.WinterSoldier.com.

Later, while still a naval officer, John Kerry met illegally with a North Vietnamese delegation in Paris to conduct unauthorized private diplomacy, for which he is reported to have lost his top secret security clearance, and although the documentation is not fully public (John Kerry will not release his full service records) there is reason to believe that he may have received a dishonorable discharge (see The New York Sun, October 13, 2004, ''Mystery Surrounds Kerry's Navy Discharge.'')

Because of the anti-war activism of John Kerry and others like him, the Vietnam war lasted several years longer than it might have. Several thousand American names are engraved on The Wall now, names of men who died after John Kerry took up the enemy's cause, men who might otherwise be alive today. And after the United States, internally defeated by the anti-war politics of the American left, abandoned South East Asia, more than four million Vietnamese and Cambodians died in the communist purges that followed.

Today in the presidential campaign, John Kerry continues to give aid and comfort to another enemy, calling America's war on terrorism in Iraq ''the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time.''

John Kerry's public record of giving ''aid and comfort'' to the enemy is so public, and so indisputable, that I believe it is a fact, commonly known and not subject to plausible controversion, of which any Federal Court could, or must, take judicial notice.

The presidency is both a civil office, and as commander in chief a military office, of the United States.

And that returns us to Article 14, Section 3, of the United States Constitution, which bars from all civil and military offices of the United States any person who, having once taken an oath as an officer of the United States, has given aid and comfort to an enemy of the United States, i.e., John Kerry.

John Kerry took an oath as a naval officer, before he became a prominent anti-war activist. He took another oath to protect and defend the Constitution when he was sworn in as a senator, before he called America's war on terrorism in Iraq "the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time." Now, he seeks to become president, and commander in chief, and will, if he is elected, take the oath again, to protect and defend the Constitution.

But if he fulfills that oath, as he should, if he is elected, and if he is to defend the Constitution, then his first official act as President must be to resign from the office of president, because he is barred from the presidency by Article 14, Section 3, of the Constitution of the United States, which he will have sworn (again) to protect and defend.

This is John Kerry's Constitutional Conundrum: If he is elected, the Constitution requires him to resign, or to be removed from office.

The demand for John Kerry's resignation if, and after, he is elected or inaugurated, will create a political eruption unlike any we have seen in many years, or generations. It would elevate John Edwards, a man whose qualifications for the Presidency seem slight, to the White House.

I believe this is an issue that should be grappled with before the election, not afterward. At the least, it should become central to the public debate during the next two weeks.

I also believe that some person, or persons, or one or more organizations, such as the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth, or the Vietnam Veterans Against John Kerry, should file a lawsuit in Federal Court seeking a determination, based on public records and documents, that John Kerry has given aid and comfort to enemies of the United States, and an injunction barring him from the presidency, pursuant to Article 14, Section 3, of the Constitution of the United States.

This will not be a criminal proceeding. It is not a prosecution for treason or sedition. It does not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt; only to a ''preponderance of the evidence,'' evidence that it is more probable than not that John Kerry has given aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States. He will not go to jail, he will not risk paying any fines or damages. There will only be, or, in my opinion, there should be, a judgment that, having given aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States, he is barred by Article 14, Section 3, of the Constitution of the United States, from the presidency.



About the Writer: Raymond Kraft is a lawyer and writer living and working inI am pro Bush and not at all fond of the Kerry camp. But I think it is crossing a line to say that just because you are anti war, that makes you an enemy of the United States. Just because he came back and opposed the Vietnam war and today opposes the Iraq war, we should also note he opposed Grenada, Panama, and Desert Storm, does not automatically make him guilty of aiding and abetting our enemies. It only makes him anti war, not anti american.
Where is your proof that he met with this North Vietnamese officer? As far as I know, the NV's would have kept fighting just as much as we would have. It had to stop some how and the only that could happen is that one of the two sides had to make the first move toward peace.
The accusations of rendering aid or comfort to an enemy of the United States does indeed consitute treason in accordance with Article 3 Section 3: "Clause 1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. 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."
Therefore what you are accusing John Kerry of is nothing less than treason.

Then why did his discharge require review by a board of officers during the Carter malaise? Why did his medals require re-issuance, more recently in 1986 (without approval of John Lehman, then Secretary of the Navy)?

Where there's smoke, there is or there has been fire, and Kerry still has to explain his actions in 1971.
Where do you find that Kerry's record was reviewed?

If it was reviewed, there were no substantial concerns regarding his honourable discharge?

If his medals were re-issued then John Kerry's service has been validated twice?

....This has to be the one of the most seditious, venomous, biased, downright bad arguments I've read in a long time. So, anyone who protests any war we have, Iraq, Vietnam, Gulf War, is a traitor to the state? Wasn't the state founded on free speech (Bill of Rights, Article 1?)? The fact remains, the war could NOT be won. Vietnam was a zero sum game, and a LOSING zero sum game. It's a lousy argument. Vietnam is recorded, in history, as the war the United States did not lose and could not win not because our enemy was better armed, but because our enemy knew their terrain and had nothing to lose. The parallels are frightening. And this argument makes any veteran against any war a traitor on any other veterans say-so, which is even more frightening.
Aye, the implications and the precedent it would set for restricting freedom of political speech are indeed frightening.

I think anyone who wants to call someone a traitor for protesting a war they believe is wrong is deluding themselves. The Vietnam War was morally reprehensible. The way the United States prosecuted the war was morally reprehensible. Unfortunately, our government has not learned from its mistakes in the Vietnam War and again is fighting a morally bankrupt war that is polarizing our country.

This war was wrong, just like Vietnam was. We were led into a war based on spurious evidence and have angered our allies in the space of less than two years after the attacks on the World Trade Center.

Instead of admitting he was wrong when faced with growing evidence that the intelligence that led to the war was wrong, President Bush continues to assert that he was right. The only person who should resign upon inauguration would be George W. Bush. Then again, that would mean that Tricky Dick Cheney would be President. Even worse.

As usual you leftists don't read what is posted, or you don't understand it. The article never suggested that EVERY one who protests should be prosecuted, it never suggested that EVERY veteran who protests should be prosecuted, it NEVER suggested that freedom of speech should in any way be abridged. It only suggests that when a soldier WHO IS STILL FULFILLING HIS SERVICE AGREEMENT ( can you read THAT? ) gives aid and comfort to the enemy, he or she should be held responsible for it!

You have ignored the basic argument, set up a straw man, and then attacked it vigorously ... something the leftists are very prone to do. I wonder why that is? Hmmm.
I'm not exactly a leftist but even I see problem with original poster's argument.
For one, he never gave proof that John Kerry aided and abetted the enemy.
All he does is cite cause and effect, but for it fall under the "aid and abet" clause, it must be proven that John Kerry did what he did in a deliberate attempt to help North Vietnam.
The OP has failed on that count. In America, we have something called the right to treated as innocent until your accuser can prove beyond a doubt that you are guilty.

When Kerry "testified" before Congress in 1971, he was still bound by the terms of his contract with the US Navy, that is, his commission as an officer in the Naval Reserve. He gave testimony that, false as it was, gave aid and comfort to the North Vietnamese, by supporting their positions.

Even worse is his meeting in Paris with representatives of the VietCong and North Vietnam. At the time, he was still a member of the Naval Reserve, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice deals severely with activities that are even borderline treasonous. Maybe that's why Kerry's discharge had to be reviewed by a board of officers in 1978.
You got this info from where?

I'm not sure that the NVA and Vietcong would be very welcome in France, anyway...
hence the reason the accusation is likely without merit. France and north vietnam were not at all on good terms. hell, the french had just lost a bitter war against the NV's just before America sent its own troops in.

I'm not exactly a leftist but even I see problem with original poster's argument.
For one, he never gave proof that John Kerry aided and abetted the enemy.
All he does is cite cause and effect, but for it fall under the "aid and abet" clause, it must be proven that John Kerry did what he did in a deliberate attempt to help North Vietnam.
The OP has failed on that count. In America, we have something called the right to treated as innocent until your accuser can prove beyond a doubt that you are guilty.
This post proves that some sanity actually exists in this thread. :cool:

hence the reason the accusation is likely without merit. France and north vietnam were not at all on good terms. hell, the french had just lost a bitter war against the NV's just before America sent its own troops in.
Simple question...where were the Peace Talks being held?

Point, set, match.

Simple question...where were the Peace Talks being held?

Point, set, match.
You have made many assertions regarding Mr. Kerry and are being asked to bring forth your incontrovertible proof.

Until then the ball is in your court and the match is far from over.

I know Bush is going to be reelected but I would like to see some evidence, or at least some links to a highly respected publication or journal or government site that proves the assertions of the OP.
until then Kerry is not guilty of treason and is hence still qualified to hold public office in the US.
Sites like PeopleagainstKerry.com or Mooreisabigfatliar.com simply won't do.

The only way I could support the proposition of this thread, would be if a federal judge declared that Kerry was ineligible to hold public office.

I know Bush is going to be reelected but I would like to see some evidence, or at least some links to a highly respected publication or journal or government site that proves the assertions of the OP.
until then Kerry is not guilty of treason and is hence still qualified to hold public office in the US.
Sites like PeopleagainstKerry.com or Mooreisabigfatliar.com simply won't do.

The only way I could support the proposition of this thread, would be if a federal judge declared that Kerry was ineligible to hold public office.Yeah, you would think that if there were a shred of credibility to these charges, they would have been brought up thirty years ago when Kerry first entered public life or something. This is more retarded than usual.

You have made many assertions regarding Mr. Kerry and are being asked to bring forth your incontrovertible proof.

Until then the ball is in your court and the match is far from over.
Both assertions have their proof. Kerry himself has stated in one of his books that he met with the NVA rep to the Paris Peace Talks. And in a recent article in the New York Sun, the topic of Kerry's discharge papers being subject to review by a board of officers was examined (http://www.nysun.com/article/3107). You see, an Honorable Discharge doesn't require review, obviously. But why was Kerry's discharge subject to a review?

About the medals, John Lehman, who was Navy Secretary when the Kerry medals were re-issued in 1986, says he never saw them or approved them (http://www.suntimes.com/output/elect/cst-nws-lips28.html). Yet, a Senator was able to get his medals re-issued? How did that happen?

No, the ball isn't in my court. The ball is in Kerry's court.

Yeah, you would think that if there were a shred of credibility to these charges, they would have been brought up thirty years ago when Kerry first entered public life or something. This is more retarded than usual.
That and the fact that President Nixon was a lawyer who would have found grounds for legally putting Kerry in jail if he really wanted to.

That and the fact that President Nixon was a lawyer who would have found grounds for legally putting Kerry in jail if he really wanted to.
Exactly. It's not like Kerry came out of nowhere to be the Democratc nominee. He's been a Senator for quite some time, after all, and this is hardly the first time he's been in a tight race.

according to your own source, the only reason for the review was because it was directly ordered by President Carter.

But why was Kerry's discharge subject to a review?
Well I read the whole article and I cannot answer your question and neither can you. So you can toss that one out the window?

About the medals, John Lehman, who was Navy Secretary when the Kerry medals were re-issued in 1986, says he never saw them or approved them (http://www.suntimes.com/output/elect/cst-nws-lips28.html). Yet, a Senator was able to get his medals re-issued? How did that happen?
How did it happen? Until the answers are forth coming, you have no proof of foul play?

No, the ball isn't in my court. The ball is in Kerry's court.
No the ball is in your court. You have made some other far more serious charges against Mr. Kerry, especially about "aiding and abetting the enemy"?

Now prove these charges. Until then it appears that you have been aced?

Well I read the whole article and I cannot answer your question and neither can you. So you can toss that one out the window?

How did it happen? Until the answers are forth coming, you have no proof of foul play?

No the ball is in your court. You have made some other far more serious charges against Mr. Kerry, especially about "aiding and abetting the enemy"?

Now prove these charges. Until then it appears that you have been aced?
Funny. When Libs toss out charges about Bush's National Guard service, it's the defenders of the President who have to disprove the charges. But when we in the Right bring out these provable facts about Kerry, and raise the natural questions, it's we who have to cough up the proof.

Kerry has plenty of skeletons in his Vietnam closet. He needs to answer about them.

Kerry had to have his medals reissued not becuase the Navy took them back but because he had thrown them away. Interesting how this was forgotten.
The article also states that Carter had review boards to improve even honorable discharges.

"Mr. Carter's first act as president was a general amnesty for draft dodgers and other war protesters. Less than an hour after his inauguration on January 21, 1977, while still in the Capitol building, Mr. Carter signed Executive Order 4483 empowering it. By the time it became a directive from the Defense Department in March 1977 it had been expanded to include other offenders who may have had general, bad conduct, dishonorable discharges, and any other discharge or sentence with negative effect on military records. In those cases the directive outlined a procedure for appeal on a case by case basis before a board of officers. A satisfactory appeal would result in an improvement of discharge status or an honorable discharge."

So the fact that there was a review board and he had his medals reissued, does not prove that Kerry was dishonorably discharged.
I futher note at the top, under the author's name, it states this is a special to the Sun. Meaning the guy who wrote the article is not really a professional reporter employed by the Sun. I once did a guest article for a paper on the Republican Convention and such articles are not subjected to as thorough a review as those by actual reporters. Though the Sun might have a different policy from the one I wrote for.

Funny. When Libs toss out charges about Bush's National Guard service, it's the defenders of the President who have to disprove the charges. But when we in the Right bring out these provable facts about Kerry, and raise the natural questions, it's we who have to cough up the proof.
No wonder you are getting "aced", as you can't keep your eye on the ball. YOU have made a personal statement, suggesting that Kerry "aided and abetted the enemy". Now, either you have proof, or you should retract your statement?

Kerry has plenty of skeletons in his Vietnam closet. He needs to answer about them.
Once again....IF Kerry has skeletons in the closet, then you need to do the digging. I would imagine that President Nixon had far greater tools to unearth any "dirt" against Kerry but his efforts were unsuccessful.

Regurgitating unfounded charges, does not make them true?

Kerry had to have his medals reissued not becuase the Navy took them back but because he had thrown them away. Interesting how this was forgotten.You really do expect anyone to believe that?? All he had to do was go and buy new ones. He threw them away, the Navy didn't revoke them.

The article also states that Carter had review boards to improve even honorable discharges.How can you improve an Honorable Discharge? Let's read more of your quote...

"Mr. Carter's first act as president was a general amnesty for draft dodgers and other war protesters. Less than an hour after his inauguration on January 21, 1977, while still in the Capitol building, Mr. Carter signed Executive Order 4483 empowering it. By the time it became a directive from the Defense Department in March 1977 it had been expanded to include other offenders who may have had general, bad conduct, dishonorable discharges, and any other discharge or sentence with negative effect on military records. In those cases the directive outlined a procedure for appeal on a case by case basis before a board of officers. A satisfactory appeal would result in an improvement of discharge status or an honorable discharge."I notice your quote does NOT mention any Honorable Discharges being reviewed and improved upon...because Honorable Discharges do NOT need review or improvement.

So the fact that there was a review board and he had his medals reissued, does not prove that Kerry was dishonorably discharged.It certainly proves that he was NOT discharged honorably. Before you go any further, go back and read what you posted and I bolded. Think about it...digest its meaning.
I futher note at the top, under the author's name, it states this is a special to the Sun. Meaning the guy who wrote the article is not really a professional reporter employed by the Sun. I once did a guest article for a paper on the Republican Convention and such articles are not subjected to as thorough a review as those by actual reporters. Though the Sun might have a different policy from the one I wrote for.Now I know you are grasping at straws. If you believe that special articles are not subject to as thorough a review, ask Ann Coulter about her articles as a special correspondent for USA Today to the Dims National Convention.

Like I said, where there is smoke, there's fire. Why did Kerry's discharge require review? Why did his medals require re-issue and re-wording from the Navy, even though the Secretary of the Navy at the time of the re-issue doesn't recall approving such a re-issue or re-write?

No wonder you are getting "aced", as you can't keep your eye on the ball. YOU have made a personal statement, suggesting that Kerry "aided and abetted the enemy". Now, either you have proof, or you should retract your statement?Read my last statement. And, to use a lib ploy, the seriousness of the charges demand an investigation.

Once again....IF Kerry has skeletons in the closet, then you need to do the digging. I would imagine that President Nixon had far greater tools to unearth any "dirt" against Kerry but his efforts were unsuccessful.And, I have done the digging. Kerry has to answer the questions now, and "you're questioning my patriotism" will not do.

Regurgitating unfounded charges, does not make them true?Can you let C-BS News know that? They seem to have forgotten. And inform Kerry...after all, he still says Bush will bring back the draft, when the only ones talking about a draft are Dims.

Panhandlia, you still haven't answered the most egregious problem with the theory, one mentioned by Whittier. Why now? Kerry's been in public office and public life for thirty years. Surely this would have come up before now if there were anything to it. It's not like any part of this was hidden--it's all been part of the public record. So why now? Why not before?

Kerry had to have his medals reissued not becuase the Navy took them back but because he had thrown them away. Interesting how this was forgotten.
The article also states that Carter had review boards to improve even honorable discharges.

"Mr. Carter's first act as president was a general amnesty for draft dodgers and other war protesters. Less than an hour after his inauguration on January 21, 1977, while still in the Capitol building, Mr. Carter signed Executive Order 4483 empowering it. By the time it became a directive from the Defense Department in March 1977 it had been expanded to include other offenders who may have had general, bad conduct, dishonorable discharges, and any other discharge or sentence with negative effect on military records. In those cases the directive outlined a procedure for appeal on a case by case basis before a board of officers. A satisfactory appeal would result in an improvement of discharge status or an honorable discharge."

So the fact that there was a review board and he had his medals reissued, does not prove that Kerry was dishonorably discharged.
I futher note at the top, under the author's name, it states this is a special to the Sun. Meaning the guy who wrote the article is not really a professional reporter employed by the Sun. I once did a guest article for a paper on the Republican Convention and such articles are not subjected to as thorough a review as those by actual reporters. Though the Sun might have a different policy from the one I wrote for.
I am truly impressed by your quest for truth and honesty!! :cool:

As usual you leftists don't read what is posted, or you don't understand it. The article never suggested that EVERY one who protests should be prosecuted, it never suggested that EVERY veteran who protests should be prosecuted, it NEVER suggested that freedom of speech should in any way be abridged. It only suggests that when a soldier WHO IS STILL FULFILLING HIS SERVICE AGREEMENT ( can you read THAT? ) gives aid and comfort to the enemy, he or she should be held responsible for it!

You have ignored the basic argument, set up a straw man, and then attacked it vigorously ... something the leftists are very prone to do. I wonder why that is? Hmmm.

Well, let's see...so far we've got one logically based argument from the Geneva convention that says not only was Kerry's testimony as a member of the military of the US was correct, it was reinforcing his duty AS A SOLIDER OF THE UNITED STATES (can you read that? I wouldn't want you to not be able to read it). The article DID suggest that John Kerry, along with other protesters, were the reason why the war lasted so long. Having fought in the war made Kerry a veteran, whether or not he was still in service. Hence, the article suggested that any protests from veterans was in essence treason. It's called deductive reasoning, most of the reason why us 'lefties' figured out there were no WMD's before Dubya and Cheney did. Now, I'm done ripping apart my strawmen, don't you conservatives have some windmills to tilt at as part of your 'moral crusade?'

Panhandlia, you still haven't answered the most egregious problem with the theory, one mentioned by Whittier. Why now? Kerry's been in public office and public life for thirty years. Surely this would have come up before now if there were anything to it. It's not like any part of this was hidden--it's all been part of the public record. So why now? Why not before?
Simple...he's never been exposed to this kind of scrutiny before. Now he is trying to become the Big Kahuna...so now the scrutiny is heavier. Same reason you folks on the Left keep bringing back to life the dead horse of Bush's National Guard service.

Simple...he's never been exposed to this kind of scrutiny before. Now he is trying to become the Big Kahuna...so now the scrutiny is heavier. Same reason you folks on the Left keep bringing back to life the dead horse of Bush's National Guard service.
Sorry, but that doesn't wash. When Bush ran for President, he'd been in public life for 6 years. Kerry's been in public life for 5 times that long, and he made some pretty serious enemies along the way. Kerry's life has been pretty well vetted by this point.

Look, there are plenty of substantive reasons to not vote for Kerry--this isn't one of them, just like the other Swift Boat claims weren't. Oppose his plans for the economy, or for a health care plan or his foreign policy, but this is crap, plain and simple.

Panhandlia, you still haven't answered the most egregious problem with the theory, one mentioned by Whittier. Why now? Kerry's been in public office and public life for thirty years. Surely this would have come up before now if there were anything to it. It's not like any part of this was hidden--it's all been part of the public record. So why now? Why not before?
Panhandlia has taken a step in supporting his case but he has yet to prove it.
In answer to your question however, big league politics would have prevented it from coming out. So we must not ignore the fact that politics has much to do with this.

Bush's Guard service is irrelevant to todays elections.

I would like to see another source other than the sun to back these claims.
Cause if the OP's claims are true, they would have been reported by more than one paper.

Through all this George W. Bush remains silent. If this was true, Bush would have said something by now (since this is one of those issues that would clearly make him the "better" choice). The fact that he doesn't says something.

Bush's Guard service is irrelevant to todays elections.

I would like to see another source other than the sun to back these claims.
Cause if the OP's claims are true, they would have been reported by more than one paper.
Agreed, Bush's National Guard service is irrelevant...that's because it has been proven to be a non-issue.

The issue of Kerry's discharge and medals has yet to be fully explained away, and yet it's us on this side of the fence who are challenged to explain it. I don't know the answers, but I know that the Left doesn't want those questions asked.

Through all this George W. Bush remains silent. If this was true, Bush would have said something by now (since this is one of those issues that would clearly make him the "better" choice). The fact that he doesn't says something.
Me-thinks, Bush is saying nothing, because he understands he doesn't have to.

Read my last statement. And, to use a lib ploy, the seriousness of the charges demand an investigation.
What charges have been laid? You can't have an investigation without charges?

And, I have done the digging. Kerry has to answer the questions now, and "you're questioning my patriotism" will not do.
What have you uncovered with your digging? What questions does Kerry have to answer to? I have not questioned your patriotism, but I am questioning your integrity.

Can you let C-BS News know that? They seem to have forgotten. And inform Kerry...after all, he still says Bush will bring back the draft, when the only ones talking about a draft are Dims.
Why are you trying to change the topic? Stay focused.

Now you were going to detail YOUR proof that Kerry "aided and abetted the enemy". We are waiting.

What charges have been laid? You can't have an investigation without charges?

What have you uncovered with your digging? What questions does Kerry have to answer to? I have not questioned your patriotism, but I am questioning your integrity.

Why are you trying to change the topic? Stay focused.

Now you were going to detail YOUR proof that Kerry "aided and abetted the enemy". We are waiting.
You must have missed all the Hanoi Hilton POWs who have talked about how the NVA used Kerry's "testimony" as a weapon in their interrogations. Or the memoirs of Nguyen Vo Giap specifically mentioning John Kerry's testimony. Or John Kerry's (and Jane Fonda's) pictures being prominently in display in a museum in Hanoi about the war and the US anti-war movement. If that isn't "aiding and abetting," (not to mention all his statements about Iraq,) then you tell me what it is.

Agreed, Bush's National Guard service is irrelevant...that's because it has been proven to be a non-issue.

The issue of Kerry's discharge and medals has yet to be fully explained away, and yet it's us on this side of the fence who are challenged to explain it. I don't know the answers, but I know that the Left doesn't want those questions asked.
Ahhh finally some truth from you....

" I don't know the answers"

Yet you pretend to know the answers and continue to make serious charges against Kerry which are unfounded. :eek:

Look, there are plenty of substantive reasons to not vote for Kerry--this isn't one of them, just like the other Swift Boat claims weren't. Oppose his plans for the economy, or for a health care plan or his foreign policy, but this is crap, plain and simple.

x2

I really don't have anything to add.

You must have missed all the Hanoi Hilton POWs who have talked about how the NVA used Kerry's "testimony" as a weapon in their interrogations. Or the memoirs of Nguyen Vo Giap specifically mentioning John Kerry's testimony. Or John Kerry's (and Jane Fonda's) pictures being prominently in display in a museum in Hanoi about the war and the US anti-war movement. If that isn't "aiding and abetting," (not to mention all his statements about Iraq,) then you tell me what it is.
Soooo by these accounts, you state that Kerry knowingly and willingly "aided and abetted the enemy"?

Did Kerry have any control over the NVA?

Did Kerry and Fonda send their best pictures to this museum?

What statements has Kerry made about Iraq that is "aiding and abetting the enemy"?

These are very serious charges and yet you could not prove them, if your life depended on them.

You are grasping at straws.

Me-thinks, Bush is saying nothing, because he understands he doesn't have to.

If this was real, it'd be headline news. The Bush team would be all over it, as this gives them an almost insurmountable leverage in the race because not only does it considerably damage the credibility of John Kerry (would you vote for a traitor? I think not), it would disqualify Kerry completely, damaging the Democratic party as a whole (as they foolishly selected an inelligible candidate, meaning their following candidates would be placed under even more scrutiny and meaning the Republicans would have it that much easier in 2008 and possibly 2012 and 2016 as well). Plus, Bush IS playing the anti-patriotic card in this race, and, if this was real, he'd be parroting this issue like crazy, as it paints Kerry unmistakably and completely unpatriotic. The fact that Bush ISN'T playing this card and the issue ISN'T headline news says something about the validity of the claims, because the claims would be used by now because of their effectiveness.

Constitutional Conundrum my ass. From my perspective over half the country was protesting that war. It was generally accepted that it was a cluster fuck and we needed to get out. 30 years later and suddenly everyone who spoke their concience is a traitor? I don't think so. Kerry never "Aided and Abetted" the enemy, he spoke up about what he and a million other Americans thought was policy that was wasting a lot of lives, American and Vietnamese, for no good reason. This 'issue' has no merit what so ever, it is an obvious partisan ploy and this reply is more attention than it deserves.

This 'issue' has no merit what so ever, it is an obvious partisan ploy and this reply is more attention than it deserves.

Agreed. Half the election topics get more coverage than they deserve, not just this thread.

Agreed. Half the election topics get more coverage than they deserve, not just this thread.
And the really important stuff gets ignored, especially by the mainstream media.

By the same sort of argument it could easily be pointed out that George W. Bush, by attacking Iraq, has given aid and comfort to Al Queida. Bush has inspired countless Al Queida recruits and turned back on his pledge that we will persue Bin Ladin until he is captured or dead.

However the whole point of this hinges on an extremely loose interpretation of "aid and comfort". "Aid and comfort to the enemy" means supplying them with arms, sheltering them, giving them strategic intel, etc. It does not include political activities that may tangentially effect an enemy's strategic decisions, whether those activities are pro-war or pro-peace. If this were the case any American soldier or official who has ever opposed any war would be disallowed from any office, and any such person who has ever made a bad decision in the execution of a war, which has inadvertantly or even knowingly aided an enemy's political or military position, would as well.

I am tempted to agree with the original poster's quote, since this, if it were true, would require the impeachment of George W. Bush. A VC leader said that Kerry's political stance inspired them to keep fighting, while today, Al Queida leaders use Bush's war on a non-Al Queida aligned arab nation to recruit fighters. Six of one, half a dozen of the other. However, in good conscience, I cannot back such loose and faulty logic.

Are the republicans this desperate?

Kerry protested the war? freedom of speech, constitutional right guaranteed in the US legal system. He could've been the head of the fucking Pentagon, and if he wanted to say that the war was wrong, he had every right to say that and bring all non-difamatory evidence to support his claims.

Kerry met with NV officers during peace talks? freedom of transit and association, also two other constitutional rights guaranteed in the US legal system. If you dont have evidence that proves beyond reasonable doubt that during those meetings Kerry plotted against the US goverment, then you'd be laughed out of the court room if you try to build a case of treason against him. Since I highly doubt that you have the details of that meeting, and even if you did I highly doubt you'd see Kerry plotting against the US in those meetings, that meeting is a non-factor.

It's really funny watching the republicans taking blind swings into the air desperatly trying to justify their idiocy. But hey, at least you are trying and I admire you people for it.

^ Never looked at it that way but it counts.

But lurking in the heart of Article 14, Section 3, is a very important and potent clause of our Constitution which was originally adopted to bar officers of the United States military and members of Congress who had defected to the Confederacy, or given aid and comfort to the Confederacy, from Federal office.
''Section 3. No person shall be a senator or representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two thirds of each House, remove such disability.''
A primary rule of interpreting legislation is to look at the context, after all not putting money in a parking meter could be described as engaging in rebellion or insurrection in 'every day language'.
If we consider the context that the writer himself describes we see that the legislators were thinking in terms of an attempt to forcably overthrow the authority of the government. At the very minimum, the definition of insurrection or rebellion, for the purposes of interpreting the legislation, must include some element of an attempt to 'overthrow' the government, to forcibly and unlawfully usurp the lawful governmental authority of the government.
Aiding and comforting also cannot be read simply in the every day sense (otherwise a soldier that bandaged the wound of a captured enemy would be disbarred from holding any further office).

If John Kerry committed actions while an officer that incurred a dishonorable discharge, due to unapproved talk with enemy representatives, and therefore violates said clause of the 14th amendment, then he would indeed be unable to serve as president.
No dishonerable discharge has been substantiated, and even if it had been, why would that be relevent to the legislation being discussed?

Indeed, if it is proven, as was stated in Vo Nguyen's 1985 memoir, that the anti-war movement in America provided a motivational boost for Communist forces in North Vietnam, especially since the Tet Offensive effectively crushed their military capabilities, and that Kerry was a leader in said movement, and that said movement did indeed spur on the North Vietnamese, enabling them to hold out longer, and thus cost more American lives, then there is no doubt that Kerry would be found guilty.
Found guilty by whom?

This should come as no surprise to you, when a burglar can sue a man for having an unsafe roof which he fell through while trying to break into the man's house.
If this example is any indication of who you believe would 'find Kerry guilty' then your point is not relevent. Even if a civil court did accept such a line of reasoning, tort violations are not relevent to the legislation being discussed.

Most people won't actually read the whole article. I have highlighted the key points in the quote above. Notice it doesn't specify if you have finished your term of service. It states if you have ever taken an oath!
Except in very narrow circumstance, I doubt that a court would accept that ex-holders of office were subject to the clause as a result of actions arising outside the term of their office.

The most important part of this issue is what is being overlooked. The meat of this argument is the equivocation of the terms "Officer OF the United States" and "officer of the US Navy." These are not identical positions. The Constitution of the United States applies to our civil actions from day to day. This is the justification that the Supreme Court has used for establishing the rights of military tribunals, the law of the military is seperate from the law of our civil society. An officer of the United States is one that is a representitive of the US government. In present day terms this would be any elected representitive of the Congress, an appointed secretary, sub-secretary etc.

Now, that said. There may very well be a similar selection of this Constitutional clause in military doctrine, but if that is not the case, this is a complete non-issue, and we are left with nothing more than we had 7 or 8 pages ago. I would suggest that the "lawyer" who wrote the initial frenzy on this page take a quick look at his Constitutional law and get his nose out of sensation politics so that he can do his job properly.