More Kerry Service Info

[The Reaper]

Just got this.

Are you sure that you are reporting for duty, Senator?

Things that make me go, Hmm....

TR


John Kerry does not want his service record questioned. This is the reason why.

Subject: Hanoi John's Military Service

On 18 Feb. 1966 John Kerry signed a 6 year enlistment contract with the Navy (plus a 6-month extension during wartime).

On 18 Feb. 1966 John Kerry also signed an Officer Candidate contract for 6 years -- 5 years of ACTIVE duty & ACTIVE Naval Reserves, and 1 year of inactive standby reserves (See items #4 & 5).

Because John Kerry was discharged from TOTAL ACTIVE DUTY of only 3 years and 18 days on 3 Jan. 1970, he was then required to attend 48 drills per year, and not more than 17 days active duty for training. Kerry was also subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Additionally, Kerry, as a commissioned officer, was prohibited from making adverse statements against his chain of command or statements against his country, especially during
time of war. It is also interesting to note that Kerry did not obtain an honorable discharge until Mar. 12, 2001 even though his service obligation should have ended July 1, 1972.

Lt. John Kerry's letter of 21 Nov. 1969 asking for an early release from active US Navy duty falsely states "My current regular period of obligated service would be completed in December of this year."

On Jan. 3, 1970 Lt. John Kerry was transferred to the Naval Reserve Manpower Center in Bainridge, Maryland.

Where are Kerry's Performance Records for 2 years of obligated Ready Reserve, the 48 drills per year required and his 17 days of active duty per year training while Kerry was in the Ready Reserves? Have these records been released?

Has anyone ever talked to Kerry's Commanding Officer at the Naval Reserve Center where Kerry drilled?

On 1 July 1972 Lt. John Kerry was transferred to Standby Reserve - Inactive.

On 16 February 1978 Lt. John Kerry was discharged from US Naval Reserve.

Below are some of the crimes Lt. Kerry USNR committed as a Ready Reservist, while he was acting as a leader of Vietnam Veterans Against the War:

1. Lt. Kerry attended many rallies where the Vietcong flag was displayed while our flag was desecrated, defiled, and mocked, thereby giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

2. Lt. Kerry was involved in a meeting that voted on assassinating members of the US Senate.

3. Lt. Kerry lied under oath against fellow soldiers before the US Senate about crimes committed in Vietnam.

4. Lt. Kerry professed to being a war criminal on national television, and condemned the military and the USA.

5. Lt. Kerry met with NVA and Vietcong communist leaders in Paris, in direct violation of the UCMJ and the U.S. Constitution.

Lt. Kerry by his own words & actions violated the UCMJ and the U.S. Code while serving as a Navy officer. Lt. Kerry stands in violation of Article 3, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution. Lt. Kerry's 1970 meeting with NVA Communists in Paris is in direct violation of the UCMJ's Article 104 part 904, and U.S. Code 18 U.S.C. 953. That meeting, and Kerry's subsequent support of the communists while leading mass protests against our military
in the year that followed, also place him in direct violation of our
Constitution's Article 3, Section 3, which defines treason as "giving aid and comfort" to the enemy in time of warfare.

The Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment, Section 3, states, "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President ... having previously taken an oath . to support the Constitution of the United States, [who has] engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."

A. L. "Steve" Nash, MAC Ret, UDT/SEAL SEAL Authentication Team -Director AuthentiSEAL

[Gypsy]

Well well well. Even more fuel for the fire, no wonder he doesn't want his Military records released. The liberal left will be busting their collective guts....crying foul.

:boohoo

I'd be even more interested in why it took so long to get his honorable discharge....

[Bill Harsey]

The above could stand a little more daylight. I think many would find this of interest. Good work Mr. Nash (USN SEAL Retired)

[NousDefionsDoc]

Can I steal this?

[37F5V]

Amazing the stuff that never gets out. PLEASE let this be valid..... and released to FOX.

[brownapple]

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
Can I steal this?

I am stealing it. If Mr. Nash wants it limited in exposure, please ask him to contact me and I will apologize.

[The Reaper]

I doubt if Mr. Nash wrote this and did not want it distributed.

I have his phone number if someone needs it.

I have a copy of his DD 214 and 215 courtesy of someone here on the board. It was last updated in March 2001.

Till I reviewed it, I have never seen an award of a Silver Star with a V Device.

Bill is correct, none of this has been verified, it could be a scam.

TR

[Seth]

5. Lt. Kerry met with NVA and Vietcong communist leaders in Paris.

It strikes me that this item could be independently verified. And, just shining light on the details of this meeting would be interesting, even outside of the UCMJ subjection issue.

[CPTAUSRET]

Originally posted by The Reaper


I have a copy of his DD 214 and 215 courtesy of someone here on the board. It was last updated in March 2001.

Till I reviewed it, I have never seen an award of a Silver Star with a V Device.

Bill is correct, none of this has been verified, it could be a scam.

TR

TR:

That is on the order of being awarded a DSC with a "V" device, could be innocent, could be some clerk's error, but who knows.

Terry

[Airbornelawyer]

The "V" is likely a clerical error. I would not waste time on it.

There are numerous errors of law in the article. More later, but I'd hold off on using this to make a case.

[Airbornelawyer]

Below are some of the crimes Lt. Kerry USNR committed as a Ready Reservist, while he was acting as a leader of Vietnam Veterans Against the War:

1. Lt. Kerry attended many rallies where the Vietcong flag was displayed while our flag was desecrated, defiled, and mocked, thereby giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

2. Lt. Kerry was involved in a meeting that voted on assassinating members of the US Senate.

3. Lt. Kerry lied under oath against fellow soldiers before the US Senate about crimes committed in Vietnam.

4. Lt. Kerry professed to being a war criminal on national television, and condemned the military and the USA.

5. Lt. Kerry met with NVA and Vietcong communist leaders in Paris, in direct violation of the UCMJ and the U.S. Constitution.

Lt. Kerry by his own words & actions violated the UCMJ and the U.S. Code while serving as a Navy officer. Lt. Kerry stands in violation of Article 3, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution. Lt. Kerry's 1970 meeting with NVA Communists in Paris is in direct violation of the UCMJ's Article 104 part 904, and U.S. Code 18 U.S.C. 953. That meeting, and Kerry's subsequent support of the communists while leading mass protests against our military
in the year that followed, also place him in direct violation of our
Constitution's Article 3, Section 3, which defines treason as "giving aid and comfort" to the enemy in time of warfare.
1. Jurisdiction. LT Kerry was not subject to the UCMJ. Under the UCMJ, a reservist is not subject to the UCMJ unless on active duty or inactive duty training (i.e., during drills) UCMJ Article 2, "Persons subject to this chapter", states in paragraph (a)(3): "Members of a reserve component while on inactive-duty training, but in the case of members of the Army National Guard of the United States or the Air National Guard of the United States only when in Federal Service."

No punitive article of the UCMJ, whether the above cited Art. 104 or Articles 88 or 133 (or others), applies to LT Kerry for activities when he was a member of the Ready Reserve not on either active duty or inactive duty training status.

2. 18 U.S.C. 953. This statute is "Private correspondence with foreign governments"and was enacted in 1799. It states, in relevant part, that "[a]ny citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both."

Since 1799, exactly two people have been indicted udner this offense, and neither was convicted. Therefore, the statute has never been tested. It is likely unconstitutional under the First Amendment.

3. Treason. The quoted article states that the Constitution "defines treason as 'giving aid and comfort' to the enemy in time of warfare." This is not accurate. Treason is also highly inflammatory and should not be charged casually. As Chief Justice Marshall noted in the first major Supreme Court case on treason: "As there is no crime which can more excite and agitate the passions of men than treason, no charge demands more from the tribunal before which it is made, a deliberate and temperate inquiry. Whether this inquiry be directed to the fact or to the law, none can be more solemn, none more important to the citizen or to the government; none can more affect the safety of both." Ex parte Bollman & Swartwout, 4 Cranch 75 (1807).

U.S. Constitution, Art. III, Section 3 states: "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."

The two offenses that constitute treason are thus: (1) levying war against the US and (2) adhering to the enemies of the US, giving them aid and comfort. For the latter offense, there are two elements. You must have the specific intent of adhering to the enemy and you must commit an overt act to give the enemy aid and comfort (with two witnesses or a confession to the act). In cases of treason, the intent is to benefit the enemy's war effort and to harm that of the US (it doesn't have to be the only intent, but it does have to be present). You have to have intended to betray your country ("To make treason the defendant not only must intend the act, but he must intend to betray his country by means of the act." Cramer v. United States, 325 U.S. 1, 31 (1945)). In Cramer, Justice Jackson further stated, "a citizen may take actions, which do aid and comfort the enemy- making a speech critical of the government or opposing its measures, profiteering, striking in defense plants or essential work, and the hundred other things which impair our cohesion and diminish our strength - but if there is no adherence to the enemy in this, if there is no intent to betray, there is no treason." Id. at 29.

Kerry may be guilty of other things, but it would be hard to prove treason. The other VVAW members who conspired to kill government officials might have been chargeable as conspiring to commit treason by levying war against the US, but even this might be a hard case to make.

Seditious conspiracy (18 U.S. Code 2384) or advocating overthrow of the government (18 U.S. Code 2385) are more likely charges. Section 2387 might have also been applied to VVAW (that statute covers, among other things, willfully causing or attempting to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny or refusal of duty in the armed forces). Unlike treason, however, these are subject to First Amendment protection up to a point. And there are a slew of regular criminal offenses, as well more minor laws, that were routinely violated by Kerry and his real band of brothers in the VVAW.

Many of these other offenses would have been hard to prove in a court of law, but the court of public opinion is a different place. Avoiding the inflammatory charge of treason, and sticking to the more blatantly offensive activities of Kerry and his comrades, seems a more prudent course.

[Roguish Lawyer]

Originally posted by Airbornelawyer
2. 18 U.S.C. 953. This statute is "Private correspondence with foreign governments"and was enacted in 1799. It states, in relevant part, that "[a]ny citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both."

Since 1799, exactly two people have been indicted udner this offense, and neither was convicted. Therefore, the statute has never been tested. It is likely unconstitutional under the First Amendment.

Why do you think it's unconstitutional? I haven't done any research, but my instinct is that there should be no problem. Certainly the policy of the First Amendment is not impaired by the statute, and this power is one quite clearly given to the government.

:munchin

[Jack Moroney (RIP)]

Kerry's actions also had an impact on a lot of folks. While no one may be able to hold him accountable for his actions, he did have an impact on me to a very minor degree. At the time of his testimony I was in graduate school in Maine with all the liberal tree hugging, tie dye wearing, unbathed, shoeless, bearded, beaded, ponytail sporting slugs that infested the college campuses of the day. These fine folk did not realize that I had any affiliation with the military. I can remember going into my first class and sitting behind one of these "patriots" who had a US Flag sewn on his butt and shortly thereafter the bantering started about the Winter Soldier testimony and how all VN soldiers were baby killers, etc,, etc. I sat quietly, said nothing until the clown with the flag asked me why I had nothing to contribute to which I replied that I was one of the folks that he was running down, that I killed no more women and children than I could eat, and that if he showed up tomorrow with that flag sewn on his ass I would personally feed it to him. What really was happening here was that those of us that were going to stay in the military were less affected by these times than those that had just left the military but were proud of their service. They were no longer part of the military and were essentially social outcasts from the public who would always looks at them with the same broad brush that Kerry had painted all VN vets. It was going to taint everything that they tried to do in public life from this point on. Those of us in the military community were part of the military "family" but those that were no longer in the military were essentially lepers. We just had no forum to state our piece until the Swift Boats folks started bringing this all up again. This has probably been the first time that I can remember where folks are actually beginning to listen to the truth about what went on and a lot of the myths are being blown apart. Kerry has now, through his own self-serving efforts, brought this thing back into the light and I am even getting questions from my kids (who were born in the 60s) about things they were afraid to ask. So while Kerry made us all outcasts in the 70s he has now inadvertantly allowed some open and honest discussion for those of us who up to this day were all considered war criminals. Just my .00000002 cents.

Jack Moroney

[Bill Harsey]

Well said Jack.

[brownapple]

Originally posted by Seth
5. Lt. Kerry met with NVA and Vietcong communist leaders in Paris.

It strikes me that this item could be independently verified. And, just shining light on the details of this meeting would be interesting, even outside of the UCMJ subjection issue.

FBI reports indicate Kerry met twice with Madame Binh and friends. Kerry himself admits to one meeting and even admitted in front of Congress that it was illegal (did so in kind of a back-handed way).

[NousDefionsDoc]

You guys know what pisses me off about this whole deal? When I was in the 82nd and later when I got to Group, I had a lot of guys in the Chain of Command and friends that had been in Vietnam, some of them SOG guys, etc that saw a LOT of combat.

Yet here, once again, we have the horrified vet (Kerry) speaking out on behalf of the troops in an immoral war. He was in country 4 months and never missed a duty day because of wounds!

Our old SGM (RIP Pete), spent multiple tours over there. I asked him once "Why did you keep going back when you didn't have to?" He said "When you go to yours, where ever it is, come back and we'll talk." Well, Panama wasn't anything like Vietnam, but after it, I went back to see him and he just smiled. Because I knew the answer. I'm sure Colonel Rowe had nightmares, but I never heard of him complaining. I heard he even laughed at the little joke they played on him when he first showed up at his office at SERE. Fast Eddie talked to us about it a lot, to help us learn.

I never knew anyone, NOT ONE, of those guys to carry on about it the way guys like Kerry do. Of course they had no reason to share anything with a snot-nosed cherry that wasn't there, but still.

I read somewhere once that there are like 12-14 support troops for every trigger puller. Yet the 12-14 are the ones that seem to do all the complaining. I think a lot of it is "Hey! I unloaded trucks, but I was there too!" Since I doubt many people buy books about unloading trucks.

Like the man said, "War is hell, but combat is a bitch." Just seems to me that a lot of the guys that didn't see much combat do most of the bitchin'.

I'm done now.

[The Reaper]

Well said, NDD.

I suspect that Conduct Unbecoming and Contemptuous Speech could be added to the list, if not UA for dropping out before completing his term.

TR

[CPTAUSRET]

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
You guys know what pisses me off about this whole deal? When I was in the 82nd and later when I got to Group, I had a lot of guys in the Chain of Command and friends that had been in Vietnam, some of them SOG guys, etc that saw a LOT of combat.


Our old SGM (RIP Pete), spent multiple tours over there. I asked him once "Why did you keep going back when you didn't have to?" He said "When you go to yours, where ever it is, come back and we'll talk." Well, Panama wasn't anything like Vietnam, but after it, I went back to see him and he just smiled. Because I knew the answer. I'm sure Colonel Rowe had nightmares, but I never heard of him complaining. I heard he even laughed at the little joke they played on him when he first showed up at his office at SERE. Fast Eddie talked to us about it a lot, to help us learn.

I never knew anyone, NOT ONE, of those guys to carry on about it the way guys like Kerry do.


Like the man said, "War is hell, but combat is a bitch." Just seems to me that a lot of the guys that didn't see much combat do most of the bitchin'.

I'm done now.



I kept going back, because I knew I was needed to do a job which I figured I was uniquely qualified for (don't know why I figured I was the best gun pilot out there, but I did), I also figured that every NVA/VC I planted was one more who was not going to kill another young American serving their country.

Terry

[NousDefionsDoc]

Roger that Cap. You are another good example. Thank you for your service.

[brownapple]

http://www.suntimes.com/output/elect/cst-nws-lips28.html

The house of cards is tumbling.

[brownapple]

Originally posted by Airbornelawyer
The "V" is likely a clerical error. I would not waste time on it.


Maybe so, but DOD regulation require that a DD214 not have any corrections or overstrikes. Kerry's does. Something is not right about that document, and the additional information regarding Secretary Lehman and the Silver Star citation add to the questions regarding his "records".

[Airbornelawyer]

Originally posted by Roguish Lawyer
Why do you think it's unconstitutional? I haven't done any research, but my instinct is that there should be no problem. Certainly the policy of the First Amendment is not impaired by the statute, and this power is one quite clearly given to the government.

:munchin As noted, the Logan Act has never resulted in a conviction, much less an appeal, so its constitutionality has not been tested. There are at least two prongs for attack - the First Amendment and the Sixth Amendment.

In Waldron v. British Petroleum Co., a federal district court noted with respect to a Logan Act claim, "the existence of a doubtful question with regard to the constitutionality of that statute under the Sixth Amendment. That doubt is engendered by the statute's use of the vague and indefinite terms, 'defeat' and 'measures.' Neither of these words is an abstraction of common certainty or possesses a definite statutory or judicial definition. Since, however, there are other grounds for disposing of this motion, it is not necessary to decide the constitutional question." 231 F. Supp. 72 (S.D.N.Y. 1964) (internal citations omitted).

"Void for vagueness" doctrine is also applied in First Amendment cases (though I believe there we are talking about void for vagueness under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment), to which may be added overbreadth doctrine. Section 953 is a restriction on "any correspondence or intercourse" (emphasis added). The fact that the speech at issue is political speech puts it in a rather narrow inner ring of First Amendment protection, where a higher standard is applied than for, say, commercial speech.

There is an open issue, however, which is the extent to which the First Amendment covers speech outside the United States. The extraterritorial application of the First Amendment is untested by the Supreme Court. In Haig v. Agee (453 U.S. 280 (1981)), the Court ruled that the conduct at issue - revealing the names of CIA covert agents - was not protected speech, so the First Amendment did not apply to the revocation of Agee's passport. It did not directly address the extraterritorial application of the First Amendment. Several district court cases, have, however, with most tending toward applying the Bill of Rights to conduct overseas.

Agee's action was held to be unprotected speech under the national security limitation expressed Near v. Minnesota ex rel. Olson (283 U.S. 697 (1931)). The Near doctrine is that there be proof that the activity "must inevitably, directly, and immediately cause the occurrence of an event kindred to imperiling the safety of a transport already at sea." This is akin to the so-called "clear and present danger" test.

While it is likely that the national security exception is not broad enough to save the statute on general terms, it is possible that a narrower statute applicable to military personnel or government officials would be constitutional. The exception to the First Amendment which permits restrictions on political activities of soldiers is long-recognized. Though not absolute, it likely would be applicable to activities to influence foreign policy by a serving soldier. In United States v. Howe (17 USCMA 165, 37 CMR 429 (1967)), the Court of Military Appeals upheld the conviction for conduct unbecoming of a lieutenant who had participated in civilian clothes in a demonstration. In Culver v. Secretary of the Air Force (559 F.2d 622 (D.C.Cir.1977)), the DC Circuit Court upheld an Air Force regulation that prohibited an Air Force member from participating in a demonstration in a foreign country.

2LT Howe was a Reserve officer, but he was on active duty at the time, so he was subject to the UCMJ. Unfortunately, Kerry, at the time of his VVAW activities, was not. So even this military restriction would not cover Kerry. As noted, were he subject to the UCMJ at the time, there are at least 10 punitive articles under which he might have been chargeable:

Article 88. Contempt toward officials
Article 94. Mutiny or sedition
Article 104. Aiding the enemy
Article 107. False official statements
Article 108. Military property of United States--Loss, damage, destruction, or wrongful disposition (those medals he threw)
Article 115. Malingering
Article 116. Riot or breach of peace
Article 117. Provoking speeches or gestures
Article 133. Conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman.
Article 134. General Article.

Add Article 81, Conspiracy, for most of these. And if he was in fact obligated to report to a Reserve unit, but did not (the record is vague on this), there would be the appropriate applicable Article 85, 86 or 87 violation.

Article 134 covers actions prejudicial to good order and discipline not covered by another punitive article. There are several possible Article 134 violations, including "disloyal statements". In his Senate testimony and other VVAW statements, Kerry claims to have not only heard about, but witnessed atrocities. If he was lying, then Art. 107 might apply, but if he was telling the truth, and never reported them when he was on active duty, then he would be chargeable with another Article 134 violation, misprision of a serious offense. The misprision would have occurred while then-LT(jg) Kerry was subject to the UCMJ, but the statute of limitations ran out long ago.

[NousDefionsDoc]

Anybody else scared of running into AL in a courtroom?

[The Reaper]

Originally posted by Airbornelawyer
And if he was in fact obligated to report to a Reserve unit, but did not (the record is vague on this), there would be the appropriate applicable Article 85, 86 or 87 violation.


I think this may be why he refuses to release his records.

I hope someone has a FOIA suit underway right now to get them.

TR

[Bill Harsey]

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
Anybody else scared of running into AL in a courtroom? I haven't worried about the courtroom yet, still being careful of not getting tangled up with him here.