More Kerry Service Info
 

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

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....

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

Can I steal this?

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

Well said Jack.

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).