Posted on 09/04/2004 11:06:03 AM PDT by Polybius
"If you cannot prove it with facts, baffle them with bullsh*t".
That is how John Kerry’s official web site is currently dealing with the news media in regards to the delicate subject of when John Kerry was “discharged” from the U.S. Navy.
Why does this matter?
Because John Kerry does not want the news media reporter or the civilian voter unfamiliar with military jargon to know that he was still a U.S. Naval officer at the time he was the leader of Vietnam Veterans Against the War.
The effectiveness of such deliberate deceit by Kerry can be seen by the fact that even the Associated Press wrote it’s own timeline falsely stating:
The true fact is that John F. Kerry was not discharged from the U.S. Navy until February 16, 1978 during the Carter Administration.
In paid TV advertising, John Kerry invites voters and journalists to “Read the official Navy documents at JohnKerry.com”.
Upon arrival at the “John Kerry in Vietnam” section of the web site, the voter is guided by links to John Kerry's Vietnam Service Timeline
The Vietnam Service Timeline on JohnKerry.com starts out being almost anal-retentive about minor details. For example:
“January 3, 1967: Kerry reports for duty at the Naval Schools Command at Treasure Island (CA)-Takes 10 week Officer Damage Control Course.”
However, once the subject of Kerry’s discharge from Naval service crops up, the Vietnam Service Timeline becomes a collection of irrelevant non sequiturs deliberately designed to confuse and deceive the news media and the voter:
“January 1, 1970: Kerry promoted to (full) Lieutenant.
January 3, 1970: Kerry requests discharge.
March 1, 1970: Kerry’s date of separation from Active Duty.
April 29, 1970: Kerry listed as Registrant who has completed service.”
That’s it. Nothing else follows in Kerry’s Timeline.
The civilian journalist or voter who does not know the difference between a “discharge”, a “separation from active duty” or a “Registrant” is left with the false impression John Kerry was no longer in the U.S. Navy by the end of April 1970.
That is how even the Associated Press was fooled into falsely writing in it’s own Kerry timeline, ” January 1970: Kerry requests discharge. He is honorably discharged, and later joins Vietnam Veterans Against the War. “
The voter with prior military service, however, will see that John F. Kerry is “baffling with bullsh*t”.
The term “discharge” means that the servicemember has been stricken from the enlisted or officer ranks of his military service without any future military obligation in those ranks and is no longer subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice in regards to his future actions as they relate to his prior military status. Being “discharged” from the enlisted ranks means that you are no longer an enlisted servicemember in the Armed Forces. Being “discharged” from the officer ranks means that you are no longer a commissioned officer in the Armed Forces.
The term “separation from active duty”, however, simply means that the military servicemember has gone from an active duty status into reserve status. There is no such thing as an “honorable” or “dishonorable” release from active duty. Such terms are reserved for the final discharge. In a reserve status, Kerry would still have been a U.S. Naval officer subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
The term “Registrant who has completed service” deals exclusively with Selective Service paperwork that would indicate that the Selective Service can’t draft someone that has served an active duty tour. Such Selective Service paperwork is totally irrelevant to John Kerry’s status as a U.S. Naval officer under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
Kerry invites the voter and the news media to view his select collection of military documentation. However, to the civilian voter or news media reporter, John Kerry's Official Naval Records is a confusing jumble of relevant and irrelevant military paperwork.
For example, a close examination of the Record of Discharge document reveals that it is the document that discharged Kerry from the enlisted ranks of an Officer Candidate at U.S. Naval Officer Candidate School so that he could be commissioned as a U.S. Navy Ensign and “continued on active duty”.
The only document provided on Kerry’s web page close to the January 3, 1970 Timeline entry stating that “Kerry requests discharge” is a January 2, 1970 Release From Active Duty document which specifically informs Kerry that, “….your release from active duty does not terminate your status as a member of the U.S. Naval Reserve. “
John Kerry was not eligible for “discharge” on January 3, 1970 because Kerry still owed the U.S. Navy service in the Naval Reserves after his release from Active Duty status. If John Kerry actually “requested a discharge” from the Naval Reserves on January 3, 1970, he provides no documentation of such a request on the document list on his official web page.
If such a request for a “discharge” was actually made on January 3, 1970 and then obviously denied, John Kerry provides no documentation of the denial of his request on the document list on his official web page.
Assuming that John Kerry is telling the truth that he actually “requested discharge” on January 3, 1970, it is then clear that the Vietnam Service Timeline on Kerry's official web page should read as follows:
January 1, 1970: Kerry promoted to (full) Lieutenant.
January 2, 1970: Kerry's release from active duty is authorized. Kerry was informed that “….your release from active duty does not terminate your status as a member of the U.S. Naval Reserve.”
January 3, 1970: Kerry requests discharge. The request was denied.
March 1, 1970: Kerry’s date of separation from Active Duty.
April 29, 1970: Kerry listed as a Selective Service Registrant who is no longer subject to the military draft.
June 1970: While still a commissioned U.S. Naval officer in the U.S. Naval Reserves, Kerry joined Vietnam Veterans Against the War.
April 23, 1971: While still a commissioned U.S. Naval officer in the U.S. Naval Reserves, Kerry led members of VVAW in a protest during which they threw their medals and ribbons over a fence in front of the U.S. Capitol.
April 23, 1971: While still a commissioned U.S. Naval officer in the U.S. Naval Reserves, Kerry wore a U.S. military utility uniform with ribbons and while wearing long hair and for the purpose of political advocacy in violation of U.S. Navy military regulations at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing. He then accused fellow Vietrnam veterans of war crimes “reminiscent of Genghis Kahn”.
February 16, 1978: Kerry discharged from U.S. Navy.
Kerry’s Timeline on his official web page, however, comes to an abrupt halt with the irrelevant entry:
"April 29, 1970: Kerry listed as Registrant who has completed service.”
Why does the Kerry Timeline have an irrelevant entry dealing with Kerry’s Selective Service status in April, 1970 in it at all let alone as the very last entry on his Timeline?
Why does a Timeline that includes such trivialities such as “January 3, 1967: Kerry reports for duty at the Naval Schools Command at Treasure Island (CA)-Takes 10 week Officer Damage Control Course” totally ignore Kerry’s actual discharge from the U.S. Navy on February 16, 1978 during the Carter Administration?
Why does Kerry inform the news media and the American voter that he “requested discharge” on January 3, 1970 but then fail to mention that he was not eligible for discharge at that date?
Why does Kerry fail to document that his alleged January 3, 1970 "request for discharge", if it is actually true that he ever made it, was denied?
Why does Kerry fail to mention in his Timeline that he was discharged on February 16, 1978?
Why?
To “baffle with bullsh*t”.
To deceive the news media, both foreign and domestic.
To deceive the American voter.
“Registrant who has completed service” was the last entry in Kerry’s Timeline in order to deliberately give the news media the false impression that John Kerry had “completed” his Naval career by April 29, 1970.
And, by golly, the deceit worked.
The Associated Press swallowed John F. Kerry’s lie hook, line and sinker:
The candidate who claims he will be “a President who will never lie to you” has no qualms whatsoever in lying by omission and lying by innuendo on his official web page.
What the Associated Press and the remainder of the mainstream media Kerry apologists should be asking John F. Kerry is:
“Mr. Kerry, why does the “Vietnam Service Timeline” on your official web page deliberately attempt to deceive the news media and the American voter about the fact that you were still a commissioned U.S. Naval officer in the U.S. Naval Reserves during the time period of your anti-war activism?”
“Mr. Kerry, you have said you would be a President who will never lie to us. Do you consider lies by omission and lies by innuendo to be actual lies or do you fall back on the position that it would all depend on what the meaning of the word ‘lie’ is?”
There was no mystery at all. He was a member of the Individual Ready Reserve - which means he has to keep a current address on file and be ready for immediate call up. Otherwise it means nothing. After he had completed his 5 years and some months of active duty and inactive reserve duty he was transferred to the standby reserve, which means he would no longer be subject to instant call-up.
Because, until a reserve officer [or regular officer for that matter] formally resigns his commission, he remains a commissioned officer in the US Naval Reserve. Until you write a letter saying "I resign" your file remains in someone's file drawer in the Naval Reserve system. After you think you resign, it gets shuffled further to the bottom. Having served on active duty, however, you are never entirely out of danger of recall, even having completed your service and having resigned.
In the Officer Candidate Agreement Kerry signed on 18 Feb 66 under the section "Term Of Service" #4 & #5 he agrees to do not less then 48 drills and no more than 17 days active duty for training per year of ready reserves. He could also do 30 days active duty as an alternative. Of course reserve service can be waved if you know the right people, but I'm sure Kerry would noted that on his timeline. So if he got his waver of did his required service where is the paper work?
The point being that "W" has been called a deserter for working his reserve time around his political agenda. This was done in many reserve units to accommodate deaths in the family, vacations, new jobs etc. as long as the time was made up later. Bush's records show he made up his time but Kerry's does not show any mention of his ready reserve time. Did he make his meetings as he was require in the Term Of Service agreement he signed or did he have a sugar daddy?
I am going to assume that you will tell me that the waver was automatic as normal course business but I am sure there would be a record of that waver there in Kerry's military stack of stuff.
has kerry posted his DD214?
DD214 dated 3 January 1970.
A DD215 dated 12 March 2001 adds four campaign stars, Presidential and Navy Unit Citations and Vietnamese awards but does not correct the Combat V on the Silver Star.
UCMJ ART. 2. PERSONS SUBJECT TO THIS CHAPTER
(a) The following persons are subject to this chapter:
UCMJ Art 2 (d) (1) states:
(d)(1) under section 815 (article 15) or section 830 (article 30) with respect to an offense against this chapter may be ordered to active duty involuntary for the purpose of-
(A) investigation under section 832 of this title (article 32);
(B) trial by court-martial; or
"Even if you are on Inactive Reserve status, once you trade your civilian clothes for your military uniform you are representing the U.S. Armed Forces and you have crossed a line."
UCMJ ART. 2. PERSONS SUBJECT TO THIS CHAPTER
(a) The following persons are subject to this chapter:
UCMJ Art 2 (d) (1) states:
(d)(1) A member of a reserve component who is not on active duty and who is made the subject of proceedings under section 815 (article 15) or section 830 (article 30) with respect to an offense against this chapter may be ordered to active duty involuntary for the purpose of-
(A) investigation under section 832 of this title (article 32);
(B) trial by court-martial; or
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
You're right, polybius.......don't mind Andy, he prefers spotty and frivolous records like on kerry's site to defend him. (been there, done this with him before)
UCMJ ART. 32. INVESTIGATION
(a) No charge or specification may be referred to a general court-martial for trial until a through and impartial investigation of all the matters set forth therein has been made. This investigation shall include inquiry as to the truth of the matter set forth in the charges, consideration of the form of charges, and recommendation as to the disposition which should be made of the case in the interest of justice and discipline.
(b) The accused shall be advised of the charges against him and of his right to be represented at that investigation as provided in section 838 of this title (article 38) and in regulations prescribed under that section. At that investigation full opportunity shall be given to the accused to cross-examine witnesses against him if they are available and to present anything he may desire in his own behalf, either in defense or mitigation, and the investigation officer shall examine available witnesses requested by the accused. If the charges are forwarded after the investigation, they shall be accompanied by a statement of the substance of the testimony taken on both sides and a copy thereof shall be given to the accused.
(c) If an investigation of the subject matter of an offense has been conducted before the accused is charged with the offense, and if the accused was present at the investigation and afforded the opportunities for representation, cross-examination, and presentation prescribed in subsection (b), no further investigation of that charge is necessary under this article unless it is demanded by the accused after he is informed of the charge. A demand for further investigation entitles the accused to recall witnesses for further cross-examination and to offer any new evidence in his own behalf.
(d) The requirements of this article are binding on all persons administering this chapter but failure to follow them does not constitute judicial error.
UCMJ ART. 43. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
(a) A person charged with absence without leave or missing movement in time of war, or with any offense punishable by death, may be tried at any time without limitation.
(b) (1) Except as otherwise provided in this section (article), a person charged with an offense is not liable to be tried by court-martial if the offense was committed more than five years before the receipt of sworn charges and specifications by an officer exercising summary court- martial jurisdiction over the command.
(2) A person charged with an offense is not liable to be punished under section 815 of this title (article 15) if the offense was committed more than two years before the imposition of punishment.
(c) Periods in which the accused is absent without authority or fleeing from justice shall be excluded in computing the period of limitation prescribed in this section (article).
(d) Periods in which the accused was absent from territory in which the United States has the authority to apprehend him, or in the custody of civil authorities, or in the hands of the enemy, shall be excluded in computing the period of limitation prescribed in this article.
(e) For an offense the trial of which in time of war is certified to the President by the Secretary concerned to be detrimental to the prosecution of the war or inimical to the national security, the period of limitation prescribed in this article is extended to six months after the termination of hostilities as proclaimed by the President or by a joint resolution of Congress.
(f) When the United States is at war, the running of any statute of limitations applicable to any offense under this chapter--
(1) involving fraud or attempted fraud against the United States or any agency thereof in any manner, whether by conspiracy or not;
(2) committed in connection with the acquisition, care, handling, custody, control, or disposition of any real or personal property of the United States; or
(3) committed in connection with the negotiation, procurement, award, performance, payment, interim financing, cancellation, or other termination or settlement, of any contract, subcontract, or purchase order which is connected with or related to the prosecution of the war, or with any disposition of termination inventory by any war contractor or Government agency;
is suspended until three years after the termination of hostilities as proclaimed by the President or by a joint resolution of Congress.
*(g) (1) If charges or specifications are dismissed or insufficient for any cause and the period prescribed by the applicable statute of limitations--
(A) has expired; or
(B) will expire within 180 days after the date of dismissal of the charges and specifications, trial and punishment under new charges and specifications are not bared by the statute of limitations if the conditions specified in paragraph (2) are met.
(2) The conditions referred to in paragraph (1) are that the new charges and specifications must--
(A) be received by an officer exercising summary court-martial jurisdiction over the command within 180 days after dismissal of the charges or specifications; and
(B) allege the same acts or omissions that were alleged in the dismissed charges or specifications (or allege acts or omissions that were included in the dismissed charges or specifications).
Well, actually, as I noted in my Post 64:
"I must clarify my statement to state that John Kerry would not have been subject to the UCMJ unless he was recalled to active duty for actions committed in prior active duty or in active duty for training."
So, Andy is correct on the point that Kerry was not subject to the UCMJ unless he was on active duty at the time or if he had been recalled to active duty for violations committed during prior active duty.
Simply stating that Kerry was subject to the UCMJ was too general a statement on my part.
The point, however, is not that Kerry currently fears the UCMJ.
The point is that Kerry is afraid of how the American voters will react if they they know that Kerry was still a commissioned officer in the U.S. Navy during the time of his anti-war activities.
What Kerry fears is trusting the American voter with the truth.
So, Kerry lies by ommission and by innuendo on his official web page.
In order to prevent the American voter and the American news media from discovering that he was still a commissioned officer in the U.S. Navy during the time of his anti-war activities, Kerry wrote the Timeline in his official web page in a deliberately deceitful manner.
The deceit worked.
Kerry deceived the Associated Press, the New York Times, the L.A. Times, the Boston Globe, the Harvard Crimson and every other newspaper in America that carried the false Associated Press Kerry Timeline stating, " January 1970: Kerry requests discharge. He is honorably discharged, and later joins Vietnam Veterans Against the War. "
Kerry even deceived his own biographer Douglas Brinkley, author of "Tour of Duty"!
This, of course, raises the question of whether Kerry is such a great liar or if Douglas Brinkley is simply a sorry excuse for a "historian".
As soon as kerry testified to active duty war crimes before congress (and maybe prior, elsewhere) the NIS had reason to open an investigation......which also might have led them to Paris......etc.
The above and its sequelae are enough to delay an "honorable" discharge of any sort.
UCMJ Article 2 (d)(1) [[[[****A member of a reserve component who is not on active duty and who is made the subject of proceedings****]]]] under section 815 (article 15) or section 830 (article 30) with respect to an offense against this chapter may be ordered to active duty involuntary for the purpose of-
(A) investigation under section 832 of this title (article 32);
(B) trial by court-martial; or
kerry was a member of a Reserve Component......this does not allow, allude to, or specify any exclusions. And, btw, provides a very plausible reason for his very tardy DD 214, as well as the senseless omissions gaps in the published documents pointed out by you and others.
Hmmmmm.....
I think you've scored a bulleye, Vn_survivor_67-68.
Now that you mention it, Kerry did accuse himself of war crimes during the Fulbright hearings.
Those alleged war crimes would have been committed while Kerry was on active duty.
The UCMJ does allow recall of reservists to active duty for prosecution under the UCMJ for crimes committed while on active duty.
Thanks for pointing that out, Vn_survivor_67-68.
Who cares about whether the uniform was regulation or not. That's small potatoes.
So, Andy:
Kerry, when he was still in the U.S. Naval Reserves, accused himself of war crimes committed while he was on active duty.
The UCMJ would have allowed Kerry's recall to active duty for prosecution for war crimes, would it not?
Kerry would have then have had to allow his admission to war crimes to stand or admit that he had perjured himself before Congress for theatrical effect, would he not?
Wonderful theory, except for one tiny little problem, which is that Kerry's claims were preposterous as was obvious then to everyone. Unfortunately, despite his lunatic ravings, you cannot charge someone with a crime that you know he did not commit. You could not provide any independent witness that this went on because it didn't go on, and if it did go on then you have a worse problem. In other words you could not just indict Kerry, but would have to indict those who served with him or commanded him. Perjury before Congress is a different matter, and the Congress could have referred him to the Attorney General for prosecution, though it is extremely rare that anyone is ever prosecuted for lying to Congress.
And like I said, had they done so, they would have discovered nothing because there was nothing to discover.
Yes!
And if he also did it while he was still on (normal) active duty, he might have been under active but quiet NIS and/or FBI investigation starting then, when he was aide de camp? for whoever right after Vn.
"Obvious to everyone"? "Know he did not commit"?
Is that like when you claimed in an earlier post that "everyone knew" that Kerry was in the Naval Reserves after 1970.............
...............except, as I documented, for the Associiated Press, the New York Times, the L.A. Times, the Boston Globe, all the newspapers that carried the Associated Press and even Kerry's own biographer?
It was not "obvious" to Senator Fulbright, to Senator Kennedy, to the entire McGovern wing of the Democrat Party, to the Liberal news media, and to millions in America and around the world that still repeat those claims.
The fact is that Kerry had the reputation of being trigger-happy. What would make a claim of a war crime committed by John Kerry any less "preposterous" than a claim that some baby-faced Second Lieutenant named William Calley cold-bloodedly executed the majority of an entire Vietnamese village?
If we could "know" if someone is guilty or not without investigation or trial, we could simply replace our entire justice system with Gypsy fortune tellers.
The reason you will not be supported is simple. Except for a few budding Hitlers in the ranks, virtually all military officers believe very strongly in the Constitution. Its defense is what they are fighting for. Military officers accept that military discipline requires that they forego certain rights in certain circumstances (freedom of speach, freedom of assembly). But they accept it only because of the exigencies of ACTIVE DUTY SERVICE. They would be horrified to think that THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS are or can be in any way abridged once they leave active service.
You may find the official document that he posted troublesome. I have an entire career looking at officer service records. While his medal claims may be spurious, his release from active duty, his reserve status, and his discharge from the naval reserve are in order and done the way these things are done.
There are some things that you don't know about how our government works. If the military thought that there was anything in Kerry's reserve status they would have told the Congress before he testified. There are folks in the Pentagon who communciate as frequently as they need to with the committee staff, and the staff of the principals on the relevant committees. There are a few DoD officials who can pick up the phone and speak directly to members if they need to.
I assure you that nothing relevant in this regards was hidden from the Congress.
Like I said - give it up. It is a claim that is going nowhere.
Did Kerry exhibit bad judgement? - yes if the facts are as they appear to be. Was it despicable - it certainly appears to be. Was it treason? - I will leave that to an indictment supported by oath of two witnesses and conviction in a court of competent jurisdiction by a jury of his peers. Do I want Kerry as president? - No. Why am I taking you on for this? - Because this line of thinking misrepresents the rights and duties of reserve officers. Also it is dangerous to trump up easily refuted charges. It makes us (you and your fellow travellers) look like unreasonable nut cases and leaves the opposition to deflect the argument to his reserves status.
IOW - stay on message. Kerry is not fit to be president because he trumped up his active duty accomplishments and then when he left active service he acted in a manner that undercut the war effort and provided aid and comfort to the communists.
I generally agree with what you are saying concerning Kerry's reserve status and the UCMJ, however, is there anything that someone might do in a civilian status, i.e., while still in the inactive Reserves, which could affect his military status? I do not pretend to be an expert on the UCMJ, but I don't think someone can totally divorce what they are doing in a civilian status from his/her military obligations as a reserve. Certainly, Kerry was not a free agent and had to keep the Navy informed of his whereabouts and was subject to immediate recall.
A non-drilling reservist more or less can. Kerry had no obligations as an inactive reserve officer other than to keep his address up to date. If you are a drilling reservist you can be removed from drilling status (which confers pay and benefits) for innappropriate conduct. But I have never heard of that arising in a freedom of speach case. It normally requires commission of a crime; a record of drunk driving, or some such.
There is less to being subject to immediate call-up than some think. It is not the case that someone in the Pentagon could take a dislike to Kerry and decide - oh we're going to call him up and show him. There are statutes that provide the authority to the president to recall limited numbers under certain circumstances. It would require a finding of a national emergency and a notification to the Congress. More extensive call-ups and call-ups for extended periods of service required specific Congressional authorization (and appropriations lest anyone lose sight of the money trail).
If I recall correctly, Kerry was accused of participating in antiwar activities while still on active duty in New York in 1969.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.