John Kerry was a member of the Naval Reserves until 1978!

Self ^ | 7 March 2004 | Self

[An.American.Expatriate]

According to the Boston Globe, John Kerry was discharged from the Naval Reserves on 16 February 1978!!

Although not on active duty, he retained his commission as an officer.

Can anyone get this out to the talk-shows??

[Just mythoughts]

"Let Kerry's military service go, it's a non-issue for the media. He was in Vietnam, Bush wasn't, and that's all that matters in the service debate. It sucks, but that's the way it goes. Even Bush and his team realize this."

JFKerry is the one who will not let it go. JFKerry filmed reenactments of his gun fights while over in Vietnam and he kept a journal, according the Brinkley who wrote a book based upon these items.

Now what kind of a person while in country gets a movie camera and films reenactments of his own gun fights and spends the rest of his life playing and replaying those movies on his Sony tv.

When JFKerry releases his military records, movies of reenactments and his medical records it will be let go.

[kabar]

Why does Kerry claim in his approved bio that he served in the USN active duty 1966-70 and USNR 1972-78? Why the gap? I resigned my regular commission and served in the inactive reserves for a few years, but there was no break in service. I don't profess to be an expert on the Reserves especially since I was on active duty 1965-72 and the rules may have changed, but Kerry's two year gap needs an explanation. It doesn't make sense.

[Turbo Pig]

It's a non-issue on all accounts, because the Republicans will not push it, and the media will run with the story. You'll get no traction with this story, and should not waste time. Especially considering the fact that Kerry has a long senatorial record that is free for the public to see, without the "help" of the media. The only way Kerry wins is conservative America lets him. Wasting time on things like this allows Kerry to deflect inspection on what can eventally cause him to tank.

Of course this is all my opinion, and I could be wrong.

[judicial meanz]

I think he "brushed up" his record.

He most certainly had to be in the USNR ( Inactive) to fulfill his officer commitment during that time period.


He still had his base 8 year service commitment required for Officers to complete, unless he was unfit medically for duty, in which case they would have had to medical board him.

[Turbo Pig]

he has violated Section 3 of the 14th Ammendment.

Technically, no. He was never charged and convicted for aiding the enemy, was he?. I agree 100% that he is guilty of the crime. Doesn't do any good, if he hasn't been prosecuted, though. Like I said in another reply. This doesn't have legs, because the Repub and the media won't give it any.

[judicial meanz]

Reference persons subject to the UCMJ:

Note: Hypothetically, Kerry went to Hanoi and made "peace negotiations" while under the authority of the UCMJ. See section (a)(1).

Second note: as you can see by the the rest of the paragraphs, Kerry has publicly stated he committed war crimes, engaged in peace marches while on active duty, etc, and it was enough to gain him NJP or Courts Martial, but it was never pursued.

I doubt anyone would pick it up now, but theoretically, he could be called back to face charges or investigation on these issues if someone really wanted to do so.
____________________________________________________________



ART. 2. PERSONS SUBJECT TO THIS CHAPTER

(a) The following persons are subject to this chapter:

(1) Members of a regular component of the armed forces, including those awaiting discharge after expiration of their terms of enlistment; volunteers from the time of their muster or acceptance into the armed forces; inductees from the time of their actual induction into the armed forces; and other persons lawfully called or ordered into, or to duty in or for training in the armed forces, from the dates when they are required by the terms of the call or order to obey it.

(2) Cadets, aviation cadets, and midshipman.

(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.

(4) Retired members of a regular component of the armed forces who are entitled to pay.

(5) Retired members of a reserve component who are receiving hospitalization from an armed force.

(6) Members of the Fleet Reserve and Fleet Marine Corps Reserve.

(7) Persons in custody of the armed forces serving a sentence imposed by a court-martial.

(8) Members of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Public Health Service, and other organizations, when assigned to and serving with the armed forces.

(9) Prisoners of war in custody of the armed forces.

(10) In time of war, persons serving with or accompanying an armed force in the field.

(11) Subject to any treaty or agreement which the United States is or may be a party to any accepted rule of international law, persons serving with, employed by, or accompanying the armed forces outside the United States and outside the Canal Zone, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands.

(12) Subject to any treaty or agreement which the United States is or may be a party to any accepted rule of international law, persons within an area leased by or otherwise reserved or acquired for use of the United States which is under the control of the Secretary concerned and which is outside the United States and outside the Canal Zone, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands.

(b) The voluntary enlistment of any person who has the capacity to understand the significance of enlisting in the armed forces shall be valid for purposes of jurisdiction under subsection (a) and change of status from civilian to member of the armed forces shall be effective upon the taking of the oath of enlistment.

(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a person serving with an armed force who--

(1) Submitted voluntarily to military authority;

(2) met the mental competence and minimum age qualifications of sections 504 and 505 of this title at the time of voluntary submissions to military authority:

(3) received military pay or allowances; and

(4) performed military duties: is subject to this chapter until such person's active service has been terminated in accordance with law or regulations promulgated by the Secretary concerned.

(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

(C) non judicial punishment under section 815 of this title (article 15).

(2) A member of a reserve component may not be ordered to active duty under paragraph (1) except with respect to an offense committed while the member was

(A) on active duty; or

(B) 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.

(3) Authority to order a member to active duty under paragraph (1) shall be exercised under regulations prescribed by the President.

(4) A member may be ordered to active duty under paragraph (1) only by a person empowered to convene general courts-martial in a regular component of the armed forces.

(5) A member ordered to active duty under paragraph (1), unless the order to active duty was approved by the Secretary concerned, may not--

(A) be sentenced to confinement; or

(B) be required to serve a punishment of any restriction on liberty during a period other than a period of inactive-duty training or active duty (other than active duty ordered under paragraph (1)).

[An.American.Expatriate]

There is nothing in the 14th Ammendment which states the the person needs to be convicted of giving aid and comfort!!

rather, it states that any "officer" of the United States that DID give aid and comfort (and Kerry by his own testimony DID!), is ineligable.

[mewzilla]

Boy, this would make a great episode of JAG. Paging Donald Bellisario....

[Bluntpoint]

"DID" is not an amorphous term.

Clinton was a "TRAITOR" but he is not a traitor in the eyes of the law until adjudge by a the appropriate authorities.

[judicial meanz]

Its an interesting analysis,and it has relevance, but the media wont allow it to go anywhere.

It tells me volumes about Sen Kerry, and his supposedly "Audie Murphy" calibre service.

If he had been enlisted, you can bet your bottom dollar he would have been serving time in a stockade somewhere for a few years, or at least had the joy of being sent to Captains Mast (or Admirals Mast for Officers)but as a member of some priveliged fringe of America, he skated.

[JoeGar]

Since you were an officer, maybe you know the answer to this . . . does a commission "expire"?

Good question. I don't know the answer. My commission was a "Reserve" commission limited to the terms of my contract. "Regular" officers served at the discretion of the President.

[ConservativeMan55]

bump!

[judicial meanz]

In order to see how Kerry lives a charmed life, this is an example of soldiers being investigated 30 plus years later for possible atrocities.

Is there any doubt one of these guys would be charged and convicted if the investigation warrants and sent to prison?

Notably, notice the name of the Kucinich is prominent in the report- and how he uses it to political gain.

I'm not taking sides here, but the original case was investigated and concluded in 1975, but somehow managed to be re-opened in 2003 with Kucinich's forcing the issue and trying to alude some type of wrongdoing to Rumsfeld ( who was SECDEF then)

Expect a lot more veterans to be dragged into this vortex as the election goes along, and this turns into a referendum on Vietnam.

____________________________________________________________


Courtesy:

http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040215/SRTIGERFORCE/102150175


Investigators will question ex-GIs about killing spree
Rumsfeld refers case to secretary of Army

By MICHAEL D. SALLAH
and MITCH WEISS
BLADE STAFF WRITERS


@ 2001 THE BLADE

WASHINGTON - In a case that has reached the top levels of the Pentagon, military investigators will begin interviewing former soldiers of an elite platoon accused of slaughtering scores of unarmed civilians in the Vietnam War.

The Army will begin meeting with witnesses as part an ongoing review under the direction of acting Army Secretary Les Brownlee, who was asked to look into the matter by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

Army agents will meet with former paratroopers who said they watched the executions of villagers by Tiger Force in 1967 in the longest series of atrocities by a U.S. fighting unit in the conflict.

The move represents the first effort by the military to talk to soldiers since a Blade series in October revealed the platoon’s brutal sweep through 40 villages where civilians were tortured and killed.

The newspaper found that field commanders knew of the soldiers’ actions, and in some cases, encouraged the violence.

Though the Army spent 4 1/2 years investigating the special force starting in 1971 - substantiating 20 war crimes against 18 soldiers - the case never reached a military court and no one was charged.

Investigators are expected to take statements from former Army journalist Dennis Stout and ex-Tiger Force medic Rion Causey, both witnesses to the atrocities, to find out what happened during the platoon’s patrols through the highly contested Central Highlands between May and November, 1967.

Both men said they were surprised when they were contacted last week by an Army investigator.

"I’ve waited years to talk to them," said Mr. Stout, 58, a former reporter for a military newspaper. "I saw people killed who didn’t deserve to die. It was wrong. I’ve lived with this for more than 30 years."

The interviews are "part of the review and assessment of the original investigation," said Lt. Col. Kevin Curry, who declined to elaborate.

Officials would not say whether the Army would seek charges against former soldiers and officers.

As part of the new inquiry, the Army has appointed an investigator to look into why the original Army inquiry was dropped in 1975 with no charges filed.

Agents are expected to report their findings by March, according to a spokesman for U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D., Cleveland), whose office has been trying to spur a congressional investigation.

Mr. Kucinich said last week he was pleased the Army was going to talk to witnesses.

He said for three decades, the case has "been dismissed by the Army," and that it was time to carry out "a thorough and expedient investigation of this matter."

Military experts say the move by the Army to take testimony in the case is one of the few times the Army has reached back into history to look at war crimes committed by a U.S. fighting unit.

In 1999, Pentagon officials began interviewing witnesses to a U.S. military assault on South Korean civilians during the Korean War in 1950 after the Associated Press wrote stories about the massacre. Two years later, U.S. officials said an undetermined number of civilians were wrongfully killed.

Since The Blade’s series in October, the revelations about Tiger Force "have been hard for the Army to ignore," said William Eckhardt, a war-crime expert and former military prosecutor during the Vietnam War.

"You need to know what happened, and maybe more importantly, to make sure it doesn’t happen again."

A special fighting unit created to spy on enemy soldiers in Vietnam, Tiger Force spun dangerously out of control for seven months, according to the newspaper’s series, which was based on thousands of records and interviews with dozens of former platoon members and Vietnamese villagers.

Grenades were dropped in earthen bunkers where women and children were hiding and unarmed farmers were executed in their fields. Prisoners were beaten and shot - their ears and scalps severed for keepsakes.

Mr. Stout, then a reporter for the Screaming Eagle newspaper, said he was barred from writing about the atrocities, but he said he reported the attacks to his commanders. No investigations were conducted, he said.

The other witness, Mr. Causey, 56, who served as a medic with Tiger Force in 1967, said he’s prepared to talk about the platoon’s attacks on villagers.

"What I can clearly say is that we went into that valley and we killed every male over 16 years old - without question," he said. "I only saw one [enemy] gun the whole time. It wasn’t about killing enemy soldiers. This was about killing villagers. It went on and on. By the end, I had just had it. I was just sick of it."

He and Mr. Stout will be interviewed by Major Randal Doyle in late February, according to the two witnesses. Major Doyle declined to comment, referring questions to the Pentagon.

Though the Army began reviewing records of the Tiger Force case after The Blade’s series, "Buried Secrets, Brutal Truths," was published, the inquiry has reached a second stage.

Army officials have refused to say how many witnesses will be interviewed, or when the inquiry will end.

A spokesman for Mr. Kucinich’s office said the findings will be presented to Maj. Gen. Donald Ryder, the commander of the Army’s Criminal Investigation Command, in early March.

General Ryder will then make a recommendation to Secretary Brownlee on the next course of action. The Army could order a new investigation or simply close the case, said the spokesman.

Mr. Kucinich said he wants to know why the original Tiger Force investigation was dropped in 1975.

The left-liberal, long-shot contender for the Democratic presidential nomination wrote to Secretary Rumsfeld in November, requesting a meeting to talk about the case.

Mr. Rumsfeld, who was defense secretary under President Gerald Ford when the original investigation was dropped, responded to Congressman Kucinich in a letter on Dec. 22, saying he referred the case to Secretary Brownlee.

Mr. Rumsfeld has repeatedly said he does not recall the original Tiger Force investigation - the longest war-crime case of the Vietnam War. More than 100 case agents were sent to 63 cities and military bases around the world to gather evidence.

Mr. Kucinich said he wants questions surrounding the case to be resolved. "I eagerly await to be briefed on the results,’’ he said. "For over 30 years, this matter has been dismissed by the Army."

As the ranking Democrat on the House’s national security subcommittee, he said he’ll continue to press for a congressional inquiry.

For the past 30 years, Mr. Stout said he has been waiting to talk to the Army about the atrocities he witnessed as a young soldier.

"All these years, I was left thinking I was alone in trying to get these things exposed," said the Phoenix contractor, now 58. "But I was wrong. Now, I don’t feel like I’m all alone. I feel such a sense of relief that this is finally being brought out in the open.’’

[Viet Vet in Augusta GA]

It is a non-story because when you are in the reserves, what you do during the week when you are not in uniform and not training is not regulated at all.

[An.American.Expatriate]

It's not what he did or didn't do as a reservist, it's what he did while still a commissioned officer of the United States!!

[kabar]

He still had his base 8 year service commitment required for Officers to complete, unless he was unfit medically for duty, in which case they would have had to medical board him.

I served as a naval officer the same time Kerry did. I have never heard of an 8 year service commitment for Reserves. In the Vietnam era, reserves served three years on active duty and another 3 on reserve duty. Moreover, Kerry, according to his bio, served almost 10 years on active duty and in the reserves, with a gap of two years. I have never heard of a 10 or 12 year oblgation either.

[PatrickHenry]

As I recall it, in the late 1960s to early 1970s, there was a six-year committment. (Someone else says 8, but I recall six. Doesn't matter for what I'm going to say.) It was usually a combination of active duty, then the rest of the time in the ready reserve. No one ever gave much thought to being in the innactive reserves, as there were no meetings, no pay, etc. So the duration of Kerry's record as it's been presented in this thread is a bit odd. Way longer than 6 (or 8) years. Maybe the Navy was different than what I experienced in the Army, but I doubt it.

My guess is that at the end of his first hitch ('Nam and ready reserve) he volunteered to stay on in the ready reserves. Many of my long-ago buddies did this. The meetings were rather enjoyable, the pay was a nice bonus, the war was winding down so the chance of getting activated was small, and we liked walking around on weekends dressed up as Army officers.

If that's what Kerry was doing, then when he was in Europe chatting with the Cong he was a Navy officer in the Ready Reserve. But this is speculation only.

[Semper Paratus]

So Kerry was disgusted enough of US Policy to toss some medals into the WH lawn, accuse fellow soldiers of war crimes, attend many protesst, and meet with the enemy but not resign his Commission?

[mdmathis6]

I was wondering if the ucmj could still be used against him?

[judicial meanz]

The enlistment or commissioning terms seem to change from time to time. You were contemporary to the time, so your knowledge is definitely more accurate than mine.

My knowledge comes from the Post-Vietnam through GW1 era, so it looks like some changes took place.

The majority of the officers I served with had 4, 6, and 8 year terms with reserve time being used to complete the commitment they signed up for. They were nuclear trained and had a long term commitment due to the technical skills they had.

Enlisted served a mandatory 6 year term, with 4 active, 2 reserve or inactive.