Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Kerry Deceives News Media About His Navy Discharge on JohnKerry.com
Official Kerry Web Page ^ | September 4, 2004 | Original FReeper Research by Polybius

Posted on 09/04/2004 11:06:03 AM PDT by Polybius

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-157 next last
To: Polybius
Once you make an @ss out of yourself while wearing the uniform of the U.S. Armed Forces while still a commissioned officer, that changes things.

When and how did he do this in an official uniform of the US Armed Forces.

21 posted on 09/04/2004 11:31:54 AM PDT by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Tacis
Kerry was court martialed during the early 70s for something like "dereliction of duty in the face of the enemy" (a reduced charge from "treason") and dishonorably discharged from the Navy. Several years later, when there was a dem president (check some of the lefties Carter pardoned) his "dishonorable" discharge was revoked and he was honorably discharged. His 1978 DD 214 it hidden and his last "public" DD 214 is dated 3/1/70, before his treason.

I wouldn't know about that since the S.O.B. has not signed his Form 180.

Is this the skeleton in his closet that he wants to hide from the American voter?

22 posted on 09/04/2004 11:32:14 AM PDT by Polybius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Tacis
Kerry was court martialed during the early 70s for something like "dereliction of duty in the face of the enemy" (a reduced charge from "treason") and dishonorably discharged from the Navy. Several years later, when there was a dem president (check some of the lefties Carter pardoned) his "dishonorable" discharge was revoked and he was honorably discharged. His 1978 DD 214 it hidden and his last "public" DD 214 is dated 3/1/70, before his treason.

Huh? Where'd you get this??
23 posted on 09/04/2004 11:32:42 AM PDT by sdkhaki
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Bob
As long as you remain in the Individual Ready Reserve, you are subject both to immediate recall and to the UCMJ.

You are subject to recall in conditions of national emergency under circumstances authorized under law. You become subject to the UCMJ when you are on active duty order or under inactive duty for training orders, but you are not subject to the UCMJ for your civilian off-duty actions. I am stating this from my professional knowledge and experience as a retired Captain, USNR. I spent a lot of years on these issues.

24 posted on 09/04/2004 11:34:42 AM PDT by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Polybius

Something that Kerry forgot to read before he signed it.

25 posted on 09/04/2004 11:35:26 AM PDT by Taxbilly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Polybius; Bob
For those of you who are curious, the issues of jurisdiction under the UCMJ is established in Article 2 - Persons subject to this chapter

Specifically it provides:

(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.

Kerry was a member of the individual ready reserve but was never on inactive-duty training.

26 posted on 09/04/2004 11:39:33 AM PDT by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Taxbilly

And your point in posting that is?


27 posted on 09/04/2004 11:40:36 AM PDT by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Polybius

BTTT


28 posted on 09/04/2004 11:44:57 AM PDT by EdReform (Support Free Republic - All donations are greatly appreciated. Thank you for your support!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Polybius

Very nice piece of research on your part.
Thank you for sharing it, and thank you
for the ping.

Definately deserving of a BTTT and a
*bookmark*. ;o)


29 posted on 09/04/2004 11:46:05 AM PDT by dixiechick2000 (President Bush is a mensch in cowboy boots.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Polybius; kdf1; AMERIKA; Lancey Howard; MudPuppy; SMEDLEYBUTLER; opbuzz; Snow Bunny; gitmogrunt; ...
I have a wild guess

Kerry first enlisted in 1966, right?

He is obligated for 6 years service, right? That ends in 1972.

YET, his discharge is 1978.

I am willing to bet, he was given a GENERAL UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE for his actions in protesting the war.

He had to wait the 5 years for the attempt to upgrade his record. If you get a General discharge, you have to wait a few years to get it upgraded to HONORABLE, I dont remember how long, but I remember you could upgrade it.

I am willing to bet Kerry did NOT get an Honorable Discharge the first time because of his anti-War record, and Kerry then resubmitted his request years later to complete the waiting period for resubmitting to upgrade the discharge.

Any agreements on the likelihood of this?
30 posted on 09/04/2004 11:46:22 AM PDT by RaceBannon (KERRY FLED . . . WHILE GOOD MEN BLED!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AndyJackson
Your whole thesis is wrong. There is nothing especially jumbled about the documents on his website and they appear to be in order. At the time he was the leader of Vietnam Veterans against the War he was in an inactive status. Inactive duty reserve personnel are not subject to the UCMJ for their civilian acts, nor do they give up right of free speach, right of dissent, etc.

My thesis is that he wants to create the false impression that he was "discharged" in April 1970. He succeeded.

What is deliberately deceitful by ommission an innuendo is his Timeline. Why does he not want the media to know that he was still a commissioned Naval officer?

Please give it up. This entire line of reasoning is WRONG and DANGEROUS, and you will be challendged and contradicted by every officer who has left service and retired.

What line of reasoning is that?

That he tries to hide the fact that he was still a commissioned officer?

I suspect you never served on active duty as an officer or you would not even begin to make the claims that you are making.

As a matter of fact, I am "Commander, Medical Corps, USNR (retired)"

I have spoken in front of TV cameras about controversial topics and I was specifically instructed by the U.S. Navy not to wear my Navy uniform when I did so.

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.

31 posted on 09/04/2004 11:48:20 AM PDT by Polybius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Tacis; kdf1; AMERIKA; Lancey Howard; MudPuppy; SMEDLEYBUTLER; opbuzz; Snow Bunny; gitmogrunt; ...

you are the only other person than I who thinks this is a possibility!

To have made his courts martial public would have made Kerry a MARTYR, and for Kerry to make it public, would have disqualified him from entering public politics in the 70's.


32 posted on 09/04/2004 11:49:40 AM PDT by RaceBannon (KERRY FLED . . . WHILE GOOD MEN BLED!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Polybius

Why isn't anyone asking who was behind the grooming of Kerry as a young man? Are they the same individuals who could have covered up and forged documents on his behalf.

Sorry, but after seeing Kerry on the campaign trail, he isn't smart enough to have come this far on his own. Few are.

Obviously Teddy Kennedy and the Kennedy handlers are involved.

Is there any info. that connects the dots to the communists that shows he is a mole?


33 posted on 09/04/2004 11:50:49 AM PDT by bear11
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Polybius
That he tries to hide the fact that he was still a commissioned officer?

Complete the sentence - "was still a commissioned officer in the united states naval reserve in inactive status."

I am aware of no one - perhaps besides yourself - who was ever under any impression that Kerry was not in the Naval Reserve after 1970. Since every line officer knows that his commission is for a minimum 6 year term combined active and reserve, anyone line officer who could add would know this.

The response by any line officer anyway would have been a big SO WHAT? In fact, even Tommy Franks said pretty much SO WHAT? and that he had a right in inactive status to criticize a war he disagreed with.

You can take Kerry to task for misrepresenting his active duty record and you can take him to task for his actions subsequent to release from active duty regarding protesting the war, but HE WAS NOT SUBJECT TO THE UCMJ. Period.

The jurisdiciton under the UCMJ says nothing about every time you put on a uniform - if that is what he did. It is very very clear.

34 posted on 09/04/2004 11:55:45 AM PDT by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: AndyJackson
Thanks for the clarification on his not being subject to the UCMJ. Your specific knowledge trumps my general understanding hands down. :=)

At what point would Kerry have no longer been a commissioned officer? Am I right in presuming that he would have remained a commissioned officer until his discharge in 1978?

Would that status have any bearing on his meetings with the NVA and VC in Paris?

35 posted on 09/04/2004 11:56:13 AM PDT by Bob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon
To have made his courts martial public ...

Let me ask a really simple question - if the court martial happened, and if making it public would have been to Kerry's benefit at the time, then WHY DIDN'T KERRY HIMSELF MAKE THE FACT OF THE COURT MARTIAL PUBLIC?

36 posted on 09/04/2004 11:58:06 AM PDT by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: AndyJackson
This document is on Kerry's web site and confirms what Polybius posted. He and his campaign are aware that he was not discharged from the Navy in 1970. His web site use to show a two year gap from 1970 to 1972 in his service. In 1972 it showed his request for transfer to standby reserves. We know why he did not show his reserve status during that time. Kerry has changed his service time line to end with his separation from active duty. Not so says the document he signed.

Official Navy records above show that Kerry was transferred from active duty to the Naval Reserve on January 3, 1970. He was put on standby reserve on 1 July 1972. He was finally discharged from the Navy on February 16, 1978.

37 posted on 09/04/2004 11:59:32 AM PDT by Taxbilly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Polybius

Excellent. But missing on your corrected timeline is that he was still a member of the Armed Forces when he went to confer with the enemy in Paris.


38 posted on 09/04/2004 11:59:33 AM PDT by Yaelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AndyJackson; Polybius; Bob; All
I would like your opinion on whether there were any military regulations applicable to Kerry when he was still on active duty in October 1969 and this occurred:

John Kerry: A Navy Dove Runs for Congress

Kerry is a pilot, and on October 14 and 15 he flew Ted Kennedy's advisor Adam Walinsky by private plane throughout the State of New York so that Walinsky could give speeches against the Vietnam War. But Kerry was smart enough not to put down "Moratorium" on the Navy signout sheet for that Tuesday and Wednesday.

These demonstrations were organized by the Vietnam Moratorium Committee, identified in FBI documents as a front for the Socialist Workers Party, an organization designated by the Attorney General under Executive Order 10450, which is the E.O. invoked here:

Department of Defense DIRECTIVE: SUBJECT: Wearing of the Uniform

[SNIP]

POLICY

3.1.  The wearing of the uniform by members of the Armed Forces (including retired members and members of Reserve components) is prohibited under any of the following circumstances:

3.1.1.  At any meeting or demonstration that is a function of, or sponsored by an organization, association, movement, group, or combination of persons that the Attorney General of the United States has designated, under E.O. 10450 as amended (reference (b)), as totalitarian, fascist, communist, or subversive, or as having adopted a policy of advocating or approving the commission of acts of force or violence to deny others their rights under The Constitution of the United States, or as seeking to alter the form of Government of the United States by unconstitutional means.

[SNIP]

This specifically is prohibiting wearing of the uniform, but I'm wondering if there are any other similar regulations which might be applicable. I would be interested in opinions on this by FReepers familiar with military law.

39 posted on 09/04/2004 12:00:53 PM PDT by Fedora
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Veritas et equitas ad Votum
I think we're gonna see more about this a little way down the road. They have enough stuff to kill him by a 'thousand cuts'.

Did you see the pics of the Swiftee stickers on my vehicles?

Swiftee window sticker thread - get yours! Freep mail for details.

40 posted on 09/04/2004 12:01:12 PM PDT by Chieftain (Support the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and expose Hanoi John's FRAUD!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-157 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson