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

To: Vn_survivor_67-68; AndyJackson
You're right, polybius.......don't mind Andy,...

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".

Confusion about Kerry's status after Jan 1970 is common. Recently, the NY Times and the LA Times got it wrong; the Boston Globe had it wrong a year ago, and the Harvard Crimson was confused (or misled) back in February 1970. Douglas Brinkley, author of "Tour of Duty" also gets it wrong, telling us that Kerry was honorably discharged in 1970.

110 posted on 09/05/2004 7:00:07 PM PDT by Polybius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies ]


To: Polybius

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.


111 posted on 09/05/2004 7:23:11 PM PDT by Vn_survivor_67-68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies ]

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