Posted on 09/22/2004 6:31:45 AM PDT by handy
The meeting, however, was not a secret. Kerry, a leading antiwar activist at the time, mentioned it in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in April of that year. "I have been to Paris," he testified. "I have talked with both delegations at the peace talks, that is to say the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and Provisional Revolutionary Government," the latter a South Vietnamese communist group with ties to the Viet Cong.
Kerry's campaign said earlier this year that he met on the trip with Nguyen Thi Binh, then foreign minister of the PRG and a top negotiator at the talks. Kerry acknowledged in that testimony that even going to the peace talks as a private citizen was at the "borderline" of what was permissible under U.S. law, which forbids citizens from negotiating treaties with foreign governments. But his campaign said he never engaged in negotiations or attended any formal sessions of the talks.
"This is more trash from a group that's doing the Bush campaign's dirty work," Kerry spokesman Chad Clanton said. "Their charges are as credible as a supermarket rag."
In an interview yesterday, John O'Neill, an organizer of the Swift boat group and co-author of the anti-Kerry book "Unfit for Command," said it would be "unprecedented" for a future commander in chief to have met with enemy leaders. "It would be like an American today meeting with the heads of al Qaeda," he said.
Thought One: Boy, another great, specific, detail-filled rebuttal from the Kerry campaign! Couldn't they have at least tried to argue that the Paris meeting was innocent, and try to describe what Kerry did at the meeting?
Thought Two: "It would be like an American today meeting with the heads of al Qaeda." Team Kerry better have a good defense to refute that talking point, because if that one sentence comparison breaks through the media static and gets into voter's heads, Kerry will make Walter Mondale look like Bill Clinton.
A lot can be covered in a 28 minute documentary.
Courage.
Hardly anyone other than conservatives who already are not going to vote for Kerry will watch a 28 minute documentary. Need a short 30 second ad showing this.
Did John Kerry show up for his reserve service? How many hours did he get a year for 6 years? How much was he paid? Where did he do his reserve training?
Just as an FYI, that question has been raised in lots of threads for the last 2-3 weeks.
The answer is that UCMJ applies to reservists (all classes) only while they're in the actual performance of reserve duties. However there is a little clause that a reservist can be called back to active and then be charged under UCMJ. It's not clear where or why that clause would be applied.
But the formal legalities don't really matter. Most Americans would agree that a commissioned military officer meeting with the enemy is de facto treason, traitorousness, collusion, or whatever you want to call it.
Her's what the UCMJ says:
802. ART. 2. PERSONS SUBJECT TO THIS CHAPTER
....(3) Members of a reserve component while on inactive-duty training....
The UCMJ doesn't seem to apply in this case, so the fact that he was a reserve naval officer may have no bearing on the issue. There may be a Federal law that was broken, however, but not a UCMJ violation.
This has been discussed in multiple threads for the last several weeks. You'll need to poke around FR to find the discussions.
Thanks.
I believe that a reserve officer, especially if on inactive reserve, is not bound by the UCMJ when acting in a civilian capacity.
However, that civilian would be subject to the Provisions of US Code, Title 18, Part I, Chapter 45, Sec. 953- commonly k nown as the Logan Act:
Sec. 953. - Private correspondence with foreign governments
Any 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.
This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.
This law was broken by John Kerry, slam-dunk. Note the misrepresentation of the Logan Act in the article - "...what was permissible under U.S. law, which forbids citizens from negotiating treaties with foreign governments."
The Logan Act does a whole whale of a lot more than prohibit private treaties.
The Logan Act specifically prohibits "...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..."
This is EXACTLY what John Kerry was up to, to the letter of the law.
Its the difference between "de facto" and "de jure".
He met with the enemy while a commissioned officer. By any commonsense definition, that's treasonous. That's being a traitor.
Whether it meets a particular legal definition is a separate matter.
Of course you're right, but no one has ever successfully been prosecuted under the Logan Act.
Thanks for a great response. I think you've nailed it. It was a violation of the clause you cited in the Logan Act. His reserve officer status is not really part of the issue.
It's not that no one has ever been successfully prosecuted under the Logan Act, it is my understanding that no one has ever been prosecuted under it at all.
He met with the enemy while a commissioned officer. By any commonsense definition, that's treasonous. That's being a traitor.
Quick prayer here, "Oh lord, forgive me for giving even the appearance of sticking up for JF'n K, BUT..."
As I remember, his stated purpose for meeting with the NV was to try to obtain the release of POW's. Now, he may have been prohibited from having that sort of contact by the Logan Law, but trying to gain the release of POW's isn't exactly what I'd call "treasonous"... am I overlooking something?
A lot of the stuff he did post-Navy certainly had the stink of a turncoat, but in this particular case, was he doing something else besides trying to get the POW's out? I mean, Jessie Jackson has done this kind of stuff on several occassions, it's not really the same thing as turning over the West Point garrison to the British, IMHO.
OK, [grits teeth] shoot me down in flames...
I was hedging.
Yes. You're not asking "What was his bargaining chip?"
Benedict Arnold was a real war hero, who won battles and was badly wounded.
He still turned traitor, just like Kerry.
I've never seen this mentioned, but I'm curious about how Kerry was able to contact the Viet Cong to set up the meeting in Paris.
Could be he went to get his marching orders.
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.
Article 2 of the UCMJ. Persons subject to this chapter ............ (1) A member of a reserve component who is not on active duty and who is made the subject of proceedings under section 81 (article 15) or section 830 (article 30) with respect to an offense against this chapter may be ordered to active duty involuntarily for the purpose of ..... (A) investigation under section 832 of this title (article 32); ..... (B) trial by court-martial; or ..... (C) nonjudicial 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;
snip
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?
the above is snipped from post #112 here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1207414/posts?q=1&&page=122#122
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.