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

To: Kenton
the fact that he was a reserve naval officer may have no bearing on the issue.

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.

29 posted on 09/22/2004 7:15:56 AM PDT by angkor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies ]


To: angkor
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.

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...

34 posted on 09/22/2004 7:29:16 AM PDT by Kenton ("Life is tough, and it's really tough when you're stupid" - Damon Runyon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | 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