Posted on 09/22/2004 2:35:05 PM PDT by Lando Lincoln
I start this article with a confession. I'm jealous. I wanted to write the article I’m about to speak to you about, but two authors beat me to the draw. Quite frankly, I'd feel much worse about this if I had been able to write a better article than they, but that is not the case. Their article is excellent, factual, well researched, and a devastating indictment of a presidential candidate. Therefore, my jealousy is mollified, but I'm still honked off (only slightly, though).
Henry Mark Holzer and Erika Holzer, who in 2002 wrote the book titled ''Aid and Comfort: Jane Fonda In North Vietnam,'' have written a report for FrontPage Magazine entitled ''John Kerry, Criminal.'' I had spoken to my editor about doing a piece on the laws that John Forbes Kerry had broken in regard to U.S. Criminal Code and the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) as regards his actions following his return from Vietnam, while he was still a member of the United States Navy. However, Holzer and Holzer did theirs first. Quite honestly, they also did theirs best. Two thousand, four hundred and fifty-nine carefully crafted words of pure accusation.
To summarize, the Holzers found that Kerry had violated two key federal laws. The first is 10 USC 904, part of the UCMJ, which states:
Any person who . . . without proper authority, knowingly . . . communicates or corresponds with or holds any intercourse with the enemy, either directly or indirectly, shall suffer death or such other punishment as a court-martial or military commission may direct.
The other is 18 USC 953, also known as the Logan Act:
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 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.
The Holzers go into great detail on the whys and wherefores and hows of the case against John Kerry, and why he should be prosecuted under these statutes. They make a compelling case. Not being a (insert favorite swear word here) lawyer, you’d think that it would be difficult to follow their indictment, but they walk the judicial neophyte through the issues step by step. They show legal cases and precedents that demonstrate how the pieces of the evidentiary puzzle fit. They show his ability to be charged under the statutes, his military status during the times where the crimes are purported to have been committed (which is imperative for UCMJ jurisdiction) and even the definitions of specific key words in the laws. I guess they didn’t want anybody misunderstanding the meaning of ''is'' in this case....
I could now try to spend the rest of this article trying to explain their simplified legalese into American, but that’s not necessary for two reasons. First, Henry Mark Holzer and Erika Holzer did a pretty good job of that already. Second, and more importantly, it’s not the reason for this week's epistle.
''John Kerry, Criminal'' was published on September 17, 2004. The 217th anniversary of the Constitution. At this writing, it is September 22. The article has been around now for five days. I’ll make a wager: I’ll bet this is the first you’ve ever heard of the Holzers' indictment of John Kerry.
Granted, it's been a busy five days. John Kerry appeared on the Late Show with David Letterman and did a rather lame Top Ten List (only numbers 9 and 2 were actually funny). Dan Rather denied that the forged documents actually were forged, until he was forced to apologize (but still didn’t admit they were forged, I hope you noticed!) The Kerry campaign and the Democratic National Committee denied any knowledge of the forged documents, the people involved, or who the guilty party was who wrote that Top Ten List.
Still, you would think that two prominent (bleeping) lawyers making a serious criminal charge against a presidential candidate would merit at least some mention on the news, or in the blogs, or on the talk radio circuit.
Silence.
I did a search on ''John Kerry, Criminal'' over at news.google.com, and only came up with a single hit. The article itself. Nothing else. No other coverage or mention by ANY members of the press. Why? These are not conspiracy theory wacko nerds in their mom’s basement, playing ''X-Files''--these are sincere researchers. One is an author, and the other os a professor emeritus at Brooklyn Law School who specializes in federal appeals. I doubt Mulder and Scully will be knocking on their door any time soon. However, NBC, ABC, Fox News, and other members of the media should.
Why aren’t the media investigating this? What are they afraid of? The news media seem to have absolutely NO fear of making baseless accusations against a sitting president. Why the reticence on examining well-researched indictments against his opponent? Are the media moguls worried that they might insult Kerry? The lib/dem/soc/commie media seem not to be averse to this when the target is Dubya. Is it concerned that it might have John Edwards sicced on its ivory tower? When he’s not busy chasing a passing ambulance, that is?
This is more than simple media bias. This is cowardice.
The news media keep telling us how brave they are. Newscasters will go into heavy fire zones, cameras rolling through a night-vision scope, to bring America the war-torn images, the truth as they decide to slant it. For weal or for woe, we've accepted that bravery (or at least bravado) and accepted their actions as almost as gutsy as the soldiers they cover.
Sadly, when it comes to a certain presidential candidate, the collective members of our vaunted fourth estate are little more than pusillanimous capitulators. They're not brave. They're not gutsy. I'm beginning to think they're not even truly Americans.
They’re French.
~~~~~oo0oo~~~~~
I urge everyone to read the original article, ''John Kerry, Criminal'' at FrontPage Magazine. You can find it here at http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=15127. Be sure to send it to your family, your friends, and your local newspapers and television stations. Let the reporters in your hometown know what they're missing, and demand that they at least look at the issue. If they don't? Well, you’ll at least know where they stand in the relentless pursuit of the truth.
About the Writer: Doc Farmer is a writer and humorist who is also a moderator on ChronWatch's Forum. He formerly lived in Saudi Arabia and Qatar, but now resides in Indiana. Doc receives e-mail at docfarmer9999@yahoo.co.uk.
I debated with myself (always interesting) as to which sidebar this should be posted. I chose the FR sidebar for those FReepers who wish to take this issue to the MSM, blog sites, trusted politicos, etc.
Not surprisingly, our good FRiend kattracks posted the original article from NRO here.
Lando 
BTTT
Let the SwiftVets do their work. They're showing America just exactly what Kerry did, without the incendiary language.
I'll have to forgive you for the nasty Packers comment you made the other day for posting this one Lando. This is a real jem!!!
John Kerry has said, "terrorism is a law enforcement problem," this after 9-11, dial 911, what is John Kerry thinking?
Bump. I am surprised that Carter didn't already give this character a "get out of jail card free" card. I.e, Clinton was also in serious (felonious) legal hot water when Jimmy Carter PARDONED him for his draft dodging....
Lando
SEN. KERRY: "There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare, all of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this is ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down. And I believe that the men who designed these, the men who designed the free fire zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed off the air raid strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law, the same letter of the law that tried Lieutenant Calley, are war criminals." [1971]
I think Kerry is the war criminal, NOT the US government. I say we INDICT Kerry.
Vietnam Thirty Years Later - What John Kerry Said on 'Meet the Press'
It has been suggested on other threads that Cahhter's blanket pardon of draft dodgers covered Kerry's crimes as well, and because of the pardon he appealed his dishonorable discharge (which the public does not know about because he won't sign the 180) and had it changed to an honorable discharge, which explains the late date on that particular discharge.
I considered where you're from & rather than seeing it as sharing my misery, I guess I took it wrong.
Lando
LOL That's good. Nuttin better than a bit of self deprecating humor to raise the quality of a good dig.
If he lied before Congress, and someone can prove it, why hasn't he been charged with and tried for perjury? Did some statute of limitations run out?
CHAPTER 3 THE PURPLE HEART HUNTER
Whoa! That would do a lot more to sink Kerry's political swiftboat than even his fellow veterans have done. If true, we need an investigation, presumably much more capable and honest than Dan Rather's, into Kerry's discharge. Part of the suspicion is that he never completed his non-active(?) status service requirements...i.e., HIS Reserve Requirements.
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.
