Posted on 10/10/2004 10:39:02 AM PDT by freespirited
What a young man did more than 30 years ago should not be a primary criteria in determining his qualifications to be President of the United States. George Bush has had almost 4 years now as Commander and Chief of the World"s largest military force and he should be judged on how well he has done. Yet John Kerry and the Democratic left won"t give it up. On almost a daily basis he says I served this country honorably as a young man in Vietnam (4 months/12 days) and I will serve this country honorably as Commander and Chief. Then the Left yells that George Bush got preferential treatment in getting into the National Guard and even failed to complete his guard obligations; even forging documents to prove their point.
The facts are that George Bush served honorably in the National Guard obtaining service points far in excess of the 50 annual service points required to meet his obligation. Records show that in 1968/69 he accumulated 253 points, 340 in 1969/70, 137 in 1970/71, 112 in 1971/72, 56 in 1972/73 and 56 in 1973/74. Points far in excess of the service agreed to and that required to meets his obligation and be Honorably Discharged. George Bush has never made his National Guard service a qualification to lead this country, nor has he ever questioned the service of John Kerry.
While the Left and the mainstream media have never questioned the Vietnam era service of John Kerry, they seem to feel that the record of George Bush 30 years ago should be of concern to voters in November. But what about John Kerry's record? We are told that he was a decorated veteran. We are also told that he was deeply involved in anti-war activities on his return from Vietnam in violation of his oath as an officer in the US Navy. By his own account of his actions and protests, he violated the UCMJ, the Geneva Conventions and the U.S. Code while serving as a Navy officer. Further he met, on two occasions, with North Vietnamese negotiators in 1970 and 1971, while a Reserve Officer, willingly placing himself in violation of Article three, Section three of the U.S. Constitution, which defines treason as "giving aid and comfort" to the enemy in time of warfare.
From here the record of John Kerry becomes unclear and the mainstream press won't demand that John Kerry sign a Department of Defense (DOD) form 180 that would release all of his military records. Records released by his campaign are confusing. There are indications that he was Honorably Discharged on Jan. 3, 1970, Feb 16, 1978, July 13, 1978 and even lately Mar. 12, 2001. Why the confusion on a relatively simple service event. Could it be that John Kerry received a less than honorable discharge in the early 70"s because of his anti-war activities? And then was pardoned for those activities when then President Jimmy Carter on January 21, 1978 ( Proclamation 4483) granted a full, complete and unconditional pardon to all persons who may have committed any offense between August 4, 1964 and March 28, 1973 in violation of the Military Selective Service Act or any rule or regulation promulgated there under.
Did John Kerry request that his service be granted an Honorable Discharge and it was finally granted in 1978? Only a complete release of his military records will show what actually happened during this period. And, to date John Kerry has refused to sign the necessary DOD form 180 which would allow for this release. If the Democratic Party, the media, and the Bush critics are going to demand, as they do on almost a daily basis, that George Bush release all of his records, should they not do the same for John Kerry?
You are absolutely correct, officers do not receive discharges. Only enlisted receive discharges. Also, a dishonorable discharge is a punitive discharge and can only be given as a result of conviction of a general courts-martial under the UCMJ.
When people are commenting on whether or not Kerry received an honorable discharge what they are actually referring to is the character of service indicated on his DD 214.
When convicted of a courts martial an officer is not reduced in grade and cannot be demoted to the enlisted ranks. Since the officer's commission (and rank) is the result of an act of Congress, no Courts Martial can remove it. Even if convicted of a major crime under the UCMJ, confined for live, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and dismissal from the service, no officer's rank can be reduced.
I think when a person runs for the president he goes through an FBI investigation doesn't he? I always here them talking about vetting someone and I thought it meant to see if they have committed any crimes. Why on earth is it up to Kerry to sign his 180 or whatever it is, when we, the American people have a right. He loses that right to privacy when he decided to run for public office. In my opinion of course.
This nonsense never seems to die. There are no indications that Kerry was discharged on Jan 3, 1970 except for the misstatement on Kerry's website saying so. He was released from active duty on Jan 3, 1970 and we have his orders saying so. Kerry received his honorable discharge on Feb 16, 1978 and we have an official letter saying so. There are no inidcations that he was discharged on March 12, 2001, the date he received a revised DD214 using a DD215.
There are so many areas that we can attack Kerry on, but fabricating stories that he did not receive an honorable discharge are just not substantiated by facts.
Its an interesting question, I do not know if a security check is performed on a presidential condidate. I know that candidates receive security briefings. Additionally, Kerry was legally elected Senator from Mass and sits (sometimes) on the Senate Intelligence Committe where he has access to a great deal of classified and confidential information. And if there is something in his background that would show a potential security risk and the individual was elected president, what difference would it make? How would you deny a legally elected president access to whatever information the government has?
bump
I hate it when some of the freepers think the only thing that matters in a post, is the spelling, or in this case the use of the wrong word.
When I read this, it went through my head, he meant the most powerful and not the largest. But to correct him on it, is not worth the time or effort to do so.
Just as this reply to you isn't worth the time or effert.
My comment: "Kerry may well have had a dishonorable disharge, after he fooled around with some of the prostitutes over there."
Your comment: "He also could have been let go for a variety of 'medical' reasons - drugs, being a looney-tune (he was seemingly unable to follow orders or fit in), or 'depression.'"
What I meant was, Kaptain Ketchup could have had a discharge caused by gonococcus niseria or some similar micro-organism.
That's Right!
Half True---
When convicted of a courts martial an officer is not reduced in grade and cannot be demoted to the enlisted ranks. Since the officer's commission (and rank) is the result of an act of Congress, no Courts Martial can remove it. Even if convicted of a major crime under the UCMJ, confined for live, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and dismissal from the service, no officer's rank can be reduced. ----Half true
U.S.C. Title 10 Subtitle A-General Military Law, Part 1-Organization and General Military Powers have the statutes specific to the authority to appoint commissioned officers in the military services. Appointment of officers in the commissioned grades is made by the president with authority to appoint delegated to each service secretary. See sections 64, 12203, 12213, 12214 and others.
Subtitle E, Part II, chapter 1207, section 12241 Appointments of warrant officer is made by the pleasure of the secretary concerned.
Rule 1003 Punishments (8) © Limits on Punishment
Only a general court-martial, upon conviction of any offense in violation of the code, may sentence a commissioned officer or commissioned warrant officer or a cadet or midshipman to be separated from the service with a punitive separation. In the case of commissioned officers, cadets, midshipmen, and commissioned warrant officers, the separation shall be dismissal. In the case of all other warrant officers, the separation shall be by dishonorable discharge.
Rule 1003 Punishments (8) (A) Punitive Separations
Dismissal. Dismissal applies only to commissioned officers, commissioned warrant officers, cadets, and midshipmen and may be adjudged only by a general court-martial. Regardless of the maximum punishment specified for an offense in Part IV of this manual, a dismissal may be adjudged for any offense of which a commissioned officer, commissioned warrant officer, cadet, or midshipman has been found guilty.
(i) A commissioned or warrant officer or a cadet, or midshipman may not be reduced in grade by any court-martial. However, in time of war or national emergency the Secretary concerned, or such Under Secretary or Assistant Secretary as may be designated by the Secretary concerned, may commute a sentence of dismissal to reduction to any enlisted grade.
FYI—during a reduction in Force a commissioned officer can volunteer option to be reduced to an enlisted grade.
John F. Kerry did not become a military officer by enlisting; he became an officer by a commission in the Navy. He held a reserve commission from December 16, 1966 to February 16, 1978. Commissioned officers are direct representatives of the president of the United States. Commissions are legal instruments the president uses to appoint and exercise direct control over qualified people to act as his legal agents and help him carry out his duties. The appointment to a commission has three requirements: The President or Service secretary must make the appointment; the military service must offer the appointment to the person, usually by giving the person a letter of appointment and an oath of office; and, the person must accept the appointment. Taking the oath of office is the most common method of accepting the appointment. Unlike draft that involuntarily inducts individuals into enlisted service, the military cannot force anyone to accept an appointment. If you have a service obligation and refuse an appointment, you must serve your obligated period as an enlisted person. John F. Kerry enlisted prior to accepting his appointment because he had incurred a service obligation perhaps because he was a military scholarship recipient or perhaps his number came up in the draft and he used an education option available to become an officer.
Although John Kerry’s January 2, 1970 release from active duty was under honorable conditions, speculation is misconduct while he was in the Naval Reserves resulted in a less than honorable dismissal that required a “board of officers convened under authority of Title 10 U.S. Code Section 1163” that determined his discharge was honorable. The approved recommendations of a convened board of officers are unusual and this is part of the cause for speculation a dismissal was upgraded to an Honorable discharge.
It is unclear from the records if all his commitment and obligation in the Naval Reserve was inactive duty status. However, U.S. Navy correspondence pertinent to his release from active duty states: “You are advised that your release from active duty does not terminate your status as a member of the U.S. Naval Reserve. On the day following the effective date of your release from active duty as specified in paragraph 3 of this endorsement, you will assume the status of a member of the Naval Reserve on inactive duty. While on inactive duty you are subject to involuntary recall to active duty to the extent authorized by Federal statute.”
If John F. Kerry completed his entire military obligation on inactive duty status, he would only be subject to trial by court martial under Articles 83, 104, or 106. The authority for this is found in Rule 202 Persons Subject to Jurisdictions to Courts-Martial, which expands upon Article 2 that defines classes of persons subject to the code. Only Article 104-Aiding the enemy has any connection to the conduct and behavior of John Kerry if his reserve time was nothing but inactive duty status. However, it is enough to give a second cause to speculate he some how influenced a dismissal into an honorable discharge.
It is public record John F. Kerry met with both delegation of Vietnamese Communists in Paris France in 1970 and it is allegedly in FBI files that he met with representatives from the North Vietnamese government in Paris France in 1971. Considering also his very active and visible leadership role in the antiwar movement, it is clear he was in direct violation of the UCMJ and Constitutional Codes and articles. “The scope of article 104 is it denounces offences by all persons whether or not otherwise subject to military law. Offenders may be tried by court martial or military by military commission.” “The nature of the offense is no unauthorized communication, correspondence, or intercourse with the enemy is permissible.” It is clear John F. Kerry knowingly and purposely aided the enemy. Consequently, the majority of Vietnam Veterans do consider him a traitor, betrayer, and a liar.
The dismissal is the commissioned officer version of a dishonorable discharge. Any dismissal subsequent to an honorable discharge null and voids any previous honorable discharge and any awards and decorations. Consequently, there are administrative peculiarities in the documents and certificates of some of John Kerry’s decorations that provide cause for some to believe the medal were revoked and then awarded back to him.
Even if John Kerry was not subject to jurisdictions to military court martial, he violated U.S. code 18 U.S.C. 953, which declares it is illegal for a U.S. citizen to go abroad and negotiate with a foreign power. Violating the United States Constitution is something he believes he can do whenever he decides. His first foreign policy action as a freshman senator in 1985 was to visit with Sandinista officials to include three hours of direct and personal negation with Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega. This was also a direct violation of federal code and sections of the U.S. Constitution.
Senator John F. Kerry’s voting record as an elected official of government doesn't demonstrate a commitment to ensuring American fighting forces, intelligence gathering agencies, and law enforcement agencies are equipped and trained to do what is needed to keep our homelands safe. Senator Kerry has an inability to work effectively with Presidents who does not share his views. His mischief as senator to participate in unauthorized and secret negotiations with leaders and officials of other governments and the United Nations that are putting the lives of our armed forced in jeopardy in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is his sense of duty and sense of the good life can easily result in more harm than safety, more taxes than advertised in campaign promises, and other consequences. What kind of deals is he cutting to get the support of foreign countries and peoples? Why is the left wing Guardian newspaper of London identifying American voters and encouraging its readers to write letters to American voter’s encouraging them to vote for John F. Kerry?
The lack of inquiry and interest by the news media undermines the purpose for having a free press. Freedom of the press is an essential essence of liberty and the better time for vigilance is before misinformed voters make choices.
Actually, I'll take that bet.
In all probability, his discharge was a Bad Conduct discharge.
Due to his having become a media darling during the time in question, it would have been far easier for the Navy explain a BCD than a DD.
'cept i hate diet coke.
How 'bout a pepsi?
Look at the bright side. At least your hat will have a lot of fiber in it and we all know how important that is to being regular.
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.