[Congressman Billybob]

When Kerry gave his "war crimes" testimony before Congress, and also when he met with the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese representatives in Paris, he was NOT a civilian. However inactive his service status was, he was still enlisted in the US Navy as his commitment was not completed. So his actions in those two instances WERE subject to the UCMJ.

Congressman Billybob

Latest column, "Mein Fuhrer, I Can Valk!"

[supercat]

When Kerry gave his "war crimes" testimony before Congress, and also when he met with the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese representatives in Paris, he was NOT a civilian. However inactive his service status was, he was still enlisted in the US Navy as his commitment was not completed. So his actions in those two instances WERE subject to the UCMJ.

Would it be possible that Kerry requested, and received, a less-than-honorable discharge from a Navy that was more than happy to be rid of him, before going to Viet Nam? I'm not saying he'd actually do that, but if he did I would think that would make his Vietnam trip legal.

[AndyJackson]

However inactive his service status was, he was still enlisted in the US Navy as his commitment was not completed. So his actions in those two instances WERE subject to the UCMJ.

Sorry my friend, but you can look up the jurisdiction of the UCMJ. The acts of inactive reserve personnel, not in a duty status (covered by inactive duty for training orders) are not covered. Also, to put a fine point on it, Kerry was not enlisted. He was a commissioned officer, which is a different thing altogher, though not particularly relevant to this case.