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

To: Congressman Billybob
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.

72 posted on 10/17/2004 1:11:15 PM PDT by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies ]


To: AndyJackson

my strong suspicion is a revelation on Kerry's military status and his cover up of same may just be one of those October surprises, though we only got what, two weeks to go, you can see that slowly but surely the issue is being broadcast and discussed, albeit in mostly the "new" media, but I see a trend......leading up to a crescendo? for example, John O Neill brought it up for the first time in his statement to ABC News......too bad no one in the Mainstream media is picking up on it, I mean if Judith Miller is risking Jail on another story....hmmmmm

but let's face it it would be particularly damning since the DNC et al have been acting like pit bulls on the Bush Guard story and I strongly suspect Kerry's offences make the Bush Guard Story pale in comparision

for example someone made a great point, someone who had committed treason isn't eligible to run for the office of President, as far as I am concerned Kerry admitted to committing treason


76 posted on 10/17/2004 1:18:55 PM PDT by llama hunter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | 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