Replies

There's Kerry's trouble. He DID give aid to the enemy. We already know that. Would that be grounds for a less than honorable discharge?

That should have been grounds 30 years ago to try and hang him for treason. We didn't have the stomach then to charge him with treason and it seems our country doesn't have the stomach to try him for treason now.

Think of how far the news cycle has changed in 30 years. We finally got one cable news network who gives "fair and balanced" a real shot and the sites like ours and bloggers all over the world who do have the stomach for nailing Kerry. This could be the final nail in his coffin. Could be (she said hopefully).

No, no.

It was never claimed that Kerry engaged in treasonous activity.
That bar is set in the constitution, and is set VERY high.
Damn near impossible to prosecute it.

What Kerry most likely was OTHed for was a pattern of activity that falls under the "borderline" of violating section 953.

Now, it would have been difficult to criminally prosecute him with that, mainly because he was a well connected little snot with political clout, but the military does not run under civilian rules of criminal conduct, as they are alleging military misconduct.

Now, ze problem here is that old J Carter issued a directive that in essence, reversed section 953, thereby allowing Kerry to apply for another discharge hearing, at which time his discharge would have been changed, his MEDALS returned, and his pension restored.