Posted on 10/31/2004 5:22:31 AM PST by xtinct
There is overwhelming evidence that the Navy gave John Kerry either a dishonorable discharge or an undesirable discharge – which is the equivalent of a dishonorable discharge without the felony conviction – and that, as a result of such discharge, he was stripped of all of his famous but questionable Navy awards and medals. And the kicker? The evidence is on his website!
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
yeah, I know.
Since he was on the Senate Intel Committee he likely already has access to this stuff. No, wait, scratch that, he didn't show up for meetings. Never mind.
Thanx for your service.
If he went through the appeals process, there has to be some sort of appeals application with his name on it, floating around somewhere.
How to find it ?
Semper Fi.
Proclamation 4483--Granting pardon for violations of the Selective Service Act, August 4, 1964, to March 28, 1973
Source: The provisions of Proclamation 4483 of Jan. 21, 1977, appear at 42 FR 4391, 3 CFR, 1977 Comp., p. 4, unless otherwise noted.
Acting pursuant to the grant of authority in Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution of the United States, I, Jimmy Carter, President of the United States, do hereby grant a full, complete and unconditional pardon to: (1) 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 thereunder; and (2) all persons heretofore convicted, irrespective of the date of conviction, of any offense committed between August 4, 1964 and March 28, 1973 in violation of the Military Selective Service Act, or any rule or regulation promulgated thereunder, restoring to them full political, civil and other rights.
I never could stand that weasel Carter!
Totally agree, especially with the MSM being co-leaders of the Democratic party.
Additionally, in connection with an other than honorable discharge, the Department of Defense may have revoked all pay benefits, allowances, medals and honors. Here Petitioners note that upon becoming a U.S. senator in 1985, Mr. Kerry requested that all his medals be reissued, and, more recently, that he received a revised DD-214 listing an Honorable Discharge.
I beg your pardon, but that is not the question.
W's stump speeches are still based on nebulous "flip-flop" concepts; vague terms like "Security," "Trust," etc. Where is the beef? If John Kerry wins this one, and it is alarmingly possible, his victory will not be due to his efforts, but to Karl Rove and W's timidity in failing to punch this poseur out.
Four years in office, and I have never heard W ONCE try to straighten out the Florida fraud story, or the fraud that cost him 5 states in 2000. This is looking like a sad replay of the '92 campaign in which Bush Père simply refused to use the powerful ammunition he had against Clinton, and which I can personally assure you was handed to him.
This is the political equivalent of allowing a powerful enemy sanctuary in a zone where we will not go. I didn't get it then, and I don't get it now.
While some credit Kerry's connections, and others credit some sympathetic bureaucrat, it may be that some other officer realized quickly that Lt. Kerry was more risk than asset.
Kerry's proponents (from when they were in the same boat), likely took a liking to him because for them, as enlisted personnel, he presented as a non-conformist officer with whom they could discuss their concerns.
There are plenty good officers, conformist or non-conformist, who have the talent for talking with enlisted personnel.
What made Kerry different, was, is my guesstimate, that he was non-conformist on too many important matters regarding his duties, not just his views about the chain of command with which some enlisted people may have found sympathies.
For all of John Kerry's talk, his war record, his memories, do not match up with the kind of operational awareness, mindset, and preparedness that are required of an officer, good or indifferent. There is a certain level of getting your act together, getting with the program, that you must do, in order to face the enemy and have some chance of success.
The type of boat commanded by Lt. Kerry, to be used as he insists, would have had much attention to detail in order to insert S.E.A.L. or other special force operators. Yet no mention of officer responsibilities, by Kerry or his buddies; just talk of his heroics.
Spec. Ops folks are picky about loud engines and poor seamanship that might trip up the day or evening at the office.
For a spec. ops warrior and buddies, to be prepared in detail for a mission, but to then board Lt. Kerry's boat and find it a homing beacon for communist ears, does not fit with the Lt. Kerry whose few military supporters "know and love" for his disrespecting the basic job requirements.
Which trait, you have probably guessed correctly, was evident from the start.
This caught my attention:
Mr. Lipscomb adds some insight:
"Mr. Carter's first act as president was a general amnesty for draft dodgers and other war protesters. Less than an hour after his inauguration on January 21, 1977, while still in the Capitol building, Mr. Carter signed Executive Order 4483 empowering it.
Wasn't Carter inaugurated on January 20th?
I've seen so much clutter and conjecture over this matter in the past couple of weeks, I would like to summarize what seems to be at the core. If I am wrong, please correct my understanding:
1) Sometime in 1972 (Kerry's normal release date from his service in the Reserves) he gets a "less than honorable discharge" for his collaboration with the Viet Cong communists and loses his pension rights and medals.
2) After Carter signs the amnesty proclamation in 1977, Kerry applies and gets his honorable discharge papers in March, 1978 after going before an appeal board. However, his medals are not reinstated as part of this.
3) After being elected to the Senate in 1985, he uses his new found clout to get all his medals returned and new supporting paperwork for them drawn up and approved.
Did I miss anything important?
Thank you for you recognition. As Kerry has refused to release 30 pages ( which is quite substantial for someone who served only three years), he needs to file a DD 180 to release these records to the public. He has refused to do this. All of the Admin discharge appeals board matters were "confidential" and could not be released by the Department of the Navy.
Not doubting you, but I haven't seen this. Where and when did Kerry himself do this?
See #51 above. The date of Carter's inauguration is also incorrect.
what a lot of people don't realize is, Ford started this mess with EO 11803.(note the many additional EO amendments, made by Ford, to EO 11803)
http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/executive_orders/1974_ford.html#11803
whoa....good catch...That's even more basic info that got screwed up.
"Mr. Carter's first act as president was a general amnesty for draft dodgers and other war protesters. Less than an hour after his inauguration on January 21, 1977, while still in the Capitol building, Mr. Carter signed Executive Order 4483 empowering it."
Wasn't Carter inaugurated on January 20th?
______
Yep. Nice catch.
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/pihtml/pi057.html
Thanks for the link, stylin!
I'm making a case for what we actually know --- the information that is actually available to us.
There is no document that reveals that the Navy issued other than a less than Honorable Discharge to John F. Kerry.
In addition, there are various uses of the term, "separation."
A member of the Army may be separated from the Army, then made a member of the Navy.
A member of the military may be separated from their obligation for active duty.
A member of the military may be separated from a kind of duty and assigned to another kind of duty.
An officer may be separated from the Navy, as in discharged, that is, no longer commissioned, retired.
In John F. Kerry's case, he received, eventually, an Honorable Discharge regardless of the form or certificate or memo or order. He was, as far as the available paperwork indicates, involuntarily separated, as in retired. This status is NOT about his being moved around within the Navy, from one state of duty to another of inactive, standby, and/or reserve duty (if any).
A board may or may determine to involuntarily separate an officer from his commission, so to speak.
Another board may review that separation, either by request of higher-ups and/or by request of the officer in question.
USMC0302,
I am just floored by your condition of 80% below par, so to speak. Can't thank you enough for your service.
The article's author suggests that the rescinding of Lt. Kerry's medals, if any such rescinding took place, was because of a discharge being less than Honorable; but one can have his or her medals rescinded for other reasons, as well as re-instated for other reasons, than the status of one's discharge from being a member of the military.
The "separation" that I have been writing about, is from being a member of the military, as in you're out, no obligations and no commissions being in effect any longer than the date of discharge.
Most officers who entered first as enlisted personnel, do not recall that they received a discharge from their enlistments upon being commissioned. Some such officers receive certificates of discharge on that occasion, in the form of the Honorable Discharge; while some do not; it depends upon the timing and nature of their separation from their enlistment, though not separated from their branch, though some are separated from one branch and become a member of another branch --- it happens.
There is a variety of possibilities, because commissioning is at the pleasure of the President, not only serving. A person may be retired with no commission, for some time, to then have the President request his audience, to then find that the President wishes to commission him as an officer in any branch, or make a special commission with Letters of Marque (for example, for the purpose of raising a force to go after terrorists, which are a sub-classification of pirates).
There are plenty of places, types of duty, obligations, kinds of service, and branches ... to be separated from, and to receive or not receive consequently a certificate of discharge in some form or not, that may or may not be the Honorable Discharge as in "You can hang this on your wall." to a slip of paper in a folder that may or may not turn up somewhere in time.
As procedural as the military is, it is as efficient at processing forms into lost spaces.
Due process under the law, requires equitable procedures, and so it helps to have standard procedures for taking into consideration, whether or not to involuntarily separate an officer and his or her commission, which is the topic of interest here, versus the other types of separation; and then, there is another board, such as you have served, that may review that matter usually upon appeal but may for other reasons.
That two people receive the same forms, does not mean that both forms resulted from the exact same processes.
That two people had the same military career, does not mean that the career path of their records and other administrative "things," went through the same channels.
That two officers were separated from active duty (debited) on the same day, does not mean that they both were then in a standby pool (credited) ... when, one may be re-routed elsewhere for cause, for administrative reasons, or still at the pleasure of the President.
Especially for officers, the possiblities are so varied.
John Kerry has not indicated that he resigned his commission.
Because he has an Honorable Discharge (which does mean that a certificate of discharge was issued in some form), that means that he was involuntarily separated from his commission.
A board may or may not have done the separating, regardless of what letter "covers" the action actually taken.
Another board may or may not have reviewed some or all of the matter, in regard to the action taken, and again, regardless of what letter "covers" their action actually taken.
We do not know.
What we have is enough to show that there was a review. That may have happened upon Kerry's appeal --- or it may have happened because Senator Ted Kennedy got into the act --- or it may have happened because some other officers who had administratively held up Lt. Kerry's retirement, because they were investigation his acts of sedition and acts of negotiating privately with the enemy while commissioned, chose to object.
There is a lot of room for what happened and was caused to happen by whom ... we do not yet know.
Lt. Kerry may have given "lip service" to some officer at some point, and that gave rise to an executive officer's decision to process one or more medals (which ones, we do not know) from his jacket. That matter may have preceded John Kerry's negotiations with the enemy. We do not know.
Any way ... a big question is, should the evidence make the light of day, what can be done about it? Why expose the evidence, if it is to cause a rise in demand for prosecution of John F. Kerry under the U.C.M.J. or other laws of the United States? Which prosecution, will no doubt appear to be the most vindictive and worse form of retribution that ... must, at least in my view, be put to rest, as long as he is a Senator.
He is a son of Massachusetts, and those people must reject him before charges are made; but yet, is this action to serve what purpose?
What is the end goal of charging John K. Kerry with crimes against the United States during wartime?
To make a mockery of him? To make an example of him? To serve the honor of the honorable?
If the evidence is truly damning, and if the people of Massachusetts first reject John Kerry for his treasonous acts, well then, there may be some good reason to put him in jail.
That is an impractical stretch, at this date, given what we now, actually know.
The case was closed by the Navy, and President Bush has not wanted it to be in the public eye.
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.