Kerry calls U.S. troops terrorists, page 3


Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times


reply posted on 9-12-2005 @ 08:00 AM by kenshiro2012
SO,
Actually, Kerry has been accused of this here are a few examples of providing aid to the enemy


On www.wintersoldier.com Timeline page, it says, "April 22, 1972 -- John Kerry represented the Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW) at the, "Emergency March for Peace", in Bryant Park in New York City." At that time, according to the FBI surveillance file, Section 50, Part 1, Page 152. Vietnam Veterans Against the War/Winter Soldier Organization (VVAW/WSO) revealed information about a US Military operation. " ....the VVAW/WSO operation during 04/72 during which a canvass of VVAW/WSO members, some in active military service, developed information indicating the US would bomb Hanoi and Haiphong and the VVAW/WSO disseminated this information prior to the actual bombing, seriously jeopardizing US Military operations and the lives of servicemen.

The Kerry File



18 USC 953 - Private correspondence with foreign governments
Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. . . ..

Marc Morano, CNSNews.com Thursday, May 20, 2004

The 1970 meeting that John F. Kerry conducted with North Vietnamese communists violated U.S. law, according to an author and researcher who has studied the issue. Kerry met with representatives from "both delegations" of the Vietnamese in Paris in 1970, according to Kerry's own testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on April 22, 1971. But Kerry's meetings with the communist Vietnamese delegations were in direct violation of laws forbidding private citizens from negotiating with foreign powers, according to researcher and author Jerry Corsi.

The US goverment has called to task such people as Jesse Jackson for doing the same things in recent years.
His infamous testimony in from of the panel back in April 1971, were then used by the Vietnamese jailers at Hanoi Hilton used recordings of Kerry's testimony to thier american prisoners to "Show you that you are criminals"

Add to this that most of this testimony and American War Crimes of rape and murder that Kerry provided was never substanitated by Kerry (or anyone else), Kerry can be prosecuted for providing false testimony etc.

www.newsmax.com...



reply posted on 9-12-2005 @ 09:05 AM by kenshiro2012
SO,
As per UCMJ's Article 104 part 904


904. ART. 104. AIDING THE ENEMY
Any person who--
1) aids, or attempts to aid, the enemy with arms, ammunition, supplies, money, or other things; or
(2) without proper authority, knowingly harbors or [protects or gives intelligence to or communicates or corresponds with or holds any intercourse with the enemy, either directly or indirectly;
shall suffer death or such other punishment as a court-martial or military commission may direct.


UCMJ's Article 104 part 904
His meeting with NVA would be in violation of the UCMJ and falls under the heading of aiding the enemy. Since Kerry was still in the reserves at this point he would still fall under the UCMJ's jurisdiction.
As for him breaking the laws as a civilian, from Cornell Law School


18 USC 953
Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

Since by the time of this meeting in Paris, Kerry had made it known his anti-war sentimates, it is easy to assume what he was on about during his meeting. As for any secret information that may have been passed by him to the NVA, I do not have specifics on it although I will continue to look for it.
If kerry had received goverment sanctions for these meetings then he would not be in violation of the laws in this regard. So yes technically, he provided aid to the enemy, the same as Jesse Jackson did prior to GWII.

And of course, like I mentioned above, let's not forget his wonderful claims of the crimes that he "personally witnessed" (but did not prevent) that he gave to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The testimony that was subsequently used by the NVA as a tool against those "american guests" staying at Hanoi Hilton.


reply posted on 9-12-2005 @ 09:54 AM by Benevolent Heretic
Let's see if I can make my point.

Originally posted by Seekerof
Sensationalism in respects to Kerry:
Mr. Kerry's use of sensationalist-type wording or language (ie/example: "baby killers", murderers, 'terrorists', etc.) will undoubtedly incur sensationalist-type interpretations and mentionings (ie/example: Kerry "unquestionably" said or implied that the US troops in Vietnam were 'baby killers', murderers, etc., or that of his current interpreted actual or implied saying that the US troops in Iraq/Afghanistan were 'terrorists').


Assuming for a moment that Kerry did say something about babies being killed (as my brother did - and that's why I brought him into this), how is he supposed to say that babies were killed without using those words? Since you cannot provide this "baby-killer" reference, what better wording could (or should) he have used? "Terminating the lives of young people"? Do you think that the 'sensationalists' would not have jumped on that and turned it into "BABY-KILLER!!!" just as easily? Of course they would!

If a person says:
"There are soldiers in Iraq that have tortured Iraqi prisoners."
and someone accuses them of saying:
"US troops are all torturous animals!"

It is not the original speaker who is guilty of sensationalism. It's the 'interpreter' who carries the blame for 'sensationalizing' the statement. The first statement is just a sad (difficult-to-hear) fact.

I am responsible for what I say, not for what someone twists my words into. If I must be held responsible for every possible interpretation and configuration of my words and MIS-QUOTING of my words, then I might as well shut completely up. Because anything I say can certainly be turned into something 'sensational' by someone who has an agenda...

It bothers me that you use the terms "baby-killer", "murderer" and "terrorists" when Kerry did not say these words. They do not appear in Kerry's statements, yet you say they "unquestionably" are what he meant. Maybe it's unquestionable in your mind, but I assure you, it's highly questionable in many others.

You're BUYING the sensationalism. But that's your choice, of course.


reply posted on 9-12-2005 @ 11:00 AM by dbates
Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
What did Dean say that was "outlandish" in this example? This is what I'm not grokking.



Originally stated by Howard Dean
(Listen to entire interview)
"The idea that the United States is going to win the war in Iraq is just plain wrong."


The United States did win the war in Iraq. What we are in now is a reconstruction period. During this period there are going to be issues and obstacles, but that doesn't mean we lost. After WW II we saw the same type of problems in Germany in the Wehrwolf resistance which lasted almost 3 years. Would it have been outlandish for a Congressman to stand up during this period and state that we could not win the war? Most certainly it would have been considered ludicrous at best.

Then there is the matter of the Bush administration not having an end game or an exit strategy or so the Democratic leaders would have you to believe. I'll pose the same question to them. We have many people in our own country who are on welfare and don't work. Where's the end game and exit strategy there? Do we give up because there's no end in sight? Of course not, we keep going and do the best we can.

The ridiculousness of the Democratic party is that they have tied their success to the defeat of the United States in Iraq. If President Bush succeeds and reconstructs Iraq then they look bad. If the United States has to make an embarrassing withdrawal and leave Iraq to crumble into suburb of Iran then the Democrats win. The reconstruction of Iraq is controlled by humans and there are bound to be flaws and those that oppose the good being done. Should we then give up? What is the alternative to success?

The resistance fighters, insurgents, or whatever you want to call them know that they don't stand a chance against the American soldier in battle. The United States is an unstoppable force on the battlefield. One thing they do know is that the soft underbelly of the United States is it's democratic system of rule. That's where some see the Democratic leaders' statements helping out the enemy.
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6  >>    ^^TOP^^



Australian schoolyard bullies to face job ban
  Posted 14 days ago with 4 member flags
No Indians or Asians job ad triggers outrage in Australia
  Posted 14 days ago with 4 member flags
Iran and the USA
  Posted 1 days ago with 2 member flags
Biden To Skip Tampa: Latest
  Posted 17 days ago with 1 member flags
Three axed ministers CRIED
  Posted 5 days ago with 1 member flags
Asia should have its own Facebook, Twitter: China official
  Posted 6 days ago with 0 member flags
Australia moves to buy $3b spy drone fleet
  Posted 2 days ago with 0 member flags