Kerry Makes Claims US Soldiers Cut Off Heads.....video this thread.

photos.imageevent.com...

You would not know it by listening to John Kerry talk, but at one time he forgot he was also part of the American military.

He claims that American soldiers committed acts of terrorism, so that means he also committed acts of terrorism, if what he claims is true then he had to be over seeing some of the acts, or did he just out right lie?

Is John Kerry an ex-terrorist, are all our men and women who serve in the American military no better then the militants in Iraq, according to John Kerry they are both one of the same. (see video)

I say if you claim American troops are committing acts of terrorism then your talking about all American troops. I don't want to hear that it was the Vietnam war, thats trash, I was in the jungle and lived in the villages www.ehistory.com... I can tell you up front I never saw a 1/4 of the things John Kerry speaks about, you see I was not a terrorist, I was a Marine.

Brother I can tell you I would NEVER tell lies against my brothers and sisters in uniform, then or now we are all still American Soldiers.

He shamed 58,000 thousand KIA and over 2 million who served, and still shames the fighting men & women in today�s military. When is he going to say that he told lies for his own political advancements?

If you said it then, you still think it today.

Hooah

Before I address the content of Firebase's post, I have two questions for the moderators.

First, Firebase already made this post in the War on Terror Forum. Does it really need to be reposted here?

Second, doesn't the invective in this post constitute an attack on Kerry, thus violating one of the rules established for this new forum?



[edit on 8/1/2004 by donguillermo]

Can anyone prove John Kerry a liar with these allegations?

Heel man, your killing DG, he was hoping this would go away.

Kerry has a long and well-documented history of providing "aid and
comfort" to the enemy in time of war -- particularly in the case of
North Vietnam, Nicaragua and Cuba. Kerry, by his own account of his
actions and protests, violated the UCMJ, the Geneva Conventions and
the U.S. Code while serving as a Navy officer. Kerry met, on two
occasions, with North Vietnamese negotiators in 1970 and 1971,
willingly placing himself in violation of Article three, Section
three of the U.S. Constitution, which defines treason as "giving aid
and comfort" to the enemy in time of warfare.

Kerry was recognized for such "aid and comfort" in 1983, when he
received an award for special contributions to the Communist victory
from the incoming general secretary of the Communist Party of
Vietnam, Comrade Do Moi. Thus, in accordance with the Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment,
Section 3, which states, "No person shall be a Senator or
Representative in Congress, or elector of President and
Vice-President .. having previously taken an oath ... to support
the Constitution of the United States, [who has] engaged in
insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort
to the enemies thereof," We, the People of these United States,
believe John F. Kerry is unfit for public office.

(An e-mail I was sent a couple days ago.)

[edit on 2-8-2004 by Thomas Crowne]

"Kerry has a long and well-documented history of providing "aid and
comfort" to the enemy in time of war -- particularly in the case of
North Vietnam, Nicaragua and Cuba"

Just because they are the enemy of the government, doesen't make them an enemy of every person in the country.

Are Iraqis my enemy? No.. just because the government labels them as the enemy doesen't make them my enemy since they never did anything to the homeland USA to make them a threat nor an enemy.

Vietnam was truly a war between the US and USSR with other countries being used as toys.

And they will be damned if they ever attempt to draft me to send me in future foreign interventions in the middle east. I am not allowing it to happen.. sorry... call me anti-American but what we are doing now would make the founding fathers turn in there graves.

Once again all this Kerry bashing is in the way of the REAL issues which affect REAL people of the country. They always do this with all the presidents we've had lately... even Bill Clinton. We need to discuss the issues at hand these days.. we cannot build a time machine and go back to Vietnam.. those days are done with. So whatever Kerry did in Vietnam is in the past.. but what is he going to do in the future to help out the citizens of the US... this is the most important thing.

[edit on 2-8-2004 by RedOctober90]

[edit on 2-8-2004 by RedOctober90]

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Kerry has a long and well-documented history of providing "aid and comfort" to the enemy in time of war -- particularly in the case of North Vietnam, Nicaragua and Cuba.

First it is good to note the source of this email. It is clearly part paraphrase, part direct quote, from this Free Republic post.

Aid and comfort to the enemy: The Kerry record...

Next, how does the Constitution define treason? Article 3, Section 3 says 'Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort." Critics of Kerry like to define treason as giving aid and comfort to the enemy, conveniently leaving out the word "adhering". Webster's Third International defines "adhere" as" to hold, follow, or maintain loyalty steadily and consistently (as to a person, group, principle, or way)".

No wonder Kerry critics don't properly define treason as "adhering to the enemy, giving aid and comfort." Is anyone going to argue seriously that two visits to North Viet Nam constitute following or maintaining loyalty, steadily and consistently?

However, "adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort" within the United States or elsewhere, is the most important treason. It was last prosecuted at the Second World War and some argue that Jane Fonda should be charged with adhering to the Vietnamese enemies. The Constitution does not define "enemies" - this is assumed to be self-evident. Some case law defines this as subjects of a foreign Power in open hostility with the United States (Stephan v. US, 1944; US v. Greathouse 1863) but it can also include US citizens who join enemy forces (US v. Quirin). This new "war on terrorism" also gives the term new meaning. So it seems that "enemies" is ever-changing and unclear. It is clear, however, that "adhering to their enemies" means "with intent to betray the United States" (US v. Cramer) and such intent must be manifested by an overt act.

www.claremont.org...

Is anyone going to argue that Kerry intended to betray the United States, and that his intent was manifested by an overt act? If Kerry had given information about U.S. war plans, troop strength, or military deployments, that would be an overt act. If he had contributed money or labor to the North Viet Namese war effort, that would be an overt act. Talking to them in an effort to bring an end to the war is hardly an overt act intended to betray the United States.

Why are Nicaragua and Cuba brought into the discussion? For those who don't remember, during the Reagan administration the United States provided financial and military aid to the Contra rebels in Nicaragua, in violation of U.S. law. That was called the Iran-Contra affair. If Kerry talked to the Nicaraguan government, that government was not the enemy, since our participation in the civil war was illegal. Why Cuba was brought up, I have no idea. The last time there were military hostilities against Cuba was in 1961, during the U.S. initiated Bay of Pigs fiasco.

Kerry, by his own account of his actions and protests, violated the UCMJ, the Geneva Conventions and the U.S. Code while serving as a Navy officer.

As mentioned in the Free Republic post, Kerry admitted to participating in free-fire zones, harassment and interdiction fire, search and destroy missions, etc. While such activities may technically be violations of the UCMJ and Geneva Conventions, they were extremely common in Viet Nam.

Kerry met, on two occasions, with North Vietnamese negotiators in 1970 and 1971, willingly placing himself in violation of Article three, Section three of the U.S. Constitution, which defines treason as "giving aid and comfort" to the enemy in time of warfare.

Notice how the word "adhering" is not mentioned. As discussed above, claiming that Kerry's two visits to North Viet Nam constitute treason doesn't pass the laugh test. Kerry was still a commissioned officer in the Navy Reserves at the time of his visit. If he committed treason, why didn't the U.S. military prosecute him for it?


[edit on 8/2/2004 by donguillermo]

Quality response as per donguillermo, nice work.

He was a former member of the U.S. military. He is no longer active duty (retired.) These claims were made against the soldiers currently serving, therefore, no, he would not be included in being a "terrorist". Though none of our soldiers are terrorists.

EDIT: That doesn't even sound like John Kerry...he has a different tone of voice and everything...

[edit on 2-8-2004 by WeBDeviL]