It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

George Bush: the Ace in the Hole!

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 25 2004 @ 10:06 PM
link   
Keep looking for those clues.

Testifying against an unwinnable war and describing the atrocities you see but are powerless to stop (character or not) is not "aiding and abetting" the enemy. Full Stop.

Speaking truth to government is the act of a patriot.




posted on Aug, 25 2004 @ 10:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
Protesting a war is not the same as giving comfort to the enemy. YOu might as well exclude bush for this similar simplistic reasoning, the companies he's been a part of certainly have had dealings, at least in extenso with enemy contries.


Protesting the War does offer comfort... It is a morale booster to know that the enemy is buckling under pressure. Hate that all you want.

As far as Bush goes... Offering evidence to another issue doesn't help Kerry.



posted on Aug, 25 2004 @ 10:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by looking4clues
Protesting the War does offer comfort... It is a morale booster to know that the enemy is buckling under pressure. Hate that all you want.


I found the following article on Treason:


To avoid the abuses of the English law, treason was specifically defined in the United States Constitution. Article Three defines treason as only levying war against the United States or giving aid and comfort to its enemies, and requires the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act or a confession in open court for conviction. In the United States Code the penalty ranges from "shall suffer death" to "shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."


The article notes that a charge of treason has historically been used against critics of the govt.'s foreign policy usually relating to military actions. It goes on to say that only about 40 people have ever been charged with treason with only few sucessfully convicted. Of those convicted - the acts were not based on subversive talk or language, but overt acts against the govt.



posted on Aug, 25 2004 @ 11:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bleys

Originally posted by looking4clues
Protesting the War does offer comfort... It is a morale booster to know that the enemy is buckling under pressure. Hate that all you want.


I found the following article on Treason:


To avoid the abuses of the English law, treason was specifically defined in the United States Constitution. Article Three defines treason as only levying war against the United States or giving aid and comfort to its enemies, and requires the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act or a confession in open court for conviction. In the United States Code the penalty ranges from "shall suffer death" to "shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."


The article notes that a charge of treason has historically been used against critics of the govt.'s foreign policy usually relating to military actions. It goes on to say that only about 40 people have ever been charged with treason with only few sucessfully convicted. Of those convicted - the acts were not based on subversive talk or language, but overt acts against the govt.


In this case the definition is within the U.S Constitution:

Article III Section. 3.
Clause 1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Hence, the charge against Kerry mesans that any citizen of the United States simply by criticizing a war is guilty of treason. (As an aside, the Patriot Act II, just might define it as such.)



posted on Aug, 25 2004 @ 11:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by nanna_of_6

I doubt if John Kerry is worried about these lies that are being told about him and his service record, he did two tours of duty and earned the medals the hard way.


Kerry served two tours of duty? Which tours of duty are we speaking of? Did someone sneak one past me?



posted on Aug, 25 2004 @ 11:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
Hence, the charge against Kerry mesans that any citizen of the United States simply by criticizing a war is guilty of treason. (As an aside, the Patriot Act II, just might define it as such.)


Kerry went one step farther than criticizing the war. Well, maybe a few steps farther. He formed a group dedicated to protesting the war. He testified before congress lying about the actions of the military in Vietnam. He admitted to committing war crimes during his tour, on national television. That's giving aid and comfort to the enemy in my book and the Vietnamese communists are on the record attesting to this fact.

[edit on 04/8/25 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Aug, 25 2004 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gools

Testifying against an unwinnable war and describing the atrocities you see but are powerless to stop (character or not) is not "aiding and abetting" the enemy. Full Stop.

Speaking truth to government is the act of a patriot.


The war in Vietnam was not unwinnable. It was effectively won following the Tet '68, when the Viet Cong were effectively wiped out. There was no thought of defeat among the troops while I was there. We were kicking their behinds badly.

John Kerry did not witness the atrocities that he testified to. John Kerry is no patirot. John Kerry is a taitor.

Get your facts straight.



posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 12:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
In this case the definition is within the U.S Constitution:

Article III Section. 3.
Clause 1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.


If you reread my post you'll see that I quote A3S3 as well. Sorry I didn't make that more clear (its getting late).


Hence, the charge against Kerry mesans that any citizen of the United States simply by criticizing a war is guilty of treason. (As an aside, the Patriot Act II, just might define it as such.)


This is why I referenced the article. I find it fascinating that only 40 people have been charged with treason in this country's history and of those 40 very few were ever convicted. It's somewhat comforting that this provision has not been unduly abused.

As far as whether Kerry is guilty of treason - I haven't seen anything that would conclude the charge is warranted. Did he lie about being in Cambodia in '68 - yes, did he say some pretty awful things about our soldiers - yes and did his comments have repercussions for our POWs - yes. But we cannot allow ourselves to ever give up our right of free speech, even if that speech is reprehensible.



posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 01:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Kerry served two tours of duty? Which tours of duty are we speaking of? Did someone sneak one past me?










Grady, here ya go, please take the time to read about John's service to his country. Yes, John served two tours of duty and has every right to be proud.

www.johnkerry.com...

I personally know a " vietnam vet", his name is Larry. There had been a few times that Larry spoke of the "Horrors" of nam, he mentioned some of the stuff, that John Kerry spoke of in 1971, and then he'd get really quiet, Larry would have "flash-backs" of being in Vietnam, when he would be in a bar drinking which would bring-on the personality of a man fighting for his life, he'd tear the bar apart in fights with total strangers, he almost killed a guy once while having a "flash-back", so needless to say he doesn't drink anymore and hasn't for close to 15 years. Sometimes Larry would break-down and cry like a baby, mumbling over and over about the killings of women and children.

Just because John Kerry testified about the "horrors" of vietnam that was told to him and he seen first hand, DOES NOT take away from him the title of a "war hero", he earned that and his medals.

The "swiftvets.com", are the people that should and need to be ashamed of theirselves, they are the people that should have treason charges against them for the deplorable attacks against John Kerry, and George W Bush should be held accountable for that group's behavior, putting them up to it when Bush his self hideout for nearly a year to evade the call to Vietnam, but it is understandable that these attacks against John Kerry are happening,....... it's the only way to keep the focus off of Bush, Bush's war on Iraq, and the 9/11 attacks that happened while on his watch.
It's a sad day for the citizens of the US when a hero is attacked for doing the right thing and a coward is praised for all the wrong things.

Here's something else for everyone to look over, Bush and Kerry's service records.

www.awolbush.com...

[edit on 26-8-2004 by nanna_of_6]



posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 04:19 AM
link   
LOL like an Aircraft Carrier in the Gulf War, chance to get a purple heart on the USS Gridley was zero. The only way home was to "volunteer" to get off the Destroyer and into a boat that could offer the opportunity to fill out medal request forms...

John Kerry is a weak-minded lazy lefty limp wrist liberal, who got his first purple heart for an injury of less significance than a skinned knee. I am Impressed!

3 purple Hearts = a trip home. (MISSION ACCOMPLISHED)

"....gimme about 1000 of those medal request forms." - John Kerry



[edit on 26-8-2004 by looking4clues]



posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 04:57 AM
link   
Can you imagine what would happen if Kerry was disqualified?

America is on edge...something like that would push us over.



posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 05:35 AM
link   
It really amuses me to see the extent to which people will try to pervert logic to convince themselves that they're backing the right horse. "Aiding and abetting the enemy" has to be one of the better ones. I wonder which right-wing rag first propagated this particular "reasoning" as part of the neocon message of the day?

Get real people! If Kerry were a traitor, he'd be sitting in Leavenworth right now (or more likely Guantanamo), not running for president. Especially with the federal judiciary and the Supreme Court packed as it is with conservative justices. Aiding and abetting the enemy. What a joke. Where were all these paragons of deduction when Reagan and Ollie North were selling arms to the Iranians? That, my friends, is aiding and abetting. Not earning the right to criticize a war by shedding one's own blood in it.

And for those who say, "well, the vietnamese SAID his actions helped our cause" well, duh! That's how you fight a superpower with military superiority over you... How you can make the jump from this fact to calling Kerry a traitor to his country is beyond me. If I recall, there was quite a lot of opposition to the Vietnam war at the time. Unless, of course, by America you simply mean that half which shares your particular views. So tell me, what would the solution be? Lock the anti-war half of America in camps where they can never be heard by the enemy? Fine, fine American reasoning, truly!

He fought in a war, and he fought for his beliefs, two things Bush sadly has no record of. Get over it.

-koji K.



posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 08:33 AM
link   
I do not 'hate' your assertions, merely disagree with them.

Also, the 14th can't apply to kerry, because he has served as a senator. The 14th specifically mentions congressmen. If it applied, it would've had to have been applied then.

Actually, the 14th might not apply to kerry. It applies to "member of congress, or as an officer of the United States,or as a member of any state legislature,or as an executive or judicial officer of any state" who has pledged to uphold the Const. and then effectively broken that pledge. Soldiers in general take that pledge, along with military officers, but is the 'officer' in this portion a military officer or an 'officer of the state'?


bleys:
As far as whether Kerry is guilty of treason


The real issue of 'treason' here is, I think, over the V VAW's negotiating a peace treaty with the North Vietnamese and also pledging to influence the US governement to accept it. The rest is incidental and certainly, protesting a war, no matter how much it boosts the morale of the enemy, cannot be interpreted as either illegal, treasonous or unconstitutional. The very idea is absurd. Those who think its 'comfort' to the enemy do have a point in general, and people who protest a war should realize that the enemy sees this and is emboldened by it, but its hardly illegal.


nanna:
The "swiftvets.com[...] should have treason charges against them [...]Bush should be held accountable for that group


The swift vets are doing absolutely nothing wrong, unless you are stating they are lying. To suggest that any attack on a person's character is treasonous is ridiculous. Also, Bush cannot be held responsible for every add, and has stated that they should stop. It is known however that the/a major swiftboater financial contributor is a prominent texas republican, so on that level its questionable just how much bush knew about the campaign. However there is no evidence to suggest he did know.


The only way home

If kerry was weak and lazy then why would he leave the safety of a destroyer to go to a shore and river patrol boat? The accusation is entirely contradictory.

You also keep saying that a member of the military can request their own medals. Since when?

[edit on 26-8-2004 by Nygdan]



posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by nanna_of_6
In 1968, John Kerry began his second tour of duty, and volunteered to serve on a Swift Boat, one of the most dangerous assignments of the war.


Okay, Nana, please note that his "first tour of duty" was in "waters adjacent to Vietnam." Using the term "tour of duty" here is very misleading. There's nothing wrong with such duty, but it is no more dangerous than serving on any ship in the world, which alway carries inherent dangers. It is, however, a very good example of how Kerry uses words to give others a very different view of the truth.

Of course there's the interpretation that any duty station or duty assignment constitutes a tour of duty, in which case, almost every service member serves several tours of duty, or in the case of sailors every ship they serve on, every time thay sail, etc.

So, no matter how you slice it, Kerry takes advantage of the publics lack off understanding of certain terminology to give people an untrue impression.

He did it in this bio, he did in Vietnam regarding his combat record and his "wounds" and again at home before Congress, on the steps of the Captitol and in TV interviews.

So, there you have it, the man who would be President.










[edit on 04/8/26 by GradyPhilpott]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join