Question regarding Kerry's meeting in Paris

[Onlooker]

The right-wing blogs argue that Kerry violated military law when he met in Paris with someone from North Vietnam. Did he? What's his argument? If you're wondering what I'm talking about, enter the following into Google: UCMJ 104 Kerry

[jpgray]

1. If so, Nixon would have arrested him

It's not like he had no political enemies in '72, you know. ;-)

[Pepperbelly]

14. You hit the nail right on the head.

Nixon got O'Neil involved at the time, to bushwhack him. If he could've busted him, he would have. No question.

[blondeatlast]

17. Hoover and Nixon would have been all over it.

Absolutely right--I'm (just barely) old enough to remember.

[bobbyboucher]

2. No thanks.

Just showered.

[A_Possum]

3. They probably are trying to make the case

that because he was in the reserves, he was military.

I agree with the other poster. If there had been anything to this, he would have been arrested on his way out of the Senate chamber.

The best answer to all this cooked-up malice is right in Kerry's testimony:

Kerry, the Congressional Record, 1971

The Chairman: Do you support or do you have any particular views about any one of them you wish to give the committee?

Mr. Kerry: My feeling, Senator, is undoubtedly this Congress, and I don't mean to sound pessimistic, but I do not believe that this Congress will, in fact, end the war as we would like to, which is immediately and unilaterally and, therefore, if I were to speak I would say we would set a date and the date obviously would be the earliest possible date. But I would like to say, in answering that, that I do not believe it is necessary to stall any longer. I have been to Paris. I have talked with both delegations at the peace talks, that is to say the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the Provisional Revolutionary Government and of all eight of Madam Binh's points it has been stated time and time again, and was stated by Senator Vance Hartke when he returned from Paris, and it has been stated by many other officials of this Government, if the United States were to set a date for withdrawal the prisoners of war would be returned. (The same POW's who were so "devastated" by this attempt to get them freed sooner rather than later?)

I think this negates very clearly the argument of the President that we have to maintain a presence in Vietnam, to use as a negotiating block for the return of those prisoners. The setting of a date will accomplish that...

Mr. Kerry: Senator, if I may interject, I think that what we are trying to say is we do have a method. We believe we do have a plan, and that plan is that if this body were by some means either to permit a special referendum in this country so that the country itself might decide and therefore avoid this recrimination which people constantly refer to or if they couldn't do that, at least do it through immediate legislation which would state there would be an immediate cease-fire and we would be willing to undertake negotiations for a coalition government. But at the present moment that is not going to happen, so we are talking about men continuing to die for nothing and I think there is a tremendous moral question here which the Congress of the United States is ignoring.

The Chairman: The congress cannot directly under our system negotiate a cease-fire or anything of this kind. Under our constitutional system we can advice the President. We have to persuade the President of the urgency of taking this action. Now we have certain ways in which to proceed. We can, of course, express ourselves in a resolution or we can pass an act which directly affects appropriations which is the most concrete positive way the Congress can express itself.

But Congress has no capacity under our system to go out and negotiate a cease-fire. We have to persuade the Executive to do this for the country.

Mr. Kerry: Mr. Chairman, I realize that full well as a student of political science. I realize that we cannot negotiate treaties and I realize that even my visits in Paris, precedents had been set by Senator McCarthy and others, in a sense are on the borderline of private individuals negotiating, et cetera. I understand these things. But what I am saying is that I believe that there is a mood in this country which I know you are aware of and you have been one of the strongest critics of this war for the longest time. But I think if can talk in this legislative body about filibustering for porkbarrell programs, then we should start now to talk about filibustering for the saving of lives and of our country. (Applause.)

And this, Mr. Chairman, is what we are trying to convey.

[aquart]

4. Thank you, dear. Now go home to Daddy.

Kerry discussed this YEARS ago. There's no secret. Sorry.

But I'm sure you'll try again.

Smearing honest men to protect criminals is such a damn chore.

[Katherine2]

5. I heard on either

the radio or cable news today that many anti-war American private citizens met with the North Koreans in Paris, and it was not a crime. It would have been a crime to actually negotiate with the North Koreans, but Kerry did not do that, and has not been accused of negotiating. These Swift Boat idiots feel they can throw any accusation out there and no one will refute it. Unfortunately, I think they're right about that. I wonder how long it will take Chris Matthews to say "so what" if he met with the North Koreans, and tell people the truth, that it is not a crime. Or will he just sigh and talk about Kerry flip flopping again? Sorry for my rant, but I have just about had it.

[AngryAmish]

20. Well, he met with the North Vietnamese, not North Koreans

Different group of communists. The Korean war had been over (or at least they stopped shooting at each other) for some decades in the 70s).

[Katherine2]

23. Doh. I knew that.

I meant North Vietnamese, and the same would apply to Kerry's meeting with the North Vietnamese, which was what was being discussed on the show.

[AngryAmish]

24. I was just being pissy

[DenverDem]

6. Right wing blogs are prevaricating propagandising cess pools.

Who gives a fuck what they argue?

[davhill]

13. Undecided Voters

We have to be ready to respond to worst propaganda.

[IdaBriggs]

7. Hmmm. Who to believe -- the US Navy or partisan Republicans?

Navy Says Kerry's Service Awards OK'd
By ROBERT BURNS, AP Military Writer

WASHINGTON - The Navy's chief investigator concluded Friday that procedures were followed properly in the approval of Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites)'s Silver Star, Bronze Star and Purple Heart medals, according to an internal Navy memo. Vice Adm. R.A. Route, the Navy inspector general, conducted the review of Kerry's Vietnam-ear military service awards at the request of Judicial Watch, a public interest group. The group has also asked for the release of additional records documenting the Democratic presidential candidate's military service.

Judicial Watch had requested in August that the Navy open an investigation of the matter, but Route said in an internal memo obtained by The Associated Press that he saw no reason for a full-scale probe.

"Our examination found that existing documentation regarding the Silver Star, Bronze Star and Purple Heart medals indicates the awards approval process was properly followed," Route wrote in the memo sent Friday to Navy Secretary Gordon England.

"In particular, the senior officers who awarded the medals were properly delegated authority to do so. In addition, we found that they correctly followed the procedures in place at the time for approving these awards."

<snip>

"Our review also considered the fact that Senator Kerry's post-active duty activities were public and that military and civilian officials were aware of his actions at the time. For these reasons, I have determined that Senator Kerry's awards were properly approved and will take no further action in this matter."

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=3&u=/ap/20040918/ap_on_el_pr/kerry_navy_awards

[LittleClarkie]

11. I saw that,

I was thinking about it on Tuesday, and then thinking about the guys down at the pub pushing each other on the arm and saying "Ouch, give me a medal now" and another saying the tv said the Navy was going to take Kerry's medals away. (I asked, "Who said that." Drunk guy could only answer, "The TV. Ya know? The tee vee!" after which I snapped, "Yah, box talk, me listen, no think.")

Thinking about all that, and realizing that there was probably no way to get these Bush supporters to listen to me when I tell them Kerry earned his medals, I actually started crying. Me, who used to such a little peacenik. Hell, Kerry isn't even the peace candidate. When did I get so caring about veterans? Maybe it's because my dad, a 19 year Navy vet, died this year. Or because I realized I'm the daughter of a Navy vet, the sister of two vets (Army and Air Force), and the sister in law to another Navy vet.

Back to the pub, I've hung with these guys for about four years now. One I went to high school with. And ever since they became aware that I'm a Kerry supporter, at least one of them thinks it's funny to tell me how badly he's doing in the polls, and how he's pulling out of this state or that, all with his president's chimp smirk on his face. This person so smugly thinks that he's so right, that politics gives him and a couple of the others (not all of them, thankfully) the right to mock a veteran's medals when I know that none of the ones doing the mocking ever served.

Don't they realize how heinous that is. Like I said before, I wanna print out that Navy article about clearing Kerry's medals, wad it up and stuff it down a few throats. Or perhaps I could go and get my father's medals, bring them to the pub, and ask them if I should throw them in the garbage, since apparently the Navy doesn't know how to give out a medal, not once but 5 times.

I honestly didn't know I felt this way. It's so weird. And now I've worked myself into another fit, and I'm sitting here crying again. I felt the same way when the local radio guys started singing "B-double-E-double-R-U-N" at the mention of Max Cleland, apparently because Ann Coutier (that bitch) said he lost his limbs when he fumblefingered a grenade onto himself on the way to get a beer. I wrote them one hell of a letter, let me tell you. Got a civil answer back, actually. Surprised the hell out of me.

What a weird campaign. To feel like you're against the war (at least as currently fought) and yet be standing with so many veterans like Kerry, and Cleland, and Wasser (Band of Brother -- who I got to talk to) and all the other Veterans for Kerry. Little neo-hippy me. Who'd a thunk it.

Well, time to stop cryin'. I got a country to save.

[cheshire]

26. Wow great story, I feel the same. SBV are liars period. They are vile.

[TomClash]

8. Fascist!

[papau]

9. WOW-Seems Bush should be shot as AWOL as he is not protected under#43

ART. 43. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (a) A person charged with absence without leave or missing movement in time of war, or with any offense punishable by death, may be tried at any time without limitation.


But the UCMJ Article 104 Aiding The Enemy really depends on the articles definition of "Aiding the enemy" - Seems those Senators going over to Paris in 69-70-71 to talk to North Viet. Diplomats need to be shot, if John should be! And of course the definition of "enemy" is in paragraph 23c(1)(b) - are diplomats the enemy? I think I spoke to a Russian Diplomat in 1955, and a fellow from Grenada at the UN in 83.
:-)

Text. “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.”

Elements.

(1) Aiding the enemy.

(a) That the accused aided the enemy; and
(b) That the accused did so with certain arms, ammunition, supplies, money, or other things.

(2) Attempting to aid the enemy.

(a) That the accused did a certain overt act;
(b) That the act was done with the intent to aid the enemy with certain arms, ammunition, supplies, money, or other things;

(c) That the act amounted to more than mere preparation; and

(d) That the act apparently tended to bring about the offense of aiding the enemy with certain arms, ammunition, supplies, money, or other things.

(3) Harboring or protecting the enemy.

(a) That the accused, without proper authority, harbored or protected a person;
(b) That the person so harbored or protected was the enemy; and

(c) That the accused knew that the person so harbored or protected was an enemy.

(4) Giving intelligence to the enemy.

(a) That the accused, without proper authority, knowingly gave intelligence information to the enemy; and
(b) That the intelligence information was true, or implied the truth, at least in part.

(5) Communicating with the enemy.

(a) That the accused, without proper authority, communicated, corresponded, or held intercourse with the enemy, and;
(b) That the accused knew that the accused was communicating, corresponding, or holding intercourse with the enemy.

Explanation.

(1) Scope of Article 104. This article denounces offenses by all persons whether or not otherwise subject to military law. Offenders may be tried by court-martial or by military commission.

(2) Enemy. For a discussion of “enemy,” see paragraph 23c(1)(b).

(3) Aiding or attempting to aid the enemy. It is not a violation of this article to furnish prisoners of war subsistence, quarters, and other comforts or aid to which they are lawfully entitled.

(4) Harboring or protecting the enemy.

(a) Nature of offense. An enemy is harbored or protected when, without proper authority, that enemy is shielded, either physically or by use of any artifice, aid, or representation from any injury or misfortune which in the chance of war may occur.
(b) Knowledge. Actual knowledge is required, but may be proved by circumstantial evidence.

(5) Giving intelligence to the enemy.

(a) Nature of offense. Giving intelligence to the enemy is a particular case of corresponding with the enemy made more serious by the fact that the communication contains intelligence that may be useful to the enemy for any of the many reasons that make information valuable to belligerents. This intelligence may be conveyed by direct or indirect means.
(b) Intelligence. “Intelligence” imports that the information conveyed is true or implies the truth, at least in part.

(c) Knowledge. Actual knowledge is required but may be proved by circumstantial evidence.

(6) Communicating with the enemy.

(a) Nature of the offense. No unauthorized communication, correspondence, or intercourse with the enemy is permissible. The intent, content, and method of the communication, correspondence, or intercourse are immaterial. No response or receipt by the enemy is required. The offense is complete the moment the communication, correspondence, or intercourse issues from the accused. The communication, correspondence, or intercourse may be conveyed directly or indirectly. A prisoner of war may violate this Article by engaging in unauthorized communications with the enemy. See also paragraph 29c(3).
(b) Knowledge. Actual knowledge is required but may be proved by circumstantial evidence.

(c) Citizens of neutral powers. Citizens of neutral powers resident in or visiting invaded or occupied territory can claim no immunity from the customary laws of war relating to communication with the enemy.

Lesser included offense. For harboring or protecting the enemy, giving intelligence to the enemy, or communicating with the enemy. Article 80—attempts

Maximum punishment. Death or such other punishment as a court-martial or military commission may direct

[Onlooker]

10. SO DOES KERRY HAVE A RESPONSE?

This issue appears 99% on right-wing web sites, while the progressive ones seem to be ignoring it, hoping it goes away. The only thing I have found so far is that reservists when not in training are not subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Now, it is worth noting that Kerry has started to improve in the polls when he gets the American people to focus on the issues, so I don't expect him to talk about this issue much, but still it would be nice to know that his meetings in Paris were clearly legal. Does anyone have any info? Maybe this is something that Walt_Starr knows how to investigate?

[LittleClarkie]

12. Well, the last time someone confronted him directly

He gave them the finger. I suppose he could do it again. Wouldn't look terribly presidential mind you.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

18. That's a lie. Kerry never gave anyone the finger.

That lie was making it around a lot of RW sites last spring. You spending too much time there?

[LittleClarkie]

21. Sorry

It was the only account I could find of the Ted Sampley/John Kerry meeting at the Memorial Wall.

Actually, I was hoping he DID give Ted Sampley the finger. Telling a Vietnam veteran he doesn't belong at the Memorial -- sick bastard.

[papau]

15. Clearly legal - he got that opinion at the time from the US Gov - no one

in authority has ever said they were reversing that 70's opinion.

But fact's do not change Bush - or right wing- lies.

[Merlin]

16. Absolutely they were legal.

If you are not on active duty, you are not subject to UCMJ. In the reserves, from the time you report in on a weekend exercise until the time you leave the facility to return home, you're subject to UCMJ. The rest of the time, you are a free citizen of the USA.

JK's meetings were clearly legal and designed to help extricate the US from a disastrous war. How ironic that we need him to do the same again.

[blondeatlast]

19. Independents shun RW web sites the way they shun DU.

You're either an alarmist or ...

[Cocoa]

22. he has a thorough response

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x884953

[Joanne98]

25. Here's the info you need in this thread........

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=884953&mesg_id=884953

[cheshire]

27. Kerry was on his first honeymoon.