The following was written by Major White. WHY WE CAN’T ELECT KERRY By (ret) Maj. E. T. White According to our Constitution, John F. Kerry is not qualified to hold a Senate seat, let alone be President. Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America reads: “No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress or elector of President and Vice President or hold any of office, civil or military, under the United States or under any State, who having previously taken an oath, as a 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 official officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by vote of two-thirds of each house remove such disability.” Senator Kerry has certainly given aid and comfort to our enemies. He continually reminds everyone that he is a Viet- Nam veteran and a hero. A look at the record indicates that Kerry’s motive for serving in Viet-Nam was to help his political career. While wearing the uniform of a commissioned Naval officer, Kerry actively participated in anti-American activities. After serving only four months in Viet-Nam and collecting three Purple Hearts in only two months, Kerry went home to pursue his political aspirations. Whether he actually deserved those Purple Hearts has been brought into question by officers who served with him. Along with his comrade “Hanoi Jane” Fonda, Kerry gave aid and comfort to the enemy. He accused our soldiers of routinely committing atrocities against the Vietnamese people with the approval of their commanders at all levels. North Vietnamese General Vo Nguyen Giap wrote that if not for the disunity created by such protestors in the United States, Hanoi would have ultimately surrendered. By his own account, John F. Kerry violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the Geneva Conventions and the U. S. Code, while serving as a Navy officer. He also violated Section 3 of Article 3 of the United States Constitution, which defines treason as giving aid and comfort to the enemy in time of warfare. It is not realistic to hope that Kerry will ever be indicted for his crimes against his country, but we must not allow this man to become President of our nation and Commander-in-Chief of our armed forces.
Oh puhleeze!!! What a bunch of nonsense!! Kerry showed courage and true patriotism by (a) being under fire in Vietnam and (b) having the sense to tell the truth about that horrible war and its conduct/leadership once he got a chance to do so away from the front line. The neo-cons instead try to paint the Vietnam War as an opportunity lost, almost like the "stab in the back" philosophy that the Nazi party held about the Weimar regime regarding the defeat of Germany in WWI. Those of us who were alive and of draft-age at the time remember all too well what the Vietnam War was really about, some of us (myself, fortunately not among them) with battle wounds and emotional scars that they will carry for the rest of their lives. And you DARE to question Kerry's patriotism? May God help us all....
Re: Oh puhleeze!!! Those who did suffer battle wounds and emotional scars were promptly stabbed in the back by John Kerry when he testified under oath in front of the U.S. Senate that American soldiers were war criminals. One of those people who suffered both battle wounds and emotional scars is my uncle, who has been calling Kerry a phony and a traitor for years. I now understand why. Don't believe me? Listen to Kerry's own words. Look at "Sellout", August 20th; http://swift4.he.net/~swift4/index.php?topic=Ads
The "aid and comfort" standard is the same one applied to treason; it does not apply to constitutionally protected speech. Even the old sedition laws (long since declared unconstitutional by '71) wouldn't have come into play, as Kerry didn't advocate violent overthrow of the government. Cheers,
IMO, giving sworn testimony to the US Senate that the North Vietnamese then used to demoralize American POW's is certainly giving aid to the enemy. American POW's were tortured for years in attempts to get them to say what John Kerry said freely in front of the Senate. I'm not so sure. I have read accounts that Kerry was present at a meeting of the Vietnam Veteran's group he helped to start, where the assassination of certain pro-war US Senators was discussed.
If constitutionally protected speech happens to potentially benefit the enemy as an incidental effect, it still does not meet the "aid and comfort" standard of treason law. If it did, it would be illegal to criticize the government in any way during wartime. I can't speak to the other rumor because I have no reason to believe that it's true. Larry Flynt claims that Bush paid a woman to have an abortion in 1971; I don't believe that because there isn't any evidence to support it. Ditto the claim that Bush is on heavy psychiatric medication. The fact that I happen to disagree with a politician doesn't mean that I'm going to swallow any negative rumors that circulate about him/her. You know as well as I do that when the facts aren't interesting enough, people are usually more than happy to make stuff up--especially in an election year. Cheers,
Just as whether Kerry deserved all his medals, this subject is wide-open for debate. However, there is no doubt at all that Kerry smeared every military member when he made those outrageous statements in front of the US Senate in 1971. His words were used as propaganda by the enemy while they tortured our POW's. That alone disqualifies him from being Commander-In-Chief, IMO.
Outrageous statements? So, are you saying that American soldiers *weren't* committing war crimes in Vietnam? Maybe Mai Lai was just a "frat party gone wrong" like Abu Ghraib. Guess all the pictures of burned children running out of napalmed hamlets was just a lot of photoshop work, or perhaps part of a "liberal media conspiracy"... Perhaps if the war had been pursued for legitimate reasons in the first place, the North Vietnamese wouldn't have been so successful in using THE TRUTH as "propaganda". It's disgusting that any of Bush's supporters, especially Bush and Cheney themselves, would have the audacity to criticize someone who at least WENT TO THE WAR! Are you telling me it's more insulting to the military to have the integrity of a soldier who'd actually participated in combat slandered by those who did everything in their power to avoid serving their country (FIVE DEFERRMENTS?!?! Because he "had more important things to do.."?!), or would it be more insulting to the military that two people who didn't even SERVE would have the nerve to criticize anyone who had?! I can't believe "Hanoi Jane" was referenced yet again...I sincerely hope there's not some association being made between her and Kerry, especially since the very photograph that launched the dubious connections was proven to be FAKE. This is just IMHO, and I personally don't really care for John Kerry either. But, the most obvious and most important fact is constantly being overlooked: AT LEAST HE WAS THERE.
Actually, the question of whether speech critical of the government constitutes treason pretty much is a settled issue; it doesn't. See Yates v. United States (1957) and Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969). Unless you're suggesting that there was an International Society for the Promotion of Antiwar Activity and Vietnamese Torture to which Kerry and the torturers both belonged, I don't really see how you can define this as providing "aid and comfort" to the enemy. The fact is that a lot of antiwar material was used to torture U.S. soldiers--I mean, it seems a safe bet that accounts of the My Lai massacre were, and that actually happened. Kerry would have had no reason to favor torture of U.S. soldiers; he was expressing his constitutionally protected opinions about the conflict, making claims that he no doubt believed (and understandably believed) to be true at the time. Kerry's criticism of U.S. activity in Vietnam does not prohibit him from becoming president in Constitutional terms. If you believe it does in moral terms, that's certainly your right. Personally, I don't agree; I think Vietnam was a horrible mistake, and I think some U.S. soldiers did commit atrocities for which they were never punished. Even My Lai never would have become public if journalist Seymour Hersh hadn't stumbled across it; how many similar events have been protected by silence? "Cheers" would be kind of an odd signoff here,
On a "day-to-day" basis, as John Kerry testifed to the U.S. Senate? NO!!!! American soldiers did NOT commit war crimes on a "day-to-day" basis, as claimed by Senator Kerry. Do you disagree with me? Listen to Senator Kerry's own words. Click on "Sellout - August 20, 2004". http://www2.swiftvets.com/index.php?topic=Ads So, in your opinion, American solidiers who served in Vietnam are "war criminals"? That was THE TRUTH, according to you. I WAS THERE for the first Persian Gulf War. I could have faked numerous medals for myself like Kerry, but I chose to stay with my unit for the entire 7-month overseas deployment.
Legally, no, of course not. Moral terms, certainly. American P.O.W.'s in Vietnam were tortured for years in attempts to get them to say what John Kerry said freely & willingly in front of the U.S. Senate. Vietnam was not a tactical mistake, it was a horrible political mistake. The United States Armed Forces could have taken North Vietnam in a matter of weeks. President Johnson decided to "fight" a political war, which resulted in all sorts of restrictions that eventually doomed the U.S. As for U.S. soldiers committing atrocities, that might have happened. However, I very rarely see mention of the North Vietnamese tricks of using children as bait for a bomb/ambush. Isn't that an "atrocity"??
I'd be the first to agree that the North Vietnamese committed "day by day" atrocities that were far worse than anything the U.S. did, with the exception of the civilian massacres. Likewise, what the Baathists did to the Abu Ghraib prisoners was much worse than what we did. But we can't let these folks lower the bar; we're the United States, and there are some things we just don't do. I also completely agree that Vietnam was a political failure rather than a tactical failure. Could the U.S. have won the war if it had been conducted in a more aggressive way? I have no idea; it depends on how much resistance we would have met. Cheers,
In the context of his testimony, such laws wouldn't have applied even if he had since doing so would still have qualified as constitutionally-protected free speech. White's argument is ridiculous, but will nevertheless continue to resonate with those who refuse to see truth.
From the source I wonder what would happen around here if everyone actually read, in its entirety and within the context in which it was presented, and quoted therefrom instead of from the carefully-edited snippets from the intentionally-misleading swiftboat veterans web site, the actual testimony of John Kerry from back in 1971. Truth. What a concept.
Re: From the source I've read it. He sold out his comrades and stained the honorable service of everyone who served in Vietnam. Even Long Jawn himself has said that his testimony was "a bit much" or words to that effect. Understatement of the year. Indeed.
