Wounded vet not a "True Hero"

[daveman]

Again.

Thank you for conceding that your USC and UCMJ links do not apply.

I did no such thing. Why do you have to make things up?

Oh, yes -- because reality does not support your beliefs.

Sure you did - by changing the subject instead of countering my argument.


Care to try again?

Wow. You're stupid.

May I present again your argument:

He cannot control his emotions.

It will get worse, the closer we get to the election...he did the same thing in 2008 on another board.

I don't see anything in there that counters my claim that Kerry violated the law and the UCMJ.

You really can't make an argument without making shit up, can you?

Pathetic.

 

[Synthaholic]

I did no such thing. Why do you have to make things up?

Oh, yes -- because reality does not support your beliefs.

Sure you did - by changing the subject instead of countering my argument.


Care to try again?

Wow. You're stupid.

May I present again your argument:

He cannot control his emotions.

It will get worse, the closer we get to the election...he did the same thing in 2008 on another board.

I don't see anything in there that counters my claim that Kerry violated the law and the UCMJ.

You really can't make an argument without making shit up, can you?

Pathetic.

Wow.

You're so busy trying to display what a total asshole you are to everyone, you don't even bother reading the replies to your flailing nonsense:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/congress/232431-wounded-vet-not-a-true-hero-11.html#post5599224

 

[daveman]

Sure you did - by changing the subject instead of countering my argument.


Care to try again?

Wow. You're stupid.

May I present again your argument:

He cannot control his emotions.

It will get worse, the closer we get to the election...he did the same thing in 2008 on another board.

I don't see anything in there that counters my claim that Kerry violated the law and the UCMJ.

You really can't make an argument without making shit up, can you?

Pathetic.

Wow.

You're so busy trying to display what a total asshole you are to everyone, you don't even bother reading the replies to your flailing nonsense:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/congress/232431-wounded-vet-not-a-true-hero-11.html#post5599224

My apologies -- I missed that post.

Nevertheless, you fail. "Private correspondence" means the opposite of "official correspondence". And since Kerry was not acting officially, he was acting privately.

So he broke the law.

Re: your laughable attempt to prove Kerry did not violate the UCMJ, there is nothing in that article requiring a declaration of war.

So he violated the UCMJ.

You know, it really is okay if you admit liberals break the law. You won't burst into flames.

 

[bodecea]

Wow. You're stupid.

May I present again your argument:

​

I don't see anything in there that counters my claim that Kerry violated the law and the UCMJ.

You really can't make an argument without making shit up, can you?

Pathetic.

Wow.

You're so busy trying to display what a total asshole you are to everyone, you don't even bother reading the replies to your flailing nonsense:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/congress/232431-wounded-vet-not-a-true-hero-11.html#post5599224

My apologies -- I missed that post.

Nevertheless, you fail. "Private correspondence" means the opposite of "official correspondence". And since Kerry was not acting officially, he was acting privately.

So he broke the law.

Re: your laughable attempt to prove Kerry did not violate the UCMJ, there is nothing in that article requiring a declaration of war.

So he violated the UCMJ.

You know, it really is okay if you admit liberals break the law. You won't burst into flames.

He was active duty when he went to Paris?

 

[Too Tall]

They most certainly do.

No, they don't.

18 USC § 953 - Private correspondence with foreign governments | LII / Legal Information Institute

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.​

​

That pertains to private correspondence - Look! It's right there in the title! Kerry was very public.

And then there's the UCMJ:

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.​

But you'll continue to bitterly cling to your ignorance.

Since we didn't declare war on Vietnam, perhaps you can find an official proclamation from the U.S. government declaring Vietnam our enemy.

Perhaps not.

Point taken. If we had declared war, Kerry would have been condemned as the low-life treasonous bastard that he is.

 

[bobgnote]

No, they don't.

18 USC § 953 - Private correspondence with foreign governments | LII / Legal Information Institute

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.​

​

That pertains to private correspondence - Look! It's right there in the title! Kerry was very public.

And then there's the UCMJ:

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.​

But you'll continue to bitterly cling to your ignorance.

Since we didn't declare war on Vietnam, perhaps you can find an official proclamation from the U.S. government declaring Vietnam our enemy.

Perhaps not.

Point taken. If we had declared war, Kerry would have been condemned as the low-life treasonous bastard that he is.

It still seems to me the point of the Viet Nam War was for Presidents to prove, how they can wage illegal conflict, without proper legal grounding, but we later find out:

1. Tonkin Gulf incident was bullshit
2. Oil is being drilled, in the Gulf of Tonkin
3. JFK intended to remove advisers
4. the 1960s economy needed a boost
5. all kinds of Amercians are DDDs or greedDDs, who have no clue about applicable laws, starting with legal war or treason or other related media, so USCA 4 security is trashed, generally
6. IDIOCRACY seemed like a funny movie, until it got too realistic

 

[Vast LWC]

No, it's a thread concerning the Congressional douchebag Joe Walsh denigrating the service of Congressional challenger Colonel Tammy Duckworth.

The Congress Forum is for threads dealing with Congress members and actions (or in the case of the Republicans over the past 3+ years, inaction).

I'm not sure why this would be Congress, as opposed to Politics.

I'm not trying to say there's some sort of conspiracy among mods, I'm just saying it's categorized wrong.

I would think "Congress" would refer to actions and stories related to actions taken by Congress, not actions taken in a political race to decide who will be in Congress in the future.

 

[rightwinger]

No, it's a thread concerning the Congressional douchebag Joe Walsh denigrating the service of Congressional challenger Colonel Tammy Duckworth.

The Congress Forum is for threads dealing with Congress members and actions (or in the case of the Republicans over the past 3+ years, inaction).

I'm not sure why this would be Congress, as opposed to Politics.

I'm not trying to say there's some sort of conspiracy among mods, I'm just saying it's categorized wrong.

I would think "Congress" would refer to actions and stories related to actions taken by Congress, not actions taken in a political race to decide who will be in Congress in the future.

Who really cares?

 

[daveman]

Wow.

You're so busy trying to display what a total asshole you are to everyone, you don't even bother reading the replies to your flailing nonsense:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/congress/232431-wounded-vet-not-a-true-hero-11.html#post5599224

My apologies -- I missed that post.

Nevertheless, you fail. "Private correspondence" means the opposite of "official correspondence". And since Kerry was not acting officially, he was acting privately.

So he broke the law.

Re: your laughable attempt to prove Kerry did not violate the UCMJ, there is nothing in that article requiring a declaration of war.

So he violated the UCMJ.

You know, it really is okay if you admit liberals break the law. You won't burst into flames.

He was active duty when he went to Paris?

He was in the Naval Reserves, still subject to the UCMJ.

 

[daveman]

No, they don't.

18 USC § 953 - Private correspondence with foreign governments | LII / Legal Information Institute

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.​

​

That pertains to private correspondence - Look! It's right there in the title! Kerry was very public.

And then there's the UCMJ:

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.​

But you'll continue to bitterly cling to your ignorance.

Since we didn't declare war on Vietnam, perhaps you can find an official proclamation from the U.S. government declaring Vietnam our enemy.

Perhaps not.

Point taken. If we had declared war, Kerry would have been condemned as the low-life treasonous bastard that he is.

I condemn him as the low-life treasonous bastard that he is.

Of course, he was supporting Communists, so the left has no problem with it.

 

[rightwinger]

[/INDENT]That pertains to private correspondence - Look! It's right there in the title! Kerry was very public.

Since we didn't declare war on Vietnam, perhaps you can find an official proclamation from the U.S. government declaring Vietnam our enemy.

Perhaps not.​

Point taken. If we had declared war, Kerry would have been condemned as the low-life treasonous bastard that he is.​

I condemn him as the low-life treasonous bastard that he is.

Of course, he was supporting Communists, so the left has no problem with it.​

He was supporting his fellow servicemen trying to get us out of a stupidly conceived war

A true American Patriot​

 

[daveman]

Point taken. If we had declared war, Kerry would have been condemned as the low-life treasonous bastard that he is.

I condemn him as the low-life treasonous bastard that he is.

Of course, he was supporting Communists, so the left has no problem with it.

He was supporting his fellow servicemen trying to get us out of a stupidly conceived war

A true American Patriot

He endorsed what the Communists, our nation's enemy, wanted.

But thanks for proving my point: Of course, he was supporting Communists, so the left has no problem with it.

 

[bodecea]

My apologies -- I missed that post.

Nevertheless, you fail. "Private correspondence" means the opposite of "official correspondence". And since Kerry was not acting officially, he was acting privately.

So he broke the law.

Re: your laughable attempt to prove Kerry did not violate the UCMJ, there is nothing in that article requiring a declaration of war.

So he violated the UCMJ.

You know, it really is okay if you admit liberals break the law. You won't burst into flames.

He was active duty when he went to Paris?

He was in the Naval Reserves, still subject to the UCMJ.

Then why wasn't he charged? Or is it that he wasn't on Active Duty at the time....If you are a Reservist and it is not your drill weekend or two weeks active duty, are you still subject to the UCMJ?

 

[rightwinger]

I condemn him as the low-life treasonous bastard that he is.

Of course, he was supporting Communists, so the left has no problem with it.

He was supporting his fellow servicemen trying to get us out of a stupidly conceived war

A true American Patriot

He endorsed what the Communists, our nation's enemy, wanted.

But thanks for proving my point: Of course, he was supporting Communists, so the left has no problem with it.

He did what was best for his country unlike conservatives who insisted on throwing more and more soldiers into the meat grinder.....just so we could "beat the commies"

 

[daveman]

He was active duty when he went to Paris?

He was in the Naval Reserves, still subject to the UCMJ.

Then why wasn't he charged? Or is it that he wasn't on Active Duty at the time....If you are a Reservist and it is not your drill weekend or two weeks active duty, are you still subject to the UCMJ?

From the link that you obviously didn't read:

In the UCMJ, Article 104 has this under "Explanation" section:

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.
This seems to imply that in the case of Article 104, Aiding the enemy, individuals become subject to the provisions of the UCMJ whether or not they are subject to military law as it states above in (1).
Why would this be? Well think about it. If citizen "X" all of a sudden starts communicating or giving aid or information to sworn enemies, he then has entered the realm of military affairs and has made himself subject to certain governing rules. In effect, he has stopped being solely an observing civilian and crosses the line to that of a "militant". He could of course be charged with espionage or even treason under civilian statutes. However the UCMJ was designed to be robust, flexible and enforceable in any theater of the world.
Therefore if an American is caught in Afghanistan fighting with the Taliban, trial by UCMJ military commission (tribunal) would be an option. And Article 104 powers that option.
Certainly in Kerry's case, the UCMJ would have been very appropriate to use considering he did his communicating with the enemy as a ready reservist, fully commissioned naval officer. And he is lucky he did not get charged. The FBI was certainly monitoring his many VVAW activities. The reason he probably wasn't charged is insufficient hard evidence but more likely the reason was political. It would have politically disastrous for the Nixon administration.​

 

[daveman]

He was supporting his fellow servicemen trying to get us out of a stupidly conceived war

A true American Patriot

He endorsed what the Communists, our nation's enemy, wanted.

But thanks for proving my point: Of course, he was supporting Communists, so the left has no problem with it.

He did what was best for his country unlike conservatives who insisted on throwing more and more soldiers into the meat grinder.....just so we could "beat the commies"

Your sympathy for this nation's enemies is noted.

 

[rightwinger]

He endorsed what the Communists, our nation's enemy, wanted.

But thanks for proving my point: Of course, he was supporting Communists, so the left has no problem with it.

He did what was best for his country unlike conservatives who insisted on throwing more and more soldiers into the meat grinder.....just so we could "beat the commies"

Your sympathy for this nation's enemies is noted.

We lost over 60,000 American boys.....what did we get for it?

 

[bodecea]

He was in the Naval Reserves, still subject to the UCMJ.

Then why wasn't he charged? Or is it that he wasn't on Active Duty at the time....If you are a Reservist and it is not your drill weekend or two weeks active duty, are you still subject to the UCMJ?

From the link that you obviously didn't read:

In the UCMJ, Article 104 has this under "Explanation" section:

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.
This seems to imply that in the case of Article 104, Aiding the enemy, individuals become subject to the provisions of the UCMJ whether or not they are subject to military law as it states above in (1).
Why would this be? Well think about it. If citizen "X" all of a sudden starts communicating or giving aid or information to sworn enemies, he then has entered the realm of military affairs and has made himself subject to certain governing rules. In effect, he has stopped being solely an observing civilian and crosses the line to that of a "militant". He could of course be charged with espionage or even treason under civilian statutes. However the UCMJ was designed to be robust, flexible and enforceable in any theater of the world.
Therefore if an American is caught in Afghanistan fighting with the Taliban, trial by UCMJ military commission (tribunal) would be an option. And Article 104 powers that option.
Certainly in Kerry's case, the UCMJ would have been very appropriate to use considering he did his communicating with the enemy as a ready reservist, fully commissioned naval officer. And he is lucky he did not get charged. The FBI was certainly monitoring his many VVAW activities. The reason he probably wasn't charged is insufficient hard evidence but more likely the reason was political. It would have politically disastrous for the Nixon administration.​

So....it comes back to, why wasn't he court martialed? Nixon would have LOVED shutting him up...and for you to state that the Watergate President was worried about this one guy being "politically disastrous" is quite laughable....incredibly laughable.

 

[bodecea]

He endorsed what the Communists, our nation's enemy, wanted.

But thanks for proving my point: Of course, he was supporting Communists, so the left has no problem with it.

He did what was best for his country unlike conservatives who insisted on throwing more and more soldiers into the meat grinder.....just so we could "beat the commies"

Your sympathy for this nation's enemies is noted.

Is this the enemies that our own government negotiated with?

 

[daveman]

He did what was best for his country unlike conservatives who insisted on throwing more and more soldiers into the meat grinder.....just so we could "beat the commies"

Your sympathy for this nation's enemies is noted.

We lost over 60,000 American boys.....what did we get for it?

We had a chance at encouraging a free nation to develop.

But the left couldn't have that. They supporting the Communists, directly and indirectly.

The war protesters were working for our enemy.

And thanks to their work, millions of people died.

Overall, the best estimate of those killed after the Vietnam War by the victorious communists in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia is 2,270,000. Now totaling almost twice as many as died in the Vietnam War, this communist killing still continues.​

WAR VERSUS GENOCIDE AND MASS MURDER

Are you proud of yourself?