Much has been made of Senator John Kerry’s activities subsequent to his active duty naval service, including 1) his admitted 1970 trip to Paris, during which he met with a North Vietnamese official—he says that the meeting was inadvertent, 2) his testimony before a session of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee of 1971 regarding alleged war crimes committed by US military personnel, including himself, and 3) his admitted involvement with Vietnam Veterans Against the War. It has been presumed that the senator was a civilian when he participated in all of these activities. But was he?
From Just One Minute:
When Kerry was meeting with the North Vietnamese, accusing his fellow officers of war crimes, and meeting with a group that discussed the assassination of US Senators, he was an officer in the Naval Reserve.From Senator Kerry’s official campaign website:
Kerry volunteered for the United States Navy after college and served from 1966 through 1970 rising to the rank of Lieutenant, Junior Grade. Afterwards, Kerry continued his military service in the United States Naval Reserves through 1978.Senator Kerry has admitted to the 1970 Paris meeting as a private citizen to negotiate the release of POWs. But, unless there was a break in his service between active duty and reserve (a reasonable possibility), and he made that trip and meeting during that break, he was no private citizen, but still a military officer.
From the UCMJ:
904. 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.Did Lt. Kerry (maybe USNR in the year 1970) have proper authority to meet with those who were still our enemies, and--by his oath of office (insert "Navy" where the word "Army" appears), to which he may have still been bound--his? Inquiring minds, etc.
If he had a break in service, he sure got a lot done during that time.
Since he most definitely was a commissioned officer during the time interval of his Senate testimony, why was he not punished under the UCMJ for admitted war crimes? And why was this man allowed to become a US Senator?
From the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution:
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any 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 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 a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.Please send me a link regarding that particular House vote, if it exists.
Skip all the BS regarding medals and such. This is some serious business. What is going on here?
As a former enlisted woman, I know that enlisted personnel are to look to commissioned officers as our leaders--all military in-jokes aside. I'm finding the examples of Senator John Kerry's past leadership--both military and civilian--to be quite frightening. Certainly, young leaders make mistakes, but are the senator's leadership "mistakes" the product of immaturity or evidence of a more permanent character flaw?
(Thanks to Instapundit and to Atrios, or, rather, to one of his commenters)
UPDATE: (From Instapundit) There was no break in service.
UPDATE: See results of more research in the next post.
