Kerry staring at failure in the face
Find a Conversation
Kerry staring at failure in the face
| Thu, 07-29-2004 - 11:54pm |
As the balloons misfire, Kerry and crew are pictured with fear on their faces..... the first failure of the Kerry campaign.... if he's this terrified of misfiring balloons... what the heck did he look like in combat? http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20040730/capt.dnc15907300309.cvn_kerry_dnc159.jpg

Pages
Regarding your friends fantasy... sorry I don't see it as relevent to this discussion. Perhaps you could demonstrate some relevency and then I'd comment.
Again you have avoided answering my question.
Did Kerry say he committed atrocities, or did he use the words: WAR CRIMINAL?
Because as 'Atrocities' go, such as killing women and children, or torching entire villages, it's not as if women and children had never tried to kill Americans there, or harbored terrorists from the north.
Of course, if he said WAR CRIMINAL, then he's got issues way beyond foot-in-mouth disease.
This helping??
I obviously disagree with these words. If something was done that was wrong, it should be brought up. If I witnessed my best friend killing someone, I would definately go straight to the police.(sorry mystic!) I believe in being honest, and I have a definite line when it comes to ethics and morals. What you do to others, definately comes back to you. It may take years and it may not exactly what you have done, but it always comes back, good or bad.
But then again, you are the same person who believes Bush is holding Osama as a trump card. So you think it is wrong for one person to tell the truth about atrocities that happened, but you think it is a good idea to hold the one man responsible for 9-11 as political bait.
If you ask me, that is a totally messed up world..
"There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages."
"All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare, all of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this is ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down."
Appearing on "The Dick Cavett Show" in July 1971, Kerry admitted that he'd never actually seen some of the atrocities he testified about, but still maintained that U.S. soldiers fighting in Vietnam routinely violated the Nuremberg Principles.
"I personally didn't see personal atrocities in the sense I saw somebody cut a head off or something like that," he told Cavett. "However, I did take part in free-fire zones, I did take part in harassment and interdiction fire, I did take part in search-and-destroy missions in which the houses of noncombatants were burned to the ground."
Kerry continued:
"And all of these acts, I find out later on, are contrary to the Hague and Geneva conventions and to the laws of warfare. So in that sense, anybody who took part in those, if you carry out the application of the Nuremberg Principles, is in fact guilty."
Here, John Kerry says that shooting in a “free-fire zone,” conducting harassment and interdiction fire, search-and-destroy missions, and burning villages were contrary to the Geneva Conventions on the Conduct of War. Thus, he was under no obligation to perform them. Further, there were standing orders in both Korea and Vietnam that allegations of war crimes be promptly investigated and reported to headquarters. By failing to report these breeches of law and treaty, LTJG John Kerry became guilty of the Article 92 (UCMJ) offenses of failing to obey a lawful general order (Article 92(a), UCMJ) and/or dereliction of duty (Article 92( c ), UCMJ). Even if he did not know of the war crimes that he says he committed himself but presumably saw and heard of others (presumably including his subordinates) commit then he would still possibly be guilty of the offense of misprision of a serious offense (Article 134, UCMJ) and the military case law tells us that he was responsible for those things committed by his subordinates (remember he was an officer) regardless of the existence of orders that allegations of war crimes be promptly investigated and reported to headquarters. In fact, he was guilty of these offenses even if war crimes were NOT being committed because he thought they were war crimes. (There is an excellent article about the concept of command responsibility for war crimes provided by the US Military for training its own officers https://hosta.atsc.eustis.army.mil/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/accp/is1801/ch2.htm .) His orders were to investigate and report. If he investigated and decided that they were not, then John Kerry was either an opportunistic liar or was intentionally attempting to give aid and comfort to our enemies by using statements he knew to be false to shift public opinion in a manner favorable to our enemies.
John Kerry did one of four things in 1971, none of them good:
He committed and admitted to the court martialable offenses of failure to obey a general order and/or dereliction of duty
He committed and admitted to the court martialable offense of misprision of a serious offense (that is: he knew about it and did not report it)
He lied for personal, political gain when he said that he had both witnessed and participated in the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity
He committed treason by attempting to create a political climate favorable to our enemies by making statements about the legality of actions he claims to both have witnessed and participated in when he knew those actions to have been lawful.
Pages