Originally posted by Martlet :
"So unless someone has been tried and convicted of a crime, a crime hasn't been committed?"
Per your general question:
1) We need to see if a crime has in fact been committed.
2) If true, then we need to find the suspect, then if the facts warrant, then...
3) Charges are brought against the suspect and....
4) He is tried in a court of law.
5) Only then if found guilty, is he then guilty of the crime.
But let's unspin this back to if Kerry did in fact negotiate with NV officials. What did he offer? In what way do you know for a fact he compromised National Security? Kerry even waaay back when testified that he in fact did have contact with NV officials. That alone didn't seem to warrant charges being filed against him. He said he was trying to see about the release of American POW's.
Here's my guess: Had this been a Republican that tried it, you'd all be saying "What a wonderful American!"
What criteria do you use when making statements? When someone made charges of Bush being AWOL(
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/newreply.php?s=&action=newreply&postid=1352823), you responded:
Originally posted by Martlet : "More charges of AWOL? Could you post a link to the NJP procedings?"
Seems you(as well as some others) have one set of criteria for Republicans and another for Democrats as to guilt or innocence.