Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: lasersailor184 on September 23, 2004, 09:31:03 PM
-
If you have ever read the constitution and the ammendments (not many have), you'd catch a very important piece of it that has great relevance in this upcoming election.
Ammendment 14, section 3:
"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."
So, I hate to tell you democrats...
-
Uh huh riiiiiiight.. protesting our involvement in Vietnam is almost exactly the same thing as running ammo for those whoopee little communist gooks, isn't it? I think Kerry shoulda been strung up by his big toes... treason! TREASON I TELL YOU!
How's that for a foaming at the mouth Republican (who, it must be said, probably fled, er.. traveled.. to Canada on "important business").
I think I did a pretty good job.
-
do you honestly think this hasn't been reviewed before?
-
Uhhh, urchin. He admitted to approaching and talking to the Vietnamese when we were in the peace talks.
And no, I don't. Because kerry hasn't had his name cleared in congress. Plus not many people read into what the constitution says, seeing as how it's only the top law of the land.
-
then you are clearly mistaken.
also he has not commited treason. he simple came back and protest. and guess what. in america you are allowed to do that.
-
You're special, Laser. Don't ever change.
-
Love ya!
:aok
-
Uh guys, Kerry himself has admitted that he approached the vietnamese outside of the peace talks.
He has admitted he committed treason...
-
One of a kind!
-
Originally posted by B17Skull12
also he has not commited treason. he simple came back and protest. and guess what. in america you are allowed to do that.
Were have you been for the past 4 months/ It has been discussed here many times, he admits to have gone to Paris and met with North VN officials. That's more then "simple came back and protested"
And guess what in america your NOT allowed to do that during war time.
-
For one, that's never been discussed here. Go ahead and discuss, but don't do the usual and act like the whole case is wrapped up as if it were bonafied accepted treason to which we've already admitted 4 months ago.
For two, this sounds a lot like Reagan, during his campaign against Carter, sending Bush Sr. to France to meet with Iranian officials - securing the hostages' right to be even further detained until Reagan got voted in.
-
From what I read, he met with South Vietnamese negotiators. I know they look the same, but it was two different countries back then.
Also... could someone point me towards the declaration of war with North Vietnam? I must have misplaced my copy.
-
Originally posted by Nash
For one, that's never been discussed here. Go ahead and discuss, but don't do the usual and act like the whole case is wrapped up as if it were bonafied accepted treason to which we've already admitted 4 months ago.
For two, this sounds a lot like Reagan, during his campaign against Carter, sending Bush Sr. to France to meet with Iranian officials - securing the hostages' right to be even further detained until Reagan got voted in.
We were not at war with Iran, and yes we have discussed kerry going to Paris.
-
Where is war mentioned in the quote from the constitution?
"or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."
-
Yeah? We did? Link me k?
-
LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS RELATING TO THE WAR IN SOUTHEAST ASIA
THURSDAY, APRIL 22, 1971
UNITED STATES SENATE;
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS,
Washington, D.C.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:05 a.m., in Room 4221, New Senate Office Building, Senator J. W. Fulbright (Chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Fulbright, Symington, Pell, Aiken, Case, and Javits.
The CHAIRMAN. Do you support or do you have any particular views about any one of them you wish to give the committee?
Mr. KERRY. My feeling, Senator, is undoubtedly this Congress, and I don't mean to sound pessimistic, but I do not believe that this Congress will, in fact, end the war as we would like to, which is immediately and unilaterallyand, therefore, if I were to speak I would say we would set a date and the date obviously would be the earliest possible date. But I would like to say, in answering that, that I do not believe it is necessary to stall any longer.I have been to Paris. I have talked with both delegations at the peace talks, that is to say the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the Provisional Revolutionary Government and of all eight of Madam Binh's points it has been stated time and time again, and was stated by Senator Vance Hartke when he returned from Paris, and it has been stated by many other officials of this Government, if the United States were to set a date for withdrawal the prisoners of war would be returned.
-------------------------------------------------
In his own words "I have been to Pairs and meet with PRG, that would be the north VN government, or perhaps you could call them the ENEMY.
Damn that one will leave a mark.
-
Cool, but that wasn't a link to any discussion of it by us.
And the subject itself, imho, is silly.
-
The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) is a federal law, enacted by Congress. Its provisions are contained in United States Code, Title 10, Chapter 47. Article 36 of the UCMJ allows the President to prescribe rules and procedures to implement the provisions of the UCMJ. The President does this via the Manual for Courts-Martial (MCM) which is an executive order that contains detailed instructions for implementing military law for the United States Armed Forces.
The UCMJ states:
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.
What we know.
"I have been to Paris. I have talked with both delegations at the peace talks, that is to say the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the Provisional Revolutionary Government and of all eight of Madam Binh's points...
-
Originally posted by ra
Where is war mentioned in the quote from the constitution?
"or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."
Officially, Vietnam wasn't a war. ;)
-
Well I guess we need to round up Henry Kissinger and all the other traitorous scum that were at the peace talks. Does anybody have the names of those US officials, Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine personel that were in Paris. We can line all of them up against the wall and get it over with. Hey, we can get all those sorry good for nothing Korean War peace negotiators while we are at it and have a real shindig. Laser, you want to be the trigger man? :rolleyes:
-
"Officially, Vietnam wasn't a war"
oops...
-
I just realised, President Reagan met Gorby and even let the commie bastage sleep in the White House during the Cold War when they were our enemy. You know Nancy had to serve them something. That's definitely aid and comfort. Put her against the wall too.
-
Originally posted by rpm371
I was going to reponsed, but why bother.
-
Exactly JBA. Laser's whole premise is asinine.
-
while you are doing your reading try skimming over the part about "presumption of innocence until proven guilty in a court of law".
even if we were to give any credit to your interpretation of his actions, theres still a problem.
he was never charged, never tried, never convicted, for all legal purposes it didn't happen.
while you're reaching way out there anyway. why don't you see if you can stick some charges on Bush, with the damage he's done to this country, you'd likely reach him before Kerry.
amazing that Americans could think that a man speaking his mind, and testifying before congress (on a subject that I've heard no-one claim, was in any way classified) would be treason.
you have a vastly different idea of what makes a traitor, a patriot, or some blind sheep who bleats along with the herd, than I do.
maybe you're living in a different America than I grew up in. lately it seems that I am too.
-
Originally posted by rpm371
Well I guess we need to round up Henry Kissinger and all the other traitorous scum that were at the peace talks. Does anybody have the names of those US officials, Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine personel that were in Paris. We can line all of them up against the wall and get it over with. Hey, we can get all those sorry good for nothing Korean War peace negotiators while we are at it and have a real shindig. Laser, you want to be the trigger man? :rolleyes:
It is illegal for plain civilans, not acting as agents of the US government, to engage in such talks with representatives foreign governments. John Kerry was not there as an agent of the US government.. So your argument is pointless RPM, but nice try..
-
New conservative protest theme: Dissent is TREASON!!
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
It is illegal for plain civilans, not acting as agents of the US government, to engage in such talks with representatives foreign governments. John Kerry was not there as an agent of the US government.. So your argument is pointless RPM, but nice try..
Care to show me where it is illegal for a civilian to engage in peace talks with diplomats? I'm thinking we have a lot of people to jail.
-
Originally posted by rpm371
Care to show me where it is illegal for a civilian to engage in peace talks with diplomats? I'm thinking we have a lot of people to jail.
I cant find a direct link to the law but every news article about this mentions it..
Here is a CNN link.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/23/swiftboat.ad/index.html
"U.S. law forbids private citizens from negotiating with foreign governments on matters such as peace treaties."
Even Kerry's biased spin admits he was seriously close to violating that law, so you can guess what the truth ofd the mattrer was...
-
God, we're all online pilots and we have 9 to 5 jobs...but now suddenly we're government workers that read the constitution and pick out the little things that probably someone would have done so BY NOW in the media and/or in public.
-
---------
"U.S. law forbids private citizens from negotiating with foreign governments on matters such as peace treaties."
Even Kerry's biased spin admits he was seriously close to violating that law, so you can guess what the truth ofd the mattrer was...
---------
Well... if we're going to get all legal about it... The Vietnam conflict was not a war.
-
Whatever you need to do to feel better about Kerry...
-
I don't have to feel good about Kerry. I feel bad enough about Bush. ;)
C'mon Grun... you can vote just to cancel me. :cool:
-
Ahh yes the glory of voting, I just might do it this time around.. Will write-in some obscenties, that will be the most honest vote I can think of..
-
If Kerry hadn't made vietnam such an important topic this wouldn't have ever come up.
It's not like we are digging through deep books of laws trying to find some wierd clause to try to get Kerry with.
We're looking at ammendment 14 of the constitution. And we don't have to interpret anything to see that Kerry can't hold public office by his own claims.
Btw, Kerry was an Officer of the US at that time when he talked to the PRG. He was required to do some time as a Officer in the reserves after he got out. So he was not a civilian.
-
I think I'm voting for Charlie Brown... maybe Snoopy as a dark horse.
-
I'm voting for Jimmy Cracked Corn, because I don't care!
-SW
-
I am voting for Mason, cuz he posts the best pr0n.
-
"U.S. law forbids private citizens from negotiating with foreign governments on matters such as peace treaties."
talking with them and negotiating are 2 completely different things. if he didn't offer concessions, make demands, or actually try to set up terms and conditions of a peace treaty he wasn't negotiating, he was discussing.
from fox news---------------------------
"Senator Kerry had no role whatsoever in the Paris peace talks or negotiations. He did not engage in any negotiations and did not attend any session of the talks. Prior to his Senate testimony, he went to Paris on a private trip, where he had one brief meeting with Madame Binh and others. In an effort to find facts, he learned the status of the peace talks from their point of view and about any progress in resolving the conflict, particularly as it related to the fate of the POWs."
----------------------------------------------
so while on a private trip he has a meeting, he doesn't take part in any negotiations or even attend them as an observer.
he did get a chance to talk with some of the NV representatives. he asked them questions about the fate of our POW's and questions relating to their release if the negotiations (that again he took no part in) were successful.
OK, I can see your side of the issue now.-
an ex US serviceman who served in Vietnam (yes technically he was on inactive reserve. unless you end up getting called up for an emergency, thats out of the service, it has no pay or duties), has a chance to talk to representatives from NV. he has the meeting and asks how they think the talks are going and about the fate of fellow servicemen who are being held captive, asks of their welfare and questions regarding their release.
ya, what a traitorous, low-life scumbag. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Sandman
New conservative protest theme: Dissent is TREASON!!
you're mistaken , it's not new.
-
Kerry was trying to get our prisoners released. That's treason? LOL, some here need to get a grip.
Show me the official charges of treason by our government.
Then show me his conviction.
Until then, your warped sense of saying it so doesn't make it so.
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
Kerry was trying to get our prisoners released. That's treason? LOL, some here need to get a grip.
Show me the official charges of treason by our government.
Then show me his conviction.
Until then, your warped sense of saying it so doesn't make it so.
_____________________________ ____________________
Thats the Democratic spin on it ^^
Here is the law:
_____________________________ __________________
Any person who . . . without proper authority, knowingly . . . 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.
_____________________________ __________________
At the time he went to talk to the VC government officials in gay Paris, he was still a military officer. That TV show JAG could do an episode on this story. When he came back he talked smack about our military. Those poor SOBs in the POW camps were mad to listen to Kerry’s Senate testimony. The VC prison guards really put the pressure on the POWs to sign confessions i.e. they got medieval on them. The last Dem/socialist spin is, Kerry went to Paris for his honeymoon.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort_____________________ ___________
Any person who . . . without proper authority, knowingly . . . 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.
_____________________________ __________
"as a court-martial or military commission may direct."
so, he'd actually have to be charged, tried, have actual evidence and testimony brought against him, given a chance to defend himself in court, and then be convicted and sentenced by a court martial or military commission.
his right to hold public office can't be revoked by a group of neo-cons on an internet BBS? man, that was a close one. he sure got lucky there.
-
What spin, he himself testified that he did have contacts with NV personell about the release of our US soldiers.
Again, you spin it. Where's the official charge of "treason"? Conviction?
Oh, I get it! By your logic then Bush is guilty or being AWOL, or desertion! Wow, things are sooo much easier when we actually don't have to have trials to determine one's guilt. Spin away Rip, spin away!
-
Saburo even the best Kerry's spin machine could say was the he he was bordering on violatring that law...
-
...in other words, "He has committed no crime."
NEXT!
-
Grun,
I couldn't care less the political affilliation of the individual that tries to secure the release of our own, provided he's not giving up anything in return. That to me is a very pro-active, pro-American thing to do.
Now if on the other hand, someone was giving up secrets, intel, etc., to make a deal, then I'd say charge him with treason!
Fact: Kerry has neither been charged, nor convicted of treason as no crime has been committed.
But feel free to keep spinning it.
-
US law forbids private citizens from negotiating with foreign governments wrt to peace treaties and such..
Even the best Kerry's SPIN people can say in defense is that he skirted the boundary of that law.
But I see that doesnt bother you, if anything it just seems to make you like Kerry more...
But hey ABB, right?
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
Fact: Kerry has neither been charged, nor convicted of treason as no crime has been committed.
But feel free to keep spinning it.
So unless someone has been tried and convicted of a crime, a crime hasn't been committed?
-
CAPTURE AND ARREST JIMMY CARTER IMMEDIATELY!
-
LOL, oh trust me, I'm not a fan of Kerry's. ;)
-
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.
-
SHAKAKAN!
-
so isn't he talkign about Regan?
-
(u mean boosh sr.)
-
<------gonna vote for Kerry
anything to get Butch outta the whitehouse:lol
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
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.
You can't even compare the two discussions, however I'm not surprised you went back months to find an attempt to change the topic.
First, negotiating with the enemy in a time of war while holding a public office isn't allowed. It's been shown here it isn't allowed. If you're arguing it IS allowed, then you need to get someone to help you read. Second, Kerry ADMITTED to doing this. Are you saying he's lying? So, we have established the guidelines for what's allowed and we have a confession. Why hasn't there been a trial? Because people don't care. It was a crappy war, American opinion was in turmoil, and prosecuting protestors was bad form. If Kerry had negotiated with Hitler during WWII it would have been another story.
Now Bush. First, it's been shown he missed 6 months of drills. That isn't AWOL unless he isn't excused. He doesn't even have to make them up if he is excused. He just won't get credit for the year if he finishes without enough points. However, his pay records indicate he DID make them up. The Democraps have been beating this horse for 4 years and have yet to find a single shred of evidence that he was AWOL. So, if you're going to say he was AWOL, prove it. His pay records prove otherwise.
So no, I don't have a different set of guidelines. I just expect evidence.
-
Originally posted by dragoon
<------gonna vote for Kerry
anything to get Butch outta the whitehouse:lol
Al Queda approves!:aok
-
Kerry and Osama Bin Ladin '04 :aok
Boycott Heintz Catsup and French Fries...
Heh Just figure how much money Kerry and Teresa has and all the starving people in America...
Let them eat cake....
Fanning the Flames of Freedom.
Free America!
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Al Queda approves!:aok
say.....i hear they are in butches pocket not kerrys:rolleyes:
-
Martlet, you state Kerry negotiated with the NV officials. You know that for a fact or are you guessing here? Kerry admitted to meeting with the NV officials (I've posted that what 3 times already?) about releasing our prisoners. It is public record, not something that Kerry is hiding. He himself testified to it.
What did Kerry have to negotiate with?
Changing topics? Hardly. I was showing you how you yourself want to see evidence/conviction/proof (not a bad thing actually) when someone makes charges against a Republican, yet when it involves a Democrat, innuendoes are proof enough. Remember, meeting with some officials does not mean negotiating with them.
I'm asking you for the proof that you know for a fact that Kerry negotiated with NV officials.
BTW, just to clear the record, I don't know for a fact that Bush was AWOL or that he deserted during his service. "Evidence" so far stated is not concrete enough to convince me. Could he have? Sure. But he very well could have served out his time.
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
Martlet, you state Kerry negotiated with the NV officials. You know that for a fact or are you guessing here? Kerry admitted to meeting with the NV officials (I've posted that what 3 times already?) about releasing our prisoners. It is public record, not something that Kerry is hiding. He himself testified to it.
What did Kerry have to negotiate with?
Changing topics? Hardly. I was showing you how you yourself want to see evidence/conviction/proof (not a bad thing actually) when someone makes charges against a Republican, yet when it involves a Democrat, innuendoes are proof enough. Remember, meeting with some officials does not mean negotiating with them.
I'm asking you for the proof that you know for a fact that Kerry negotiated with NV officials.
BTW, just to clear the record, I don't know for a fact that Bush was AWOL or that he deserted during his service. "Evidence" so far stated is not concrete enough to convince me. Could he have? Sure. But he very well could have served out his time.
April 22, 1971 LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS RELATING TO THE WAR IN SOUTHEAST ASIA -
UNITED STATES SENATE;
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS,
Washington, D.C.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:05 a.m., in Room 4221, New Senate Office Building, Senator J. W. Fulbright (Chairman) presiding.
.
.
.
CHAIRMAN. Do you support or do you have any particular views about any one of them you wish to give the committee?
KERRY. My feeling, Senator, is undoubtedly this Congress, and I don't mean to sound pessimistic, but I do not believe that this Congress will, in fact, end the war as we would like to, which is immediately and unilaterally and, therefore, if I were to speak I would say we would set a date and the date obviously would be the earliest possible date. But I would like to say, in answering that, that I do not believe it is necessary to stall any longer. I have been to Paris. I have talked with both delegations at the peace talks, that is to say the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the Provisional Revolutionary Government and of all eight of Madam Binh's points it has been stated time and time again, and was stated by Senator Vance Hartke when he returned from Paris, and it has been stated by many other officials of this Government, if the United States were to set a date for withdrawal the prisoners of war would be returned.
.
.
.
KERRY. Mr. Chairman, I realize that full well as a study of political science. I realize that we cannot negotiate treaties and I realize that even my visits in Paris, precedents had been set by Senator McCarthy and others, in a sense are on the borderline of private individuals negotiating, et cetera. I understand these things. But what I am saying is that I believe that there is a mood in this country which I know you are aware of and you have been one of the strongest critics of this war for the longest time. But I think if we can talk in this legislative body about filibustering for porkbarrel programs, then we should start now to talk about filibustering for the saving of lives and of our country.