Why wasn't John Kerry indicted 1n 1971

Navy Pride · Mar 27, 2006

John Kerry said in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee under oath that he personally took part in burning villages and killing civilians in free fire zones in Nam in 1971.........

Now if that is true, why was he not indicted and charged with war crimes Like Lt Calley was and if its not true why was he not indicted and charged with perjury for lying under oath?

Iriemon · Mar 27, 2006

Navy Pride said:
John Kerry said in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee under oath that he personally took part in burning villages and killing civilians in free fire zones in Nam in 1971.........

Now if that is true, why was he not indicted and charged with war crimes Like Lt Calley was and if its not true why was he not indicted and charged with perjury for lying under oath?

I give up. Why wasn't he?

Navy Pride · Mar 27, 2006

Iriemon said:
I give up. Why wasn't he?

That is the 64 dollar question my friend........The left want to indict Rove for no crime and here is a guy who is either and admitted war criminal or someone who has committed perjury in a time of war..........

Iriemon · Mar 27, 2006

Navy Pride said:
That is the 64 dollar question my friend........The left want to indict Rove for no crime and here is a guy who is either and admitted war criminal or someone who has committed perjury in a time of war..........

The vast left-wing conspiracy?

Navy Pride · Mar 27, 2006

Iriemon said:
The vast left-wing conspiracy?

No that is the "Ice Princess" Hillary with the conspiracy theory......

cnredd · Mar 28, 2006

[Moderator Mode]

Moved to "History"...

You know...1971 not being "Today's News" and all...

[/Moderator Mode]

aps · Mar 28, 2006

Navy Pride said:
John Kerry said in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee under oath that he personally took part in burning villages and killing civilians in free fire zones in Nam in 1971.........

Now if that is true, why was he not indicted and charged with war crimes Like Lt Calley was and if its not true why was he not indicted and charged with perjury for lying under oath?

That's not what he said, Navy Pride, and you know it. During that testimony, he was discussing what other soldiers had reported. Here is the beginning of his testimony:

I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with full awareness of officers at all levels of command.

It is impossible to describe to you exactly what did happen in Detroit, the emotions in the room, the feelings of the men who were reliving their experiences in Vietnam, but they did. They relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do.

They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, rased villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country. . . .

http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/graphics/Kerry_1971_Testimony.pdf

I see no admission that he committed such crimes.

Navy Pride · Mar 28, 2006

Not true aps, under oath he testified that he razzed and burned villages in no fire zones......The link has been posted in this forum many times..........I will try and find it for you again when I have a chance..................

I also saw a tape of him saying just that..........Why he did not get called on it I will never know...The only thing I can think of is the democrats controlled the senate in 1971 and would not push it........

Iriemon · Mar 28, 2006

Navy Pride said:
Not true aps, under oath he testified that he razzed and burned villages in no fire zones......The link has been posted in this forum many times..........I will try and find it for you again when I have a chance..................

I also saw a tape of him saying just that..........Why he did not get called on it I will never know...The only thing I can think of is the democrats controlled the senate in 1971 and would not push it........

Nah, the Senate is not the law enforcement branch. I think it more likely that it was that liberal pushover Nixon, you know how he was soft on crime and always worried about peoples' "civil rights" and nonsense like that.

aps · Mar 28, 2006

Navy Pride said:
Not true aps, under oath he testified that he razzed and burned villages in no fire zones......The link has been posted in this forum many times..........I will try and find it for you again when I have a chance..................

I also saw a tape of him saying just that..........Why he did not get called on it I will never know...The only thing I can think of is the democrats controlled the senate in 1971 and would not push it........

I remember seeing parts of Kerry's testimony (which I quoted above) where they had edited out Kerry's use of the word "they" so it looked like he was admitting that he had done those things. Is it at all possible that you were fooled into thinking he had made admissions during a hearing before Congress? You can admit it to me, tough guy.

Also, I don't believe that Congress has jurisdiction to indict John Kerry for any crimes.

shuamort · Mar 28, 2006

Navy Pride said:
That is the 64 dollar question my friend........The left want to indict Rove for no crime and here is a guy who is either and admitted war criminal or someone who has committed perjury in a time of war..........

Did Rove do things 30+ years ago or has he done something more contemporary? If it's 30+ years ago, then you've got a comparison. Otherwise it's apples and oranges and even then, Rove is not an elected official whereas Kerry is, so the comparison even grows further apart.

As for getting punished for being a war criminal, well an Army lawyer called for war-crime charge 37 years later on one person:

In what would be an unprecedented event, retired Maj. James Hawkins could face a military court-martial regarding his actions commanding a platoon known as Tiger Force that killed hundreds of unarmed men, women, and children 37 years ago, The Blade has learned.

As the scope of war crimes in Vietnam becomes a key question in the presidential election, the military lawyer recommended this spring that Army officials charge Mr. Hawkins, who led Tiger Force between July and November, 1967.

The recommendation came during a broader Army review of Tiger Force prompted by a four-part series in The Blade in October. The series revealed the platoon's seven-month rampage through Vietnam's Central Highlands in 1967.

SNIP

Mr. Hawkins was among 18 former Tiger Force soldiers accused by Army investigators of crimes ranging from murder and assault to dereliction of duty during a 4 1/2-year Army investigation between 1971 and 1975. But the case was dropped by the Pentagon and concealed from the public until revealed in The Blade series, which was awarded the Pulitzer Prize.

SNIP

Soldiers hurled grenades into underground bunkers full of women and children. They shot elderly farmers toiling in their fields. They severed the ears of the dead to fashion into necklaces. One former unit medic told The Blade that soldiers "would go into villages and just shoot everybody. We didn't need an excuse. If they were there, they were dead."

So, if Kerry HAS admitted to having committed war crimes, why didn't the republicans bring up charges against him and have him indicted?

Iriemon · Mar 28, 2006

aps said:
I remember seeing parts of Kerry's testimony (which I quoted above) where they had edited out Kerry's use of the word "they" so it looked like he was admitting that he had done those things. Is it at all possible that you were fooled into thinking he had made admissions during a hearing before Congress? You can admit it to me, tough guy.

Also, I don't believe that Congress has jurisdiction to indict John Kerry for any crimes.

Jeez I can't believe we have a thread about Kerry's war record. I'm having deja vu, 2004, or 1972, I'm not sure which. We desparately need another presidential election campaign so the Cons will have someone else they can attack and defame to draw attention from what Bush is doing.

Kerry did not say he committed the "atrocities" like the stories told by the VVAW (ie rape and cutting off heads and stuff like that). He said that he committed the "atrocities" of search and destory missions and free fire zones and burning down houses in an appearance on the Dick Cavett show:

I personally didn't see personal atrocities in the sense that I saw somebody cut a head off or something like that. However, I did take part in free fire zones and I did take part in harassment interdiction fire. I did take part in search-and-destroy missions in which the houses of noncombatants were burned to the ground. And all of these, I find out later on, these acts 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 applications of the Nuremberg principles, is in fact guilty.

http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/i...pic=KerryONeill

As to why Kerry was not arrested for it, my guess is these were standard acts committed in Vietnam and you'd have to have arrested half of those who served over there if you were arresting folks for that. But I was too young to get drafted for Vietnam, so I do not attest to that.

Trajan Octavian Titus · Mar 28, 2006

shuamort said:
Did Rove do things 30+ years ago or has he done something more contemporary? If it's 30+ years ago, then you've got a comparison. Otherwise it's apples and oranges and even then, Rove is not an elected official whereas Kerry is, so the comparison even grows further apart.

As for getting punished for being a war criminal, well an Army lawyer called for war-crime charge 37 years later on one person:

So, if Kerry HAS admitted to having committed war crimes, why didn't the republicans bring up charges against him and have him indicted?

So there's a statute of limitations on war crimes now?

shuamort · Mar 28, 2006

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
So there's a statute of limitations on war crimes now?

Where did I even allude to that? :roll:

easyt65 · Mar 28, 2006

Navy Pride said:
John Kerry said in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee under oath that he personally took part in burning villages and killing civilians in free fire zones in Nam in 1971.........

Now if that is true, why was he not indicted and charged with war crimes Like Lt Calley was and if its not true why was he not indicted and charged with perjury for lying under oath?

He was from a very influential family, he was a Democrat, and bashing Viet Nam vets/our soldiers was all the rage back then...much like how Durbin and Kerry are trying to bring that back today.

Tiptoe · Mar 28, 2006

Navy Pride said:
That is the 64 dollar question my friend........The left want to indict Rove for no crime and here is a guy who is either and admitted war criminal or someone who has committed perjury in a time of war..........

Kerry is a smuck

Trajan Octavian Titus · Mar 28, 2006

shuamort said:
Where did I even allude to that? :roll:

This quote:

"Did Rove do things 30+ years ago or has he done something more contemporary?"

This would certainly imply that you believe that the war crime is an irrelevant topic just because it happened 30+ years ago, there is no statute of limitations for a war crime.

shuamort · Mar 28, 2006

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
This quote:

"Did Rove do things 30+ years ago or has he done something more contemporary?"

This would certainly imply that you believe that the war crime is an irrelevant topic just because it happened 30+ years ago, there is no statute of limitations for a war crime.

It has more to do with relevance of timeliness than of a syllogistic allusion of statute of limitations.

Trajan Octavian Titus · Mar 28, 2006

shuamort said:
It has more to do with relevance of timeliness than of a syllogistic allusion of statute of limitations.

Well he was the '04 Democratic presidential candidate and a member of congress, his less than honorable past is most certainly timely and relavant.

shuamort · Mar 28, 2006

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Well he was the '04 Democratic presidential candidate and a member of congress, his less than honorable past is most certainly timely and relavant.

Really, so we should have Laura Bush's records opened up about her killing her boyfriend too? She IS the first lady and it would thusly make it "timely and relevant". :roll:

Trajan Octavian Titus · Mar 28, 2006

shuamort said:
Really, so we should have Laura Bush's records opened up about her killing her boyfriend too? She IS the first lady and it would thusly make it "timely and relevant". :roll:

Last time I checked the first lady doesn't make policy decisions it's a false analogy. And a car accident is alot different than a war crime there buddy.

Davo · Mar 28, 2006

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Now you're just making sh!t up.

I Beg To Differ.

Laura Bush: 1963, ran stop sign & killed boyfriend

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) - At 17, Laura Bush ran a stop sign and crashed into another car, killing her boyfriend who was driving it, according to an accident report released to The Associated Press on Wednesday.

Mrs. Bush is the wife of Republican presidential nominee-to-be George W. Bush (news - web sites), the Texas governor.

``It was a very tragic accident that deeply affected the families and was very painful for all involved, including the community at large,'' said her spokesman, Andrew Malcolm. ``To this day, Mrs. Bush remains unable to talk about it.''

Mrs. Bush did say in March, when asked at a campaign stop about the crash, ``I know this as an adult, and even more as a parent, it was crushing ... for the family involved and for me as well.''

According to the two-page accident report released Wednesday by the city of Midland, Laura Welch was driving her Chevrolet sedan on a clear night shortly after 8 p.m. on Nov. 6, 1963, when she drove into an intersection and struck a Corvair sedan driven by 17-year-old Michael Douglas.

Although previous news accounts have reported Douglas was thrown from the car and broke his neck, those details were not in the report.

The speed of Laura Bush's car was illegible on the report. The speed limit for the road was 55.

Neither driver was drinking, the police report said.

Laura Bush and her passenger, Judy Dykes, also 17, were taken to a hospital and treated for minor injuries, according to an accident account printed at the time in the Midland Reporter-Telegram.

The police report indicates no charges were filed. That section of the report was left blank.

``As far as we know, no charges were filed,'' said Midland city attorney Keith Stretcher. ``I don't think it's unusual that charges weren't filed.''

The police report was released after an open records request was submitted to Midland officials in March. City officials had declined to release the records because the victims were under 18.

Poorly written but true.

Trajan Octavian Titus · Mar 28, 2006

Davo said:
I Beg To Differ.

Poorly written but true.

And the last time I checked the first lady doesn't make policy decisions and doesn't write legislation. And just how the hell is a traffic accident equivalent by any standard to war crimes?

Davo · Mar 28, 2006

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
And the last time I checked the first lady doesn't make policy decisions and doesn't write legislation. And just how the hell is a traffic accident equivalent by any standard to war crimes?

The point is - Just like the Jhon Kerry thing....this was never investigated.

Trajan Octavian Titus · Mar 28, 2006

Davo said:
The point is - Just like the Jhon Kerry thing....this was never investigated.

No it was investigated there was a criminal report written and it was deemed an accident, John Kerry admitted to war crimes there is no equivalency in the two scenarios one is an accident and one is the wantant killing of innocent civilians and an admission to it under oath. And again Laura Bush is neither a presidential candidate or a senator she is the first lady who doesn't make policy decisions.

Why wasn't John Kerry indicted 1n 1971

Navy Pride

Iriemon

Navy Pride

Iriemon

Navy Pride

cnredd

Major General Big Lug

aps

Passionate

Navy Pride

Iriemon

aps

Passionate

shuamort

Pundit-licious

Iriemon

Trajan Octavian Titus

shuamort

Pundit-licious

easyt65

Tiptoe

New member

Trajan Octavian Titus

shuamort

Pundit-licious

Trajan Octavian Titus

shuamort

Pundit-licious

Trajan Octavian Titus

Davo

Member

Trajan Octavian Titus

Davo

Member

Trajan Octavian Titus

Why wasn't John Kerry indicted 1n 1971

Major General Big Lug

Passionate

Passionate

Pundit-licious

Pundit-licious

New member

Pundit-licious

Pundit-licious

Member

Member

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency