Where has T_J been lately? Is he on vacation, or swamped with damage control because of the dipping markets?
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. I think this negates very clearly the argument of the President that we have to maintain a presence in Vietnam, to use as a negotiating block for the return of those prisoners. The setting of a date will accomplish that. -- John Kerry, testifying before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, April 22, 1971 ---------- Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. -- U.S. Code, Title 18, Part I, Chapter 45, Section 953: Private correspondence with foreign governments
Am I the only one that finds it a little strange that an ex-lieutenant was acting as a diplomat to the enemy? It states that Kerry is the son of a diplomat not a diplomat, and that being said, what would kerry be talking about there? I'm sure the ex-lieutenant, Kerry, would not have had sufficient knowledge to be negotiating with the Vietcong. Now Kerry probably went into this meeting with what he believed was for the good of the United States, but don't you think he should have left this task up to people who were in the know? or actually had any power to change anything? Someone above mentioned that Kerry was doing the negotiations so that he could help get some movement on the issue of the POWs, but this raises another question. What could Kerry even have to offer to the Vietcong? Kerry's status as an ex-lieutenant gives him zero say in what the government plans to do. And frankly, if this is true, i would be afraid to live in America knowing that ex-lieutenants, with no authority, are our diplomats. Without thoughts of treason, The question is, why is an ex-lieutenant conducting diplomatic relations with the enemy? Now, unless i have missed something, i don't believe that it has become standard policy for ex-navy/army veterns to conduct our diplomatic relations without the consent of the government. Now all that being said, maybe Kerry was just visiting to check out the place and his defense is perfectly legit.
The law sounds pretty cut and dried there and SKerry was in complete and obvious violation of it. To me, it would at least be aiding and abetting an enemy of the U.S. but it still would fall short of treason.
there's a little bit of misconception here. if you'll read earlier in the thread, you'll see that kerry was in fact in the naval reserve at the time, and not an ex-lieutenant.
Funny, Kerry volunteers for service, fights, earns decorations, comes back and protests the horrors he saw, and people hint at treason. Another man uses family connections to completely avoid any combat -- which is very immoral, if not illegal -- and he skates. Interesting dichotomy we have here -- one person's honorable service is used against him, and the other's lack of character is used to justify his strong character.
