Your opinion is garbage under American philosophy. Remove yourself, go to some Asian or european country in which your philosopy is the law.

Not only is that not true, every citizen duty is to control government, more so when it's out of control, than when it's correct.

Quote:

Lying about the war to congress and the American people was not much better. Neither falls under "freedom of expression"....is that clear enough for you?

It's sad when I see a member of the US government's military express so wrong an opinion.

Give me a break. which will provide more insight; a text in its original form. Or a text rewrote then dismissed by someone who wants to invalidate the point to begin with. A little reality here please.

Just a side question. Does anyone respond to Fastpat anymore? He's kind of like background noise now.
Steve

Well, if you're trying to separate facts from opinion, you'll have to do some work.

On the other hand, if you just want to swallow page after page of Ann Coulter (or, on the other side, Maureen McDowd) because you agree with her and she makes you feel good, then I guess the more swallowing the better.

Only the ballsy dare.

Or those with facts with which to rebut. Obviously, that would not be you.

If Kerry had said that we should have backed Ho Chi Minh in 1919(and supported the independence and self rule of Vietnam like Wilson's 14 points said we should, rather than let the French totally hijoack the peace process) BEFORE he had to turn to the new Soviet Union,only people that would listen to him, or maybe in 1945, then i would have been ok with that. What he did was apparently lie and distort facts about his fellow soldiers and sailors purely to get himself elected. As for war being evil, so be it. But should we have stayed out of WW2? I'm sure Pat wouldn't have minded Hitler getting the other 4 or so million European Jews that he managed to miss the first go around. you know.....no surviving Eurpean Jews, no evil, terroist Israel today......yea!!!!!! You okay with that? so how do YOU propose we deal with these people who want to kill us not because of where we are, what we have and who is in office, but because we repesent the social, political and religious philospophies that they see as the greatest hinderance to to establishment of a worldwide Islamic caliphate made in the image of guys like the Ayatollah Rudollah Khomeini or Usama Bin Laden or any number of nutbag Wahabi Imams on the Sunni side of the aisle.

TREASON - This word imports a betraying, treachery, or breach of allegiance.

The Constitution of the United States, Art. III, defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort. This offense is punished with death. By the same article of the Constitution, no person shall be convicted of treason, unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
--b--

Publicly accusing US forces of atrocities would defiantly fall into this category.

Pat you need to familiarize your self with the Uniform Code of Military Justice. What a Solider or Officer can say or do is a lot different than a citizens rights.

The thread is about the lying Bush'ists and the lack of commited among them. Most are Chicken Hawks, as it well and truly proven.

I think you're confused, which is excusable based on the disinformation *****storm from the Republicans.

Kerry testified to statements made by soldiers. He did not broad brush all who served in Vietnam.

None of "Kerry's own men" called his war record into question. There were some people who served on his boat after he was no longer there who made statements, but they did not serve under him.

People who had glowing praise for Kerry during his Vietnam service later trashed him because of his testimony about atrocities committed in Vietnam. A typical case of wanting to kill the messenger.

When Kerry went back to Vietnam to investigate reports of POWs still in captivity, he was criticized by some of the people profiteering on the rumors of surviving POWs.

Did Kerry condemn himself and the activities promoted by the US in Vietnam for personal gain? I can't read the guy's mind, but it sure didn't seem to be his motivation at the time. Instead, it looked like he became politicized because of his experiences.

And, in truth, he'd have been much better off politically if he hadn't gone into harm's way, or even completed his military commitment, since you can't criticize a nonexistent service record.

I guess the guy who shot this should have been tried for treason, then?

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1157765141.jpg

Actually, he would have been another Michael Dukakis without his service in the Navy. At least one friend had publicily stated that Kerry had no opinion about the warone way or another whe he came home and did not raise any of the issues until he was advised that it would help him get elected. This is the same guy who was circling around his recently deceased "friend's" extremely rich wife right after he died. We have gheard this women speak. She is clearly no catch without the cash......lol. am i missing something here? lol

Nope.....but Jane Fonda, John Walker Lind, old Zacharias M. and the guy with the beanie on the tape with Zawahiri should be put against the wall. Instead, we are seeking the death penalty for American soldiers. Even Lt. Calley and his men didn't have to facer that potential penatly.

Notice that it is consitutional, so that even the 70's prohibition against the use of capital punishment woldn't have applied. However,public accucsations would not fall into this category unless it was proven that it was done in concert with the Al Quaedidiots and for their benefit, and even then, nobody would EVER open that can of worms...lol However, Jane Fonda would not have ahd a defense of their not actually being a war, because the Rosenbergs were exectuted for aiding the enemy during the COLD war. I also suspect that the guy who was imprisoned for life for sellign secrets to the Israelis could arguably NOT be tried for treason because he didn't do anything for an "enemy' regardless of what Pat thinks....lol

Ok lets close one more little loop hole here.
A naval officer being complacent to
or
lying about US atrocities would certainly be aiding, abetting or providing comfort to th enemy.
Now do you get it.

Hey Pat someone referenced you! Hurry and tell them how wrong they are.
Steve

If you were around at the time of the Winter Soldier testimony, you'd realize that event could not be seen as a good political move even by the most optimistic antiwar nut.

The country was completely polarized (has that changed?) over the war and the hatred toward those against it resulted in poltical suicide. Advising a prospective politician, most advisors would have said: steer clear for a couple of years, focus on local issues and let the passions die.

Tech this fact seems to be a problem for you too.

I have one word for you: Nuremburg.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Trials

Your UCMJ recollections are failing at one crucial point: I think it's Article 90. Nobody is required to obey an illegal order. and, I believe, talking about illegal orders and their consequences is protected.

Under some circumstance he certainly could.