John Kerry: Admitted War Criminal
National Politics Comments (11)
Blogs For Bush has a good write up on John Kerry’s Meet the dePressed interview with Tim Russert this morning.
Here is an excerpt from NBC News’ Meet the Press‘s actual transcript of this morning’s performance:
(Videotape, MEET THE PRESS, April 18, 1971):
MR. KERRY (Vietnam Veterans Against the War): There are all kinds of atrocities and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free-fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50-caliber machine guns which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search-and-destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare. All of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down.
(Emphasis Added).
In the same program (today’s), Kerry refused again to name the mythical “foreign leaders” who think he should win the campaign.
MR. RUSSERT: So you stand by your statement, you met with foreign leaders who told you…
SEN. KERRY: I stand by my statement.
So, if we put these two ideas together, we have foreign leaders (who don’t want to be named) desirous of having an admitted war criminal win the American Presidency.
Of course, now Kerry says that back then he was speaking in anger and was excessive. And, well, who didn’t speak in anger or excessively while in their youth? But to publically enumerate and admit to the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity, that’s not being angry and excessive. That’s what they call a “statement against penal interest.”
How so?
Well, let’s go back to the original statement:
(Videotape, MEET THE PRESS, April 18, 1971):
MR. KERRY (Vietnam Veterans Against the War): There are all kinds of atrocities and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free-fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50-caliber machine guns which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search-and-destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare. All of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down.
Here, John Kerry says that shooting in a “free-fire zone,” conducting harassment and interdiction fire, search-and-destroy missions, and burning villages were contrary to the Geneva Conventions on the Conduct of War. Thus, he was under no obligation to perform them. Further, there were standing orders in both Korea and Vietnam that allegations of war crimes be promptly investigated and reported to headquarters. By failing to report these breeches of law and treaty, LTJG John Kerry became guilty of the Article 92 (UCMJ) offenses of failing to obey a lawful general order (Article 92(a), UCMJ) and/or dereliction of duty (Article 92( c ), UCMJ). Even if he did not know of the war crimes that he says he committed himself but presumably saw and heard of others (presumably including his subordinates) commit then he would still possibly be guilty of the offense of misprision of a serious offense (Article 134, UCMJ) and the Yamashita case tells us that he was responsible for those things committed by his subordinates (remember he was an officer) regardless of the existence of orders that allegations of war crimes be promptly investigated and reported to headquarters. In fact, he was guilty of these offenses even if war crimes were NOT being committed because he thought they were war crimes. (There is an excellent article about the concept of command responsibility for war crimes provided by the US Military for training its own officers.) His orders were to investigate and report. If he investigated and decided that they were not, then John Kerry was either an opportunistic liar or was intentionally attempting to give aid and comfort to our enemies by using statements he knew to be false to shift public opinion in a manner favorable to our enemies.
To put it plainly, John Kerry did one of four things in 1971, none of them good:
- He committed and admitted to the court martialable offenses of failure to obey a general order and/or dereliction of duty
- He committed and admitted to the court martialable offense of misprision of a serious offense (that is: he knew about it and did not report it)
- He lied for personal, political gain when he said that he had both witnessed and participated in the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity
- He committed treason by attempting to create a political climate favorable to our enemies by making statements about the legality of actions he claims to both have witnessed and participated in when he knew those actions to have been lawful.
So, we have to ask ourselves, do we really want a war criminal, liar, or traitor as our President? Even if the French and Germans do?
Before the election goes on any further perhaps Mr. Kerry should run down and submit himself to a trial before the International Criminal Court (which he supports). After he has served his sentence or done his penance or whatever they may demand of him, then we can see about a pardon, giving his right to vote back (a conviction before the ICC should count as a felony conviction at the very least), and then we can see about him running for office.
MickC @ April 18, 2004