HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
Oct. 26, 2004 A story is beginning to seep out around the edges of the blockades raised by the DNC, the Kerry Campaign and the so-called "mainstream media" that bears closer examination. Kerry STILL hasn't seen fit to sign that Standard Form 180 which would open up ALL of his military records to public scrutiny--despite calls to do so for AT LEAST the past 5 months. The Department of the Navy sayss that there are STILL over 100 documents in his file that remain sealed from view because he's not permitted us to see them. Some enterprising investigator took a look at those he HAS let us see and discovered that one cover letter from Jimmy Carter's Naval Secretary makes reference to "a board of officers" reviewing the former Navy Lt(jg)'s discharge from the Navy. That investigator asks a question that on one else has apparently thought to ask-- "Why would an honorable discharge NEED to be "reviewed by a board of officers?" The answer is, of course, that it WOULDN'T. The cover letter goes on to cite as authority two sections from Title 10, U.S. Code as the basis for that "review." These sections (numbers 1162 and 1163) are those sections which pertain to the grounds for "involuntary separation from military service," and have since been superseded. Is it possible that, at one time, John Kerry had been given a LESS than honorable discharge? We now know that newly-sworn-in President Jimmy Carter, before the first inaugural ball had begun on January 21, 1977, had issued an Executive Order (EO4483) pardoning all draft-dodgers and war protesters from the Vietnam era. That amnesty was expanded later to include anyone who had received an other-than-honorable discharge during that same era. Each case was to be examined by "a board of officers" on an individual basis to determine if the less-than- honorable discharge could (or should) be upgraded to honorable. If Kerry had, in fact, received an honorable discharge, why would it be necessary for it to be "reviewed" by one of those "boards of officers?" It seems VERY likely that John Kerry had been dishonorably discharged originally. Why? Because one of the things that happens to an officer so discharged is that all of his awards and medals are revoked. We know that in 1985, Kerry had his medals all "reinstated." If the reason for that is as he claims--that he'd "lost" the original certificates--they would have been "reissued"-- not "reinstated." For something to have been "reinstated" it must have been revoked for some reason. The only reason any officer would have his medals revoked would be because he'd received an other-than-honorable discharge from the military services. The only way to know for sure, of course, is for Kerry to sign that Standard Form 180 which would give the Department of the Navy permission to reveal his entire military record for public scrutiny. So far, despite thousands of requests that he do so, Kerry has refused. Another group, www.patriotpetitions.us is making a good case that Kerry MAY also have been guilty of violation of UCMJ Article 104, part 904, and Title 18, U.S. Code, Sections 953 and 2381 which pertain to "giving aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States" while still a member of the uniformed services OF the U.S. Treason is an absolute bar to service in both the Senate and the Presidency. Unfortunately this group isn't likely to get any movement with their petition drive prior to the election, but it bears watching just the same. ------------ About the author: David A. Jared is a news junkie, semi-retired and an avid golfer who's been writing his first book, "4000 years of chopsticks" for the last 20 years. Email: Pappadave@sbcglobal.net |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
