Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Elroy who wrote (211742)	11/15/2004 10:53:19 AM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574727

I don't mind John Kerry meeting some Viet Cong representatives in Paris in 1970. I don't think we have the right to stop private citizens from engaging in this kind of activity unless treason is involved. However, that does not mean that it is in our nation's interest to have anti-war activists meeting with the enemy. It may not constitute treason, but is more in the category of the Hanoi Jane incident -- reflecting a great deal of irresponsibility on Kerry's part. And some naivte, as well.

To: Elroy who wrote (211742)	11/15/2004 11:03:57 AM
From: Peter Dierks	Respond to of 1574727

To begin with. Kerry is documented to have met with the Viet Cong four times, not just once. So if you are going to discuss the issue, please find the facts before launching into embarrassing rants. Kerry was technically still a Naval Officer when he met with the enemy without authorization from his government or his superior officers. I seem to recall a very similar situation involving some dude named Benedict Arnold. Kerry left those meetings, and coin incidentally his actions after followed the playbook for American resistance suggested by the VC. The Romanian prepared playbook has been discovered, and people who reviewed it state that Kerry's acts follow it very closely. Message 20756603 You do not think Treason by an unnamed US citizen is a good thing. Perhaps you do not mind John Kerry committing treason, but the majority of Americans do. -Someone has posted a definition of the word "treason" that was so broad that it sounded like John Kerry's meeting of the Viet Congers in Paris in 1970 was treason. If you do not like the definition, there is a way to change it. You can get an amendment passed by 2/3 of the states.

To: Elroy who wrote (211742)	11/15/2004 1:39:13 PM
From: hmaly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574727

Elroy Re...I'll help you resolve that seeming contradiction. Meeting the Viet Cong in Paris in 1970 may technically fit some definition of the word "treason" that you can provide, but (in my opinion) the meeting was not treasonous. Why do I say that? If it were treasonous, the US authorities would have prosecuted Kerry and thrown him in the slammer in 1971. Whether Kerry was treasonous probably depends upon 2 issues, either of which, would have made it treason; what was discussed, and did Kerry know he still was in the navy, subject to its rules and regulations. Kerry didn't release his notes on the meetings, and I have no idea how clearly the navy briefs their personal, upon discharge from active duty, what their obligations are for their period of inactive duty. The fact that the navy didn't prosecute Kerry, doesn't necessarily mean they were, or weren't traitorous, as political considerations probably were more paramount. 2-I don't mind John Kerry meeting some Viet Cong representatives in Paris in 1970. You should mind. Even if Kerry didn't discuss treasonous acts, or didn't know he technically was committing treason, it shows extremely poor judgement at its best; and should you be voting for a guy who has exhibited extremely poor judgement. What kind of knowledge did Kerry hope to gain, and did that knowledge undermine the final treaty terms. Certainly, if you were president, you wouldn't want me running to Osama, trying to make a deal, undermining your authority. Why should Kerry be treated differently.