Here (http://www.streamload.com/jmstein77/Kerry2.mp3) is the audio clip of Sen. John Kerry admitting to war crimes in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee(April 22, 1971)...now why havent we heard about this in the media? And how is a man who claims to have violated the Geneva Conventions eligible to run for ANY public office in the USA?

Well, considering the state of politicians in our country, it wouldn't surprise me one bit.

Bush has violated the Geneva conventions (not with his own hands, but he's the commander in chief of the armed forces and they've commited numerous violations under his leadership) and he's still president.

Anyone remember Marion (sp?) Barry? He was re-elected Mayor even after he was busted for cocoaine. As Chris Rock said at the time... "who the **** lost to a crack-head??"

So as to how criminals can be in public office, well, just take a look around... I don't like it either, but Kerry isn't some freakish anomaly.

In the clip (assuming it's authentic of course) Kerry claims he was following orders when doing those things. Not that this is an excuse of course...

Richard Nixon resigned because of the scandals during his term as president, and if the world was just we'd have a lot more resignations!

Unfortunately, the dirtbag can run for any office he so desires. This is the crux of the matter for a lot of vets from Vietnam. He labeled his fellow Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines as war criminals with his accuasations (as ex-military myself, I have no respect for someone who has done what he has). The biggest reason you are hearing so much about this now is he brought up his service in 'Nam as a campaign point. He went out of his way to come home after only 4 months in country and even was awarded medals for injuries that only needed a bandaid while others more deserving got nothing. Vets resent him for his actions in front of Congress and rightly so.

I know about the swiftboat ads, etc. but his claims to have violated the Geneva Conventions have somehow been missed :eyeraise: Maybe they are saving it for a "final blow"?

Bush has violated the Geneva conventions
umm...in what sense do you mean? he is the leader of one of the High Contracting Parties of the Geneva Conventions, and he did, at no time, order any violations of the Genva Conventions be carried out.

What about the forces under his command? Granted, that's still being investigated, but last I heard the Abu Gharib (sp?) abuses weren't just some random isolated incidents. Ashcroft "took full responsibility" for the situation, but hasn't resigned. Bush hasn't dismissed him either.

There's also the issue of the illegal invasion of Iraq itself. Granted, I'm no lawyer...

The invasion of Iraq was in no way illegal. And, FYI, war is not declared by the President of the US, it is declared by Senate.

And though section 1c of Article 3, Convention III of the Geneva Conventions was violated by somebody under his command, he did not order these violations, so he has not violated the Geneva Conventions.

@WhiteKnight77: What did you serve as in the military? I plan on joining the Recon Marines as soon as I graduate HS.

and back on topic: how come we see false claims about the economy in the news, but we dont see anything about Kerry's claims to have burned villages and participated in free-fire zones (unauthorized zoning in which soldiers shot anything that moved) <sarcasm> oh yeah, because its not what the media wants us to hear...</sarcasm>

Originally posted by Cpt. Bannon
how come we see false claims about the economy in the news, but we dont see anything about Kerry's claims to have burned villages and participated in free-fire zones (unauthorized zoning in which soldiers shot anything that moved)

Probably for several reasons. Most people would probably recognize the issue as a simple Red Herring, since because there was no charge of war crimes or criminal charges leveled at Kerry during or after Viet Nam for "war crimes." Second, it is obvious that the context of the testimony to the Senate is such that he is pointing out the problems that the war created.

He's clearly not a "war criminal," but rather one of many soldiers and servicemen who had the moral courage to speak out against the establishment at the time.

Having spent a considerable amount of time in the service myself, I admire this courage. The man wasn't drafted, he joined. He didn't just do one tour of duty in Viet Nam, he did two. To argue that such a man didn't deserve medals or awards associated with that service is dishonorable to all soldiers and servicemen. That's that emotion you were talking about: right-wing nutters getting angry because someone with "liberal" ideals happens to have been a vet with citations.

But since we're on the subject of "why hasn't this been mentioned?," why hasn't the media picked up the Harken Energy debacle where Bush was in clear violation of SEC regulations?

I admire this courage. The man wasn't drafted, he joined.
Yeah...he joined the Naval Reserve after being denied a defirment. Such courage.

To argue that such a man didn't deserve medals or awards associated with that service is dishonorable to all soldiers and servicemen.

Do you know how he got his broze star? Let me inform you. His bronze star was earned while his crew was blockading a river and he was supposed to be watching the radar for incoming VC boats. He was either asleep or not paying attention, because he did not raise the alarm on the incoming ship. The 50 cal gunner was the one who finally noticed the ship (after it has closed to less than 200 feet) and lit up the boat with his spotlight. The old man on the boad dove for his gun and the gunner was forced to open fire, killing the man and his son. Fortunately the woman and daugther were belowdecks and were unhurt. The boat was carrying a shipment of rice. Such wonderous bravery and courage Kerry showed.

Originally posted by Cpt. Bannon
Yeah...he joined the Naval Reserve after being denied a defirment. Such courage.

Hmmm... And using family connections to hide out in an Air National Guard unit that you don't even have the fortitude to maintain your flight physical in or make drill... that's courageous?

Neither criticism stands up to empirical review, but what does is the fact that Bush served his country in the way he felt was best and John Kerry served in the way he felt was best. One stayed stateside. One went to Viet Nam. Two tours.

Originally posted by Cpt. Bannon
Do you know how he got his broze star? Let me inform you.

Your account is based on the hearsay of emotionally biased right-wing nutters. The primary documentation (http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilservice/Bronze_Star.pdf), namely the citation itself, reads differently. Its not like Kerry put himself in for the award.

And like I said. Criticizing the achievements of those that have been to battle, particularly by those that haven't, is dishonorable if not deplorable. Without credible, primary evidence to the contrary, it demeans the achievements of all who served.

If you're looking for a politician who never cheats, you may be looking for quite some time. ;)

look in this thread (http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=134416) for details of which of these claims stack up and which don't.
THere is also some info about kerry's testimony on war crimes in the vietnam war.

ps/ that you yaeg? ;)

Originally posted by Cpt. Bannon:

The invasion of Iraq was in no way illegal.
Yes it was. It violated many points of international law, and this is well documented. It was a pre-emptive strike, it was without international sanction and it was occupational in nature, not a police action. You've been watching too much "Fox" matey.

As for who's elected into the office of US Prez, who cares? It doesn't matter who the figurehead is, they're still controlled by large international businesses. The only difference is the tone of the PR their cronies churn out.

Originally posted by Cpt. Bannon
@WhiteKnight77: What did you serve as in the military? I plan on joining the Recon Marines as soon as I graduate HS.

I was a helicopter/jet engine mechanic/crew cheif/doorgunner/loadmaster/rescue hoist operator on CH-46Es in the Marines.

http://www.whiteknight77.net/images/4799.jpg)

This was my bird when I was in though it was painted green instead of haze grey.

Bush team 'knew of abuse' at Guantбnamo:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1303064,00.html)

Rumsfeld's dirty war on terror:
But the interrogations at Guantбnamo were a bust. Very little useful intelligence had been gathered, while prisoners from around the world continued to flow into the base, and the facility constantly expanded. The CIA analyst had been sent there to find out what was going wrong. He was fluent in Arabic and familiar with the Islamic world. He was held in high respect within the agency, and was capable of reporting directly, if he chose, to George Tenet, the CIA director. The analyst did more than just visit and inspect. He interviewed at least 30 prisoners to find out who they were and how they ended up in Guantбnamo. Some of his findings, he later confided to a former CIA colleague, were devastating.

"He came back convinced that we were committing war crimes in Guantбnamo," the colleague told me. "Based on his sample, more than half the people there didn't belong there. He found people lying in their own faeces," including two captives, perhaps in their 80s, who were clearly suffering from dementia. "He thought what was going on was an outrage," the CIA colleague added. There was no rational system for determining who was important.

Two former administration officials who read the analyst's highly classified report told me that its message was grim. According to a former White House official, the analyst's disturbing conclusion was that "if we captured some people who weren't terrorists when we got them, they are now".

That autumn, the document rattled aimlessly around the upper reaches of the Bush administration until it got into the hands of General John A Gordon, the deputy national security adviser for combating terrorism, who reported directly to Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser and the president's confidante. Gordon, who had retired from the military as a four-star general in 2000 had served as a deputy director of the CIA for three years. He was deeply troubled and distressed by the report, and by its implications for the treatment, in retaliation, of captured American soldiers. Gordon, according to a former administration official, told colleagues that he thought "it was totally out of character with the American value system", and "that if the actions at Guantбnamo ever became public, it'd be damaging to the president".
http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1303078,00.html)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1303290,00.html)

US troops face new torture claims:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1304042,00.html)

On Sunday, 13 Iraqis were killed and dozens injured in Baghdad when US helicopters fired on a crowd of unarmed civilians. G2 columnist Ghaith Abdul-Ahad, who was injured in the attack, describes the scene of carnage - and reveals just how lucky he was to walk away
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1303827,00.html)

Cpt. Bannon, just like to point out that only Congress has the authority to declare war, not the the Senate as you said. Congress is comprised of both the Senate and the House of Representatives.