Mystery Surrounds Kerry's Navy Discharge - October 13, 2004 - The New York Sun

Kerry Dishonorably Discharged?

You've probably seen the The New York Sun piece explaining why it is likely that Kerry was dishonorably discharged from the Navy. This is a well-researched story, founded in exactly the kind of details about military procedure that usually escapes the journalist community.

Is the author right? Perhaps. I know that the director of AuthentiSEAL has been looking into just this question for quite a while. I've gotten the chain email started by Mr. Nash several times, though I haven't published it because it contained questions but no answers. The Sun piece is different -- it's got some hard facts:

According to the secretary of the Navy's document, the "authority of reference" this board was using in considering Mr. Kerry's record was "Title 10, U.S. Code Section 1162 and 1163. "This section refers to the grounds for involuntary separation from the service. What was being reviewed, then, was Mr. Kerry's involuntary separation from the service. And it couldn't have been an honorable discharge, or there would have been no point in any review at all....

There are a number of categories of discharges besides honorable. There are general discharges, medical discharges, bad conduct discharges, as well as other than honorable and dishonorable discharges. There is one odd coincidence that gives some weight to the possibility that Mr. Kerry was dishonorably discharged. Mr. Kerry has claimed that he lost his medal certificates and that is why he asked that they be reissued. But when a dishonorable discharge is issued, all pay benefits, and allowances, and all medals and honors are revoked as well. And five months after Mr. Kerry joined the U.S. Senate in 1985, on one single day, June 4, all of Mr. Kerry's medals were reissued.
All that is reasonable -- as is the presumption that a Naval Officer who secretly met with the Viet Cong leadership and negotiated a peace treaty with them might not have been honorably discharged. Indeed, one would expect that the least that he would face would be a dishonorable discharge. That Kerry did so is not disputed by anyone, so far as I know, and his work on "The People's Peace Treaty" is a matter of public record.

Will this story get enough legs to impress itself into the public mind between now and 2 November? I hope so, if it's true. A man who violated his oath as a Naval officer ought not to be trusted to keep his oath as President.

This is a point made recently by BlackFive, discussing LtCol Khan's recent removal from command. "For example, look at the comments surrounding the posts here about Marine LtCol Khan who may very well be facing a dead end career because he won't fight his removal from command...he won't fight BECAUSE IT WOULD COST THE MARINE CORPS TOO MUCH. LtCol Khan doesn't want to cause a stir while Marines are fighting overseas. "

How that contrasts with a man who went out of his way to undermine the cause for which his fellow sailors were fighting. How it contrasts with a man who went out of his way to cause a stir ('If we chain crippled vets to the White House fence, will you cover it?'). Then there was that Senate testimony of 1971, in which another Mr. Khan was invoked by John Kerry, who said he was the model for the military's behavior.

Kerry's not out of the woods with military men, not yet. The stories about his bad behavior hurt him in August, but there has been a respite since then. Yet now, with only a few weeks to go, there is a last chance to make Americans aware of Kerry's dishonorable actions, and unfitness to serve in any high or respected office.

Carter may have pardoned him, but we have not.

No comments: