Really? No record of what he did at the meeting? Wow, how incriminating is that? He has every right to go where he wants as a private citizen and to talk to whomever he pleases as a private citizen, if I recall the Constitution correctly. And he wasn’t a Naval officer at the time, dickhead. Fucking morons.
I noted that statement, myself. Are the SBVT people asserting that Senator Kerry did engage in negotiations as a private citizen?
Or are they just letting the “no record” statement hang there like a stinking innuendo, so they can plant the implication that he did, without having to come right out and say he did?
I did read the article, and no where did it say that Kerry actually entered into negotiations with the other side. He admits to talking with both the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong, neither of which is illegal. Even the ad’s text does not refer to “negotiations”.
Sounds to me like this is just the Swifties making something out of nothing.
If this was ever any kind of issue, wouldn’t Nixon have used it against Kerry? It’s well-known that Nixon hated the man and saw him as a threat. So even the most devious and unscrupulous scumbag enemy of Kerry, in an environment of Vietnam War controversy and anti-Communist paranoia, equipped with an efficient dirt machine, didn’t make anything of this. Why should anyone give a shit today?
No. There is no record of the meeting. However, Kerry refers to it during his testimony under oath to Senator Fulbright. You can read the testimony firsthand at Wintersoldier.com or any of a variety of other sources. At any rate, during the testimony Kerry says that he knows it’s illegal to negotiate with foreign powers from lot’s of examples in the past including Joe MCCarthy(???) but that he went and talked to them about terms of peace anyway, and then he discusses the merits of the what the North Vietnamese had related to him with Fulbright, endorsing the offer.
Apparently not, there is a proscription against negotiating with foreign powers, or meeting with foreign powers to influence negotiations.
He was a naval officer in the Ready Reserves at the time.
I don’t think it can be reasonably argued that Kerry was on the safe side of the law in this. It’s against the law to negotiate with or attempt to influence negotiations with foreign powers. I don’t see how you can break it down semantically that discussing terms of peace or surrender with with the North Vietnamese and then publically endorsing their stance while the negotiations were ongoing does not not qualify as negotiating or intending to influence negotiations.
A relevant quote from the testimony is as follows:
“Mr. Chairman, I realize that full well as a study of political science. I realize that we cannot negotiate treaties and I realize that even my visits in Paris, precedents had been set by Senator McCarthy and others, in a sense are on the borderline of private individuals negotiating, et cetera. I understand these things. But what I am saying is that I believe that there is a mood in this country which I know you are aware of and …”
So it seems to me that he’s aware of a violation or a borderline one, though I don’t know what the McCarthy reference is about. The argument seems to be that because there’s some kind of mood in the country, what he did is justified.
This may not change anybody’s position, but the North Vietnamese officials were not in Paris just to talk to John Kerry of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War. They were in town for peace talks with the US government. The US delegation to the talks, like John Kerry, were hoping to end the war.
The law was in place for a very good reason, as anybody who’s ever negotiated – especially negotiations of a large and/or complex nature – knows: When someone who is not on the negotiations team attempts to negotiate it can (and likely will) damage the state of the negotiations in many ways. That is to say that John Kerry’s actions in these illegal talks may have cost concessions in the negotiations, may have delayed negotiations, and may have cost lives.
One can argue about the severity of the damage John Kerry did here, but it’s difficult to argue that he was in the right taking these actions.
Wow. Who knew the dangers involved in having meetings. Check this out:
Background:
The statute in question is:
So, there’s an organization called the US-China Business Council described here as “a grouping of more than 300 firms including Boeing, Philip Morris and AT&T.” It has hired a “host of public relations firms, lobby shops, think tanks and consulting firms.” It proudly states that it has “long served as a respected host for senior visitors from China and from the United States government. In recent years, the Council has been honored to receive His Excellency President Hu Jintao; Premier Wen Jiabao; former President Jiang Zemin; former Premier Zhu Rongji; and other distinguished Chinese guests from central and provincial government entities. Recent American public figures to meet with Council members have included Commerce Secretary Donald L. Evans; US Trade Representative Robert B. Zoellick; US Ambassador to China Clark “Sandy” Randt; key figures from the United States Congress; and numerous specialists on US-China affairs from various agencies of the Executive Branch of government.”
So, if at any time during the hosting of these “senior visitors”, a staff member discussed an on-going dispute with the US (MFN or WTO, anyone?) with the intent of influencing the government of China, that staff member is guily of a violation of the statute above, correct?
Somebody should tell General Ashcroft post-haste, I’m sure he’ll want to get right on this rampant law-breaking…
Who, besides the Smear Boat people, has claimed that Kerry negotiated anything when he talked to the North Vietnamese? Just talking to them is not illegal.
Bill H. wrote:
“That is to say that John Kerry’s actions in these illegal talks may have cost concessions in the negotiations, may have delayed negotiations, and may have cost lives.”
Most accounts of the peace talks report that the US side refused to make peace because it would have meant admitting we lost. Years later, when we finally did back out, the terms we took were the same terms we originally were offered. Those lives were lost so the president wouldn’t lose face.
[QUOTE=AskNott]
Who, besides the Smear Boat people, has claimed that Kerry negotiated anything when he talked to the North Vietnamese? Just talking to them is not illegal.