Here’s an interesting fact: when, in 1970, John Kerry travelled to Paris to meet privately with the North Vietnamese delegation and Madame Nguyen Thi Binh, the Foreign Minister of the Provisional Revolutionary Government on Vietnam (the communist “government-in-waiting” of South Vietnam) he committed an offence for which he could have (and ought to have) been sentenced to death. Now, I fully realize that the Kerry Campaign and others have already addressed this point, noting that Kerry didn’t violate (or just narrowly missed violating) US Law. However, I’m not talking about the law as it applies to civilians: I’m talking about the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Let’s step back for a second so that I can explain a few things. Contrary to published reports that Senator Kerry left the Navy in 1970 he, in fact, remained an officer in the Naval Reserve right through 1978 (he was simply released from active duty in 1970). This means that, potentially, he would have been liable to be prosecuted under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which is a set of laws passed by the Congress in 1950 which apply to members of the Armed Forces, some members of the reserves, and various other individuals employed by or serving with the military.

In meeting with and advocating the positions of the Communist Vietnamese, Kerry clearly violated Article 104 of the UCMJ, entitled “Aiding the Enemy” which states that, “Any person who… without proper authority, knowingly… communicates or corresponds with or holds any intercourse with the enemy, either directly or indirectly; shall suffer death or such other punishment as a court-martial or military commission may direct.”

Now, we know that Senator Kerry met with representatives of the enemy. This much is certain because he’s admitted to it. Now, the question must be: were his actions taken with the aim of giving aid and comfort to the enemy? The answer, unquestionably, must be yes. In his 1971 testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Kerry not only mentioned his visit to Paris to meet with Communist negotiators, but also advocated the adoption of the “eight points” put forward by Madame Binh. The Communist’s position in the negotiations was that the United States would have to begin a withdrawal from South Vietnam and that then would discussions about the repatriation of US prisoners of war would begin. Kerry, presumably on the strength of his meeting with the Communist negotiators, endorsed this position, saying that, “if the United States were to set a date for withdrawal the prisoners of war would be returned.”

Frankly, at this point, I think that we’re nearing the threshold which divides simply loyalty from outright treason. In my mind there’s very little doubt that the John Kerry of 1971: the John Kerry who denounced his fellow soldiers, dishonoured his flag, and disgraced his country was, in his heart, a traitor. An opportunistic traitor, to be sure, but a traitor nonetheless.

I’m sure that some people will take offense at my earlier suggestion that John Kerry should, in 1971, have been put to death for his treasonous actions and words. But I ask you this: what else would you have us do with traitors? Let them run free to go about their lives and achieve their goals?

Vietnam was not a war lost upon the battlefield. Despite some poor strategic decisions, America’s fighting forces were never defeated by the enemy and, in fact, inflicted massive casualties upon them. The Viet Cong essentially ceased to exist as a force on the battlefield after the Tet Offensive in 1968. Improvement in South Vietnamese forces under Nixon eventually forced the North Vietnamese to cease irregular attacks and turn towards invading the South with a regular army. The first attempt to do so, however, was crushed by a combination of US and RVN forces. Victory would have been won and a free Vietnam saved but for one thing: those traitors and seditionists at home who undermined public support for the war and who eventually convinced the Congress to, in South Vietnam’s moment of greatest need, abandon them to the enemy. Our brave soldiers, the ones who John Kerry now claims to honor, were, in fact, stabbed in the back by John Kerry and those like him.

Given that the actions of Senator Kerry, and his friends, essentially rendered the deaths of 58,000 Americans as meaningless and led indirectly to the death of millions of friends of freedom in South-East Asia, it would be no exaggeration to say that I am entirely untroubled by the idea that those who committed treason ought to have been executed.