Fact. Kerry met with members of the North Vietnamese delegation several times in Paris.
Fact. Kerry was a serving Naval Officer.
Fact. Kerry was not authorized to negotiate with the above delegation
Fact. Kerry presented the North Vietnamese position, and pushed his view that it should be accepted as was.
Fact. Kerry treated with the enemy to the detriment of the US, an act with constitutes treason.
Fact. I make no effort to call these meetings "secret", which is really the only discrepancy your article notes in the Fox News report. It certainly does not challenge the facts as I state above.
Fact. The reply above was written by me, not a cut and paste, based on research AND my recollections from then. Feel free to identify the site I plagerized if you with to challenge.
Your reliance on leftist spin sites is no different than what you accuse me of... though my information comes from a compilation of legitimate news sites, yes, including Fox, but also CNN, CBS, NBC, The Washington Post, The Washington Times, Newsweek, Time, and others.
But, let's play your game for a bit. From the article you cite:
According to the Post, the Kerry-Edwards '04 campaign said earlier this year that Kerry met with Nguyen Thi Binh, who was then foreign minister of the Provisional Revolutionary Government and a top negotiator at the talks. The Post went on to say that, "Kerry acknowledged ... that even going to the peace talks as a private citizen was at the 'borderline' of what was permissible under U.S. law, which forbids citizens from negotiating treaties with foreign governments.
The above acknowledgement concedes that there was at least some legitimacy to complaints that he was treating with the enemy... here's the problem, and where it gets messy for our hero... he says he was there as a "private citizen"... Unfortunately, he was not just any private citizen... he was a Commisioned Officer in the United States Naval Reserve.
Kerry's visit to Paris was not to formally participate in negotiations with Communist leaders.
What does this mean? How does the level of "fomality" make any difference? Does the implication that he was there to "informally" negotiate make the interaction somehow legitimate? I don't see a differentiation in the Constitution... do you?