When Kerry testified before congress, alleging pervasive war crimes, he was speaking as a witness to those crimes while on active duty. During the time that he allegedly observed these crimes, he was a serving officer, subject to UCMJ. Among the punitive articles that he was subject to are the following:
Article 92—Failure to obey order or regulation
All of that talk about cutting off ears and killing civilians? The UCMJ and just about every regulation that there is bans murder and mutilation. If Kerry participated in these acts, then he's guilty, and there's no statute of limitations on murder. If he only observed these acts, but failed to do anything about them, then we move on to:Article 134 - Misprision of serious offense
Article 78—Accessory after the fact
As an officer, Kerry had a duty to report violations of the UCMJ to his chain of command. Can he produce a record of his reports of the crimes that he claims to have observed? If not, then he permitted these actions and is responsible, both for the actions themselves and the failure to report them. Which also means that his AARs, which did not include these acts, but which highlighted his own heroism, are subject to:Article 107—False official statements
For that matter, Kerry's Purple Hearts and citations may also be subject to this article, and if his statements to the congress turn out to have been false, then there's:Article 131—Perjury
Democrats don't seem to mind perjury very much. But it's still illegal. And, given Kerry's meetings with the North Vietnamese while on active duty, there's another critical article to which he was subject:Article 133—Conduct unbecoming an officer and gentleman
This article gets a lot of talk, but it has a very specific meaning, namely "...action or behavior in an official capacity which, in dishonoring or disgracing the person as an officer, seriously compromises the officer’s character as a gentleman, or action or behavior in an unofficial or private capacity which, in dishonoring or disgracing the officer personally, seriously compromises the person’s standing as an officer. There are certain moral attributes common to the ideal officer and the perfect gentleman, a lack of which is indicated by acts of dishonesty, unfair dealing, indecency, indecorum, lawlessness, injustice, or cruelty." Let the hearings begin.