"We have lost our ambition, our imagination, and our willingness to do the things that built the Golden Gate Bridge" - Barack Obama (aka President Malaise)
Pitch in with the Prince William Young Republicans and help defeat Obama in 2012!
Faisal Gill Violating The UCMJ?
By Greg L | 8 March 2007 | 51st HOD District | 31 Comments
Candidate for the 51st Distict Faisal Gill, who has been distrubuting campaign material which bears a picture of himself in a Navy uniform, may be in violation of not only Navy Height, Weight and Fitness requirements, but this JAG officer may also be putting himself at risk for official reprimand for violating Directives and Regulations regarding his use of a military uniform while he is a Naval Officer. You’d think a military lawyer and an officer might display a little better judgement here than to flirt with the possibility of engaging in what might be a court-martial offense.
Department of Defense Directive 1334.1, “Wearing of the Uniform” would seem to disallow a serving officer from using his uniform as a means of advancing his political candidacy:
3. POLICY
3.1. Members of the Armed Forces (including retired members and members of reserve components). The wearing of the uniform is prohibited under any of the following circumstances:
(snip)
3.1.2. During or in connection with the furtherance of political activities, private employment or commercial interests, when an inference of official sponsorship for the activity or interest could be drawn.
A case can easily be made that Faisal Gill’s decision to use a photograph of himself in uniform on his campaign materials is an intentional effort to lend the allure of being a Naval Officer to a political campaign. While he doesn’t come out and say “sponsored by the U.S. Navy” under the photograph, but this is dangerously close to violating a directive he is responsible for complying with. Unfortunately the directive doesn’t specifically address the instance of someone using pictures of themseves in uniform on campaign materials while currently serving as an officer in the Armed Forces.
On March 12, 2005 the Secretary of Defense issued specific guidance to assist servicemembers and retirees from violating DoDD 1334.1, and in that message established more specific guidelines, which include the following:
AS A MATTER OF LONG-STANDING POLICY, DOD PERSONNEL ACTING IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITY MAY NOT ENGAGE IN ACTIVITIES THAT ASSOCIATE DOD WITH ANY PARTISAN POLITICAL CAMPAIGN OR ELECTION, CANDIDATE, CAUSE OR ISSUE.
DOD MAINTAINS A LONG-STANDING POLICY THAT DOD PERSONNEL ACTING IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITY MAY NOT ENGAGE IN ACTIVITIES THAT ASSOCIATE DOD WITH ANY PARTISAN POLITICAL CAMPAIGN OR ELECTION, CANDIDATE, CAUSE, OR ISSUE. CONSISTENT WITH THIS POLICY GUIDANCE, INSTALLATION COMMANDERS WILL DECLINE REQUESTS FOR MILITARY PERSONNEL TO APPEAR IN OR SUPPORT POLITICAL CAMPAIGN OR ELECTION EVENTS. ALL MILITARY PERSONNEL, INCLUDING NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES, ARE PROHIBITED FROM WEARING MILITARY UNIFORMS AT POLITICAL CAMPAIGN OR ELECTION EVENTS.
MILITARY PERSONNEL, INCLUDING NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES, SHALL NOT DISTRIBUTE POLITICAL CAMPAIGN OR ELECTION LITERATURE WHILE IN UNIFORM, WHILE ACTING IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITY, OR WHILE ON A MILITARY INSTALLATION. INSTALLATION COMMANDERS WILL ONLY ALLOW DISTRIBUTION OF POLITICAL CAMPAIGN OR ELECTION LITERATURE ON INSTALLATIONS AS AUTHORIZED BY MILITARY DEPARTMENT REGULATIONS.
Again, there’s no specific section that says “don’t use pictures of yourself in uniform on political campaign materials”, but this does clearly establish that the Department of Defense prohibits candidates using a uniform as a means of enhancing one’s political candidacy. While I doubt anyone would have a problem with using an old photograph as part of a biography piece on a candidate — as long as he’s not currently serving, the key element here is that the candidate is no longer a member of the Armed Forces. Faisal Gill clearly is currently serving as a Reserve Officer, wants everyone to be aware of that, and puts a picture of himself in uniform on his campaign literature just to make sure that everyone knows. I believe this is contrary to Department of Defense Directives and policy and that Faisal Gill should be at least be reprimanded for his behavior which is incompatible with his oath. This might even be a court-martial offense, under Article 133 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
One set of rules for you, one set of rules for me. This is anything but leadership, and it doesn’t reflect great credit on the Navy, The Department of Defense or the United States of America.
Loading …UPDATE: While the issue of violating the UCMJ may still be debatable, it seems that he certainly did violate naval regulations which might be cause for an Article 133 court-martial.
The opinions expressed here are solely the views of the author, and not representative of the position of any organization, political party, doughnut shop, knitting guild, or waste recycling facility, but may be correctly attributed to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. If anything in the above article has offended you, please click here to receive an immediate apology.
You can follow the discussion through the Comments feed.
31 Comments
Views: 1426
Worst candidate ever? Your list is a bit short and seems designed to suit a particular agenda.
You may recall from your studies that Adolf Hitler ran for elected office. Given that WWII eventually followed his assumption of power, I expect it is safe to say that Hitler won the honor of worst candidate ever some time back, and thus far no one seems to have unseated him from that title.
Are you suggesting that it would be a good idea to link Faisal Gill with Adolph Hitler? Honestly I think that would be a stretch. I seriously doubt Faisal would intend to engage in genocide against jews, for example.
Greg, we both know you are not so dense. However, just in case your audience includes folks from Rio Linda, I will make my meaning clear. What I suggested is that your hyperbole, worst candidate ever, is a absurd stretch.
The people in your list may not be perfect, but neither are you or me. Perhaps, even as you suggest, they are not perfect, but are you their better? If you think they are weak on the issues or relatively unqualified, why is that not more than sufficient for a diatribe?
There are a number of elected state officials around the country and even a few members of Congress who are members of the Reserves. I don’t know if any of them have used such photos in their materials, but that might be a good arena to check out and see if this is common or not.
Interesting how only one comment thus far is directed at the article. Greg, semantic wise C.T. makes a good point. Was Hitler a bad candidate…well, he won so I would say “No.” Was Hitler, like Joe Stalin, Satan personified? Absolutely. I hate Bill Clinton with a passion, but we can take lessons on how he is as a candidate.
Now, if you were to say “Who was the worst PWC candidate ever?”, THAT would be different. Just something to keep in mind for future polls because again, C.T. is right, being on the www makes this accessible to the entire world.
Greg, sorry I missed you last Saturday, hope to meet you some day in person.
If semantics are that important, I’ll edit the question to make folks happy. I’m somewhat surprised that no one seems interested in the underlying issue here of a Naval Officer abusing his position and trying to enhance his campaign by violating DoD regulations and policy.
Greg L, um, I beg to defer. I posted on this very site under Julie Lucas’s kickoff the UCMJ article prior to you actually posting your article above. Also, my very first sentence makes the same observation as you. My guess is that you (read people in general, NOT you personally) CANNOT argue against facts so when someone is on the losing side of an argument, they change the topic and your poll just happened to be a convenient target.
And for the record, I knew what you meant by the poll.
Greg, I am glad you picked up on this uniform issue. I think it is outrageous that Faisal has it plastered all over his campaign literature, and believe it to be a violation of military policy. As you say, an old picture as part of your biography is one thing, but this clearly violates the spirit, even if not the letter, of the military rules. It seems Faisal is always willing to stretch the rules to the breaking point.
Are there no limits to what Gill will do or use to counter his fading into obscurity. The general rule in the Marine Corps is stay out of politics with the exception of voting. I would think the Navy has the same policy.
Gosh, now we are restricting ourselves to the Worst PWC candidate ever. Oh, how our horizons are shrinking! How humble! Why don’t we just have a vote for the worst blog named BVBL ever and just put BVBL on it as the exclusive choice? That would save a lot trouble.
I am no expert, but I expect the uniform issue is bogus. We can start, for example, with Virginia’s AG. Check this out. http://www.bobmcdonnell.com/meet/contentview.asp?c=4873
From your website link: “Attorney General McDonnell left active duty in April 1981. Attorney General McDonnell served 21 years in the U.S. Army, both active duty and reserves, retiring as a Lt. Colonel.”
RETIRING is the key word there. I don’t know if this is an issue or not, but it’s interesting.
This is the kind of thing that gets Greg sued — his almost seemingly deliberate ignorance of the obvious.
There is absolutely NO prohibition of using a picture of yourself in uniform. What you are not allowed to do is APPEAR IN UNIFORM. It’s not just some meaningless distinction, it’s what makes using a picture of yourself in uniform (like, say, President Bush, John F. Kerry, John McCain, Jim Webb, and thousands of other politicians who served in the military) commonplace.
It’s not Julie’s fault that she did not serve her country with distinction and honor in our military. And I’m certain Julie would object to her supporters attacking a man for his military background, or his weight.
I look forward to the candidate debates where we will focus on issues, and not the rantings of a guy looking to poke fun at the lawyer of the man who is suing him for slander and false statements.
What is most ridiculous about Greg’s seeming ignorance is that he expects a Republican candidate for office to hide his military service. Republicans take pride in our military. Republicans welcome leaders with a record of military service. If Gill served in the military and he is proud of his service, that speaks well of him as a candidate.
What is most ridiculous is that Faisal Gill would flaunt the rules in order to advance his own campaign, which seems awfully reminiscent of another recent candidate with whom he is associated. If you think that breaking DoD regulations and policy speaks well of him, and are going to such gyrations to spin on his behalf, I have to wonder how much it cost Gill for you to lose any shred of objectivity in your analysis like this.
Greg, given your recent spate of postings on several topics and candidates, it my sincere hope that you plan to recuse yourself from any position at any GOP convention, so as to preclude a very ugly fight over your stated positions. Such a fight would only bring controversy and disgrace upon the PWCGOP and potentially have a negative impact on all GOP candidates locally. I say this not because I support any particular candidate, race, creed, sexual preference or political position but rather as many of your recent comments may be construed variously as racist, zenophobic, anarchist, homophobic, ill-informed, etc., comments that a losing party might use to dispute or discredit the process.
This blog has seemingly become an ego trip for you as well as a tool to effectively destroy the candidacy of those you do not support. Although blogs such as this may, to some degree, influence a local race, don’t flatter yourself. If recent comments are any indication, you have done little more than reveal yourself as a narrow-minded tool with little understanding of the application of rules and laws.
Although I am grateful for your past service, do us all a favor, don’t volunteer for any committee assignments and sit this campaign season. By that I mean official positions or assignments with the PWCGOP and is not meant to include positions with individual campaigns (foolish enough to take your baggage on) or your right to attend/vote in any conventions, etc. you are eligible for.
You will never see Faisal Gill campaigning or distributing campaign literature while in military uniform — he realizes that to be a direct violation of DoD policy and federal law.
While the distribution of campaign literature containing prominent pictures of the candidate “in uniform” does not appear to violate the letter of the law, it certainly appears to violate the intent of the law. Not only does the military uniform in campaign literature suggest Navy endorsement of a political party (Republican in this case) it also suggests a level of credibility, patriotism, and trustworthiness beyond that of the candidate who has been discharged/retired from the military OR the non-military candidate.
As a retired military member myself, it certainly seems imprudent to seek such advantage.
Perhaps those people who are saying that appearing in a photograph in a uniform IS allowed could cite something to that effect.
What I have found so far indicates that appearing in a uniform is a no-no and printing and doing anything in uniform which is intended to persuade others is a no-no. Does appearing in a photo in uniform attempt to persuade others to your political point of view? I suppose there is some gray area there.
But the regulation does go on to say this:
E3.4. POLITICAL ACTIVITIES NOT EXPRESSLY PERMITTED OR PROHIBITED
Some activities not expressly prohibited may be contrary to the spirit and intent of section 4. of this Directive or section E3.3. of this enclosure. In determining whether an activity violates the traditional concept that Service members should not engage in
partisan political activity, rules of reason and common sense shall apply. Any activity that may be viewed as associating the Department of Defense or the Department of Homeland Security, in the case of the Coast Guard, or any component of these Departments directly or indirectly with a partisan political activity shall be avoided.
To those of us without specific familiarity with the rules and regulations, it does seem plausible that this could be interpreted either way - allowed or disallowed. It would seem that the correct thing to do would be to ask the DOD - that goes for Greg and the defenders of Gill. Neither group has offered ANY evidence that their interpretation is the correct one.
That’s why the DoD has Directives, so you don’t have to “…ask the DoD…” and in the process, get yet another person’s interpretation.
I think the intent of the Directive you cited — “…Any activity that may be viewed as associating the Department of Defense or the Department of Homeland Security, in the case of the Coast Guard, or any component of these Departments directly or indirectly with a partisan political activity shall be avoided” — is fairly clear.
It’s not so much whether the practice is precisely legal or not, I don’t know and I suppose it would take a judiciary to determine that. However, prudence and good judgment — to avoid the mere question of impropriety in this case — are essential attributes to a successful campaign.
If you think that breaking DoD regulations and policy speaks well of him, and are going to such gyrations to spin on his behalf, I have to wonder how much it cost Gill for you to lose any shred of objectivity in your analysis like this.
See, there you go again. You have no evidence Gill has broken Dod regulations or policy, but you accused him of it anyway. In fact, people have pointed out to you that he is NOT breaking Dod regulations and policy, but you say it anyway.
And that is why people want to sue you — because they believe you say false things with reckless disregard for the truth.
Go to John McCain’s presidential web site. There you will find pictures of him in uniform.
Go to the Bob McDonnell for Attorney General web site. There you will find a picture of him in uniform, with his daughter in uniform. That’s not some old picture of him, it’s a picture taken WHILE HE WAS RUNNING FOR OFFICE. I don’t see you claiming McDonnell should be hauled up on charges — of course he isn’t the lawyer in a libel suit against you.
This is true for lots of other candidates who had military records, including those still in the reserve. So unless you think every military reserve candidate who ever ran for office should be sent up on charges, it’s clear you are simply looking to throw dirt without regard for the truth.
freedom —
the regulations have NEVER been interpreted to deny former or current reserve member of the military from showing pictures or film of them in military uniform.
The prohibition regards doing things while IN military uniform. The “leeway” in the regulations regards the types of activities you do while in military uniform.
And yes, you could say this give an “unfair” advantage to a military candidate, who can show a picture of themselves in a military uniform. A graduate of college could likewise show a picture of their graduation, a former ballplayer could show a picture of themselves in uniform, a doctor might show a picture in scrubs, an astronaut a picture in a spacesuit (see John Glenn).
When you accomplish things, you get to brag about them. Gill served his country in a military capacity, and Greg calls him a terrorist.
Hopefully we can all agree that one who is no longer in the military is not subject to military justice or regulations. So if a RETIRED officer were to put on his uniform and campaign then no military court could prevent it.
We all also agree that Gill could not campaign while wearing his reserves uniform. The question is whether Gill is acting wrongly by distributing pictures of himself in uniform while he is still in the reserves.
None of us can remember any else doing it ever before. There are thus two possibilities. One would be that Gill had a great idea that no other reservist had ever thought of, i.e., depict himself in uniform on his campaign lit.
The other possiblity is that Gill is not knowledgeable about whether a reservist wearing his uniform in campaign lit is allowed. In that case the reason others don’t do it is because it may not be allowed.
I am betting on the latter. As usual, the two or three Gill supporters on BVBL introduce all sorts of irrelevant claims, such as discussing whether retired veterans no longer in the military can depict themselves in uniform. Of course they can, and Jim Webb did so last year. However, they are RETIRED.
If Gill wants to violate military regulations against being a fat slob and also wants his campaign lit to depict him in his uniform then he should quit the reserves.
Charles,
The policy, if you’d bother to read it, clearly establishes that actively serving officers are held to a higher standard than retirees. The cases you cite involve people no longer serving in an active or reserve capacity who used photos from their prior service, which is permissible. The problem here which you refuse to recognize, which for some reason I cannot grasp, is that it is a violation of directives and policy for an officer CURRENTLY SERVING IN THE ARMED FORCES to use his uniform in order to promote his political candidacy. Officers who violate this policy are subject to the provisions of Article 133 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice for which a court-martial may be called.
Are you being paid to spin such far-fetched excuses? Otherwise I cannot understand how someone as bright as yourself would be trotting out such implausible drivel.
Well Charles, perhaps there is only one way to end this debate and arrive at the truth of the matter…somebody with a copy of the literature in question should send it to the JAG office in Arlington with a cover letter citing the controversy. That should satisfy everyone, except perhaps Faisal Gill.
FYI Chris: The nomination is to be determined by convention, not primary.
AWCHeney:
Yes, it would be trivial for someone making false charges to verify that they were wrong, but Greg won’t do that, just as he apparently wouldn’t take the final steps necessary to verify his claims against Chapman. If he had, the lawsuit would have been dismissed long ago. How hard is it find out the guy really did graduate from High school? How hard would it be to ask Steve to take you with him the next time he cleaned the tombstones?
Gill obviously believes what he is doing is fine, or he wouldn’t be doing it. I see no evidence that any action is being taken against him. It’s the job of the people who are making accusations to prove those accusations.
I don’t know why you think Faisal wouldn’t be “satisfied”. He knows he’s not breaking the rules, and having his opponents have to admit it would be quite satisfying.
That’s why I don’t expect Greg to do any fact-checking.
JM: “None of us can remember any else doing it ever before”
I haven’t seen a single instance of a current reservist running for office that did NOT include a picture in uniform.
But I like AWCheney’s idea. Rather than make unsubstantiated charges, why not send the literature to JAG and let them decide. If you all are right, that should clear things up for all of us.
I’ve never heard of the prohibition covering pictures, and I have trouble imagining that using a picture of yourself would be OK if you retired but not if you hadn’t. I see nothing in the regulations posted which would cover the use of pictures in literature.
But having a pronouncement from the military would be more useful than the opinions of non-lawyers and partisans.
Greg, I am most certainly not paid by anybody here. I don’t even know who I am supporting for this race, and might not choose between the two candidates. They aren’t in my district, so I won’t be at the convention.
I just think your attacks are absurd, and am defending them.
You’ve made one false charge, one unsubstantiated charge, and one petty personal attack in the last week (Gill is a terrorist, Gill violated the UCMJ, Gill is fat).
If you were calling Lucas a terrorist, or a criminal, or fat, I’d be attacking you for that as well.
Article from the Las Vegas Review Journal (perhaps the difference here, if there is even one, is that these were “live” people in an ad, as opposed to a photograph):
Porter, Hafen pull ads featuring military uniforms
By PAUL HARASIM
REVIEW-JOURNAL
As Republican Rep. Jon Porter and Tessa Hafen, his Democratic rival for the 3rd Congressional District seat, attempted to use the military to ensure victory on Election Day, they also were placing men in harm’s way: Department of Defense regulations clearly forbid uniformed personnel from participating in partisan political campaigns.
Now both Porter and Hafen, clearly outflanked by the armed forces, say they are abandoning their tactics.
No shots were fired at either political camp Monday, but the Marines, or rather a Marine, did land at Hafen campaign headquarters.
“He said we weren’t supposed to be using a Marine in uniform for our ads,” said David Cherry, Hafen’s press secretary. Cherry said he assured the visiting Marine that the ad showing the Marine in uniform would no longer be broadcast as of today.
Elliot Anderson, a Marine Corps veteran who wears a goatee with his uniform in an ad supporting Hafen, said that because he was on inactive reserve, he thought he could speak his mind. An inactive reservist is one who has finished his or her active duty but must remain on inactive reserve for a designated period of time, a term in which an emergency could result in a call-up to active duty.
“It doesn’t matter if he or she is on inactive reserve,” said Maj. Stewart Upton, referring to Defense Department regulations that include prohibition of “wearing a military uniform implying endorsement of a candidate.”
“Administrative action can be taken (against a service member) by the individual services after an investigation,” Upton said.
Ryan Temme, Porter’s press secretary, said Monday that the Porter camp “was no longer using” an ad attacking Hafen’s stance on immigration which shows Porter walking with two members of the inactive reserve.
Both campaigns said they had already planned on removing the commercials from rotation.
Maj. Gabrielle Chapin, a public affairs officer for the Marines at the Pentagon, said on Monday that disciplinary action against military personnel has not had to be taken, though several political campaigns across the country have incorrectly featured reserve members of the Armed Forces.
“Each time we have contacted the campaign office to inform them of the DOD regulation regarding wearing of the uniform, they have removed the ad in question,” she said. “For this reason, there has been no need to take action against the individual involved. ”
Neither Upton nor Chapin knew what penalty could be suffered by members of the inactive reserve. Active duty personnel can be court martialed for disobeying regulations.
Although Porter and Hafen have removed the ads in question, the race still will include commercials reflecting the support — or opposition — of military members.
An ad made by VoteVets.Org takes Porter to task for voting against bills that would benefit veterans.
Porter has a TV spot beginning today with Chuck Marino, a former National Guardsmen and Marine who is now suffering from cancer. Marino is not seen in a uniform in the ad, in which he talks about how Porter helped him get radiation treatment locally.
“I wanted to make the ad after that Marine in Hafen’s ad (Elilot Anderson) said Porter doesn’t do anything for veterans,” Marino said. “Normally, I’d have to go to Los Angeles because we don’t have a VA hospital here, but Porter made it happen so I could get radiation treatment here.”
Franklin Shoemaker, a Las Vegas resident who says he was a Marine drill instructor for 10 years, said he did not like Marine Corps veteran Anderson wearing a goatee in the ad. “Any real Marine knows you can’t wear facial hair like that while wearing the uniform.”
Anderson said Shoemaker is missing the point. “The fact that veterans’ benefits getting cut is far more important than my wearing facial hair,” he said.
Hafen said she considers Anderson “an American hero.”
Anon:
Yes. In that case, it was people participating in a campaign, appearing in uniform in support of the campaign. While I don’t know if UCMJ would apply, if we were talking about a candidate putting on his uniform and taking pictures with other people in his campaign and then posting those pictures, I would support calling for the candidate to pull down those pictures.
But here the complaint is that a candidate has pictures of themselves in uniform, and if using those historical pictures in campaign literature.
Nobody seems to think there’d be a problem using those pictures if the candidate had resigned his commission, which means nobody thinks it is “misleading” or “suggests the military endorses a candidate” when that candidate is shown with a uniform.
Hey, if Greg simply wanted to say that Gill shouldn’t use the pictures because it’s not fair, that would be his opinion and I wouldn’t argue it.
My complaint is that Greg made more than one post with a headline that assumed facts Greg cannot verify. It’s speculation by everybody here what a JAG would say about this. To present as fact that a candidate has violated regulations when the evidence at best is cloudy on the subject is false reporting.
I’ve stated the facts as I understand them, referenced the regulations and directives that have been violated, and have written about my conclusions that Faisal Gill violated these regulations and directives that he should have been familiar with, not only because as an officer he is required to know them, but because of the nature of his service as a military lawyer he is charged with prosecuting or defending naval personnel who violate them.
Did Faisal Gill pose for campaign pictures while wearing his uniform? Unquestionably. Did those pictures appear in his campaign materials with his authorization? Without a doubt. Is this a violation of NAVPERS regulations, DoD Instruction 1334.1, and guidance by the Secretary of Defense? By my reading it is, and everyone else is invited to review these and come to their own conclusion.
If you argue so stridently otherwise, I invite you to back up your opinion like I have.
OK. First, you are unlikely to be able to get a Navy opinion about this, as it simply is not an issue and they are not likely to issue opinions about non-issues. But if you want to keep claiming as fact things that are not in evidence, you should take AWCheney’s sound advice and contact the local reserve and file a complaint and see where it goes, instead of simply asserting things that you do not know to be fact.
As an added bonus, I’ll provide a link to a person who ran for Congress last year, is active duty, and included military pictures on his web site. This will prove that it is done. If someone wants to argue that one example isn’t enough, that’s too bad. One example refutes the claim that “nobody does it”, and will solve JM’s problem that “he’s never seen it”, because it will be right here (and in the other thread) for everybody to see.
This should move the argument to “well, someone should have reported HIM”. Realise that the republicans were struggling last year to win elections. The suggestion that a democrat broke the UCMJ and NO REPUBLICAN was smart enough to point it out until Greg L. came along should be laughable, but that is of no matter.
I’ll provide the link, there is no evidence that this person was ever brought up on charges. If you want to do something for the Republican Party, maybe you could file charges against this Democrat congressman and see where it gets you before you continue to claim that it is a violation.
Patrick Murphy, PA-06: “With this background, it is no surprise that Patrick went on to become a West Point professor, airborne and air assault qualified, a JAG Corps attorney, and that he served two deployments after 9/11 - the first to Bosnia in 2002 and the second to Baghdad, Iraq in 2003-2004 as a paratrooper with the 82nd Airborne Division.”
From the congressional web site: Patrick Murphy:
Military Service: Army, 1993-2004; Army Reserves, 2004-present
OK, so I’ve established he was a candidate, he was in the military, and he is CURRENTLY in the Army reserves and was during his election campaign.
From his WEB SITE:
Miliatry Photos
I’m not sure Greg’s web site allows photos to be linked into comments, so I’ll let you all go to the web site link. You will see lots of pictures of Patrick Murphy in his uniform, stored as “military pictures” on his web site.
That should establish that people running for partisan office who are in the reserves have used pictures of themselves in uniform as part of their campaigns.
I have sent an e-mail to someone who might provide word from a JAG source. Not holding out much hope since they don’t usually deal with things that are not in dispute.
Greg, the ball is in your court. Publish an official response from the reserves indicating there is a violation, or file a complaint against Patrick Murphy and let us know how it works out.
“Although blogs such as this may, to some degree, influence a local race, don’t flatter yourself.”
Why don’t you ask this question of Steve Chapman, Mom?
Charles, If Greg gets to go with Chapman while he cleans the tombstones, can I come over to your hose and watch you play with your toy trains?
BDB:
The Railway festival is the first Sunday in June, and you are welcome to come buy and run the trains — I expect to be there, but haven’t gotten all the details worked out yet.