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?

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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.

FYI Chris: The nomination is to be determined by convention, not primary.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.