According to Department of Defense Directive Number 1344.10 “Political Activities by Members of the Armed Forces’ dated February 19, 2008, non-active members of the National Guard who are running for political office may not:
Use or allow the use of photographs, drawings, and other similar media formats of themselves in uniform as the primary graphic representation in any campaign media, such as a billboard, brochure, flyer, Web site, or television commercial. For the purposes of this policy, “photographs” include video images, drawings, and all other similar formats of representational media.
Depict or allow the depiction of themselves in uniform in a manner that does not accurately reflect their actual performance of duty. For the purpose of this policy, “photographs” include video images, drawings, and all other similar formats of representational media.
(To save readers time, under section 2) Applicability, it indicates that section 4.3 “applies to members of the National Guard, even when in a non-Federal status” (meaning in a non-active status–which is Brown’s status) The above regulations cited are sections 4.3.2.1 and 4.3.2.2.
Not being an expert, maybe there is some wiggle room about a campaign supplying to the Boston Globe a “primary graphic representation”–a photo–of Brown posed in combat fatigues, but it certainly merits further discussion. In addition, Brown’s campaign FaceBook site has posted at least two photos of him in different military uniforms (which I made screen shots of if they disappear.)
Also, given that Brown was never served in a combat zone (from my research…he has certainly never been deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan) I do not know whether posing in combat fatigues “accurately reflect actual performance of duty” Brown conducts stateside as a Judge Advocate General (a military lawyer), as stated in this directive.
Again, I respect and thank Scott Brown for his service in the National Guard and as today’s Globe profile indicates, his service is part of his genuine commitment to public service (even though I disagree with a vast amount of his political views). But his use of the military uniform for partisan political purposes is at best disappointing and may warrant further review by appropriate parties.
You don’t expect them to obey the rules THEY make, do you?
I’ve given you the Dept of Defense Directive that pertains to Scott Brown. BTW, the rules yuo claim Democrats made, were actually made under a Republican administration.
The document I cite pertains to current members of the National Guard, not someone who served and was discharged…big, big difference.
John Kerry was wearing combat fatigues because he was IN combat.
By its express terms, the DOD directive does not apply to news photographs published by a newspaper. Do shots like this count as “swiftboating”? Or is that a term that only applies to low blows and dirty tricks by Republicans against Democrats?
about the photo in the Globe… but that FrankSkeffingtion is right about Facebook.
<
p>As for the style of uniform, I’d be wiling to bet that it doesn’t matter… it’s not as if the only time combat fatigues are ever worn is in the height of jungle battle.
…”accurately reflect” Brown’s”actual performance of duty” as the Directive outlines? Brown has been a stateside JAG, yet the picture could give people the impression that he’s been involved in some level combat duty.
<
p>And the same is true with one of the two FaceBook photos. (The other photo of him speaking at a podium in a more formal dress uniform seems to “accurately reflect” Brown’s “actual performance of duty” as a JAG.)
If he was wearing a combat helment and had a had a SAW in his hands, I’d see it. You don’t train in your dress uniform, and I’d bet a year’s worth of pay that Scott can dissassemble, clean, put back together and then exterminate terrorists with an M-4 if he had to.
<
p>Didn’t get enough GI Joe as a kid? “Exterminate” terrorists? One man’s terrorist is another man’s patriot, a know. At any rate, lots of Democrats and Republicans have served in the military, but I hardly see much respect for those on the other side of the aisle from you. What’s so special about Mr. Brown?
Just guessing. đŸ˜‰
I have a huge problem with this. The fetish that the right has made of the military and military service pisses me off to no end.
<
p>You’re absolutely right. It’s Madison Avenue meets the BDU. It’s disrespectful and it’s self-indulgent at the same time. We know what’s going on here, but try to get the Brown supporters to be honest about that.
I think it is absolutely appropriate to respect men and women who have put their lives on the line. It’s neither necessary nor sufficient as a reason to elect someone, but unless the person directly committed a war crime, like ordering the My Lai massacre, service is honorable. I supported Clinton despite his avoidance of service, supported Kerry to be our nominee in part because I thought (pre-SBVT) having both served AND later questioned Vietnam would neutralize arguments of weakness. I opposed McCain for his proposals, but never begrudged his service in combat or time as a POW.
As a Judicial Corps officer, Lt. Col. Brown is expected to be familiar, understand and enforce Department of Defense Directives. Further, the DoD expects its Judicial Corps officers, of which Scott Brown is one, to be personally held to an even higher standard when it comes to their own violations of DoD directives.
….when it comes to their level of understanding, and compliance of DoD directives.
Scott Brown is an active member of the National Guard and Democrats don’t want you to see that in a picture.
<
p>Congratulations, though. It does seem like you’re right.
<
p>Unfortunately, most people won’t care what the rule actually says and since this is an election rather than a court of law, this type of issue would help Scott Brown more than hurt him.
If Scott Brown was an engineer, a grunt, a pilot, a chaplain, or any other occupation within the forces, I’d agree.
<
p>But he’s legal. It’s his job to know better, and to enforce those requirements on others. You don’t get a pass on your own area of expertise.
I don’t think most people would give a damn if he was in the military as a butcher, a baker or a candlestick maker.
<
p>He’s been a volunteer member of the military for a long time. He’s earned every right to wear that uniform.
<
p>Even if he did something wrong, harping on it only reminds and reinforces his volunteer service, which most people think is a good thing.
<
p>You can’t go back and have that picture not appear in the paper. So find something better to rip him.
I think it’s easy to write a narrative that Scott Brown ignores protocol in his own effort of self promotion. As a military attorney, he very well knows the rules and he simply ignored them to suit his purpose.
<
p>Now he wants to write laws for the rest of us?
<
p>The military has those rules precisely because it does not want to be drawn into electoral politics. Apparently Scott Brown doesn’t care about things like that, at least not as much as he cares about himself.
<
p>
<
p>The narrative is easy. Does it get told? I doubt it. If it were told, I think it would certainly turn off plenty of folks, both vets and not.
In addition to being fairly insignificant, the issue is fairly easy for Brown to distance himself from, then flip to the positive.
<
p>Scott Brown:
“The photo should not have been used. A campaign staffer who was not familiar with the rules, sent the picture along. I apologize.
<
p>”I take this issue very seriously as a volunteer soldier of almost 30 years. In my many dedicated years of service to both protecting our country and the rule of law….
<
p>”I’m in the National Guard…
<
p>”I signed up in a period after Vientam when military service wasn’t as popular as it is now.
<
p>”I’ve been in the National Guard a long time (unlike some of these Guantanamo closing liberal weenies)…
<
p>”Security…”
<
p>”I’m ruggedly handsome. I could play GI Joe in the movies….
<
p>”New 8×10 glossies of me bare cheseted will be distributed, showing how well I’ve held up over the years. I won’t compare myself to Clooney or Harrison Ford, but my wife does.
<
p>”Do Coakley supporters also mention my daughter was on American Idol?”
<
p>I don’t like the guy, but I respect his long term service enough to not smear it. Even if it would provide traction. It’s not like he failed to show for duty. That would swing an election. Oh, wait…
Follow the rules = “Smear”
…maybe the voters won’t care, but I suspect some military superiors will care.
Skeff. This is just an attempt to smear a soldier. But if the boyos want to go after Scott Brown for his uniform rather than the issues that differentiate the candidates, I guess you can give it a whirl. Btw, will you be posting as well on the overt legal violations of the SEIU mass email blast to state employee email addresses during working hours, or the pending FEC investigation of the overlap of Martha’s use of state campaign funds for a federal campaign? C’mon.
It’s an attempt to smear a politician who happens to be a soldier. There’s a world of difference, and your lack of ability to see it (or acknowledge it) doesn’t speak very well of you.
<
p>
<
p>An attack on Mark Sanford is not an attack on lovers of the Appalachian Trail (or Argentinian tail).
An attack on Rush Limbaugh is not an attack on prescription drug addicts.
An attack on Mark Foley or Larry Craig is not an attack on homosexuals.
How many “military superiors” are voting in this election? Of those, how many don’t agree with the rule itself, or don’t think breaking this rule is a big deal? How many of them “care” enough to vote against a serviceman because of this?
<
p>I think it’d be more likely to have a negative backlash. And that’s if anyone paid attention or cared, something I view as unlikely.
As a member of the National Guard, I’d be willing to bet that most of them care a hell of a lot. Perhaps Scott Brown’s unit doesn’t care about following the rules, but most of us in the military do care. Those rules are extremely important.
<
p>It’s not just about keeping politicians from gaining a little bit of slimy political advantage. It’s about keeping the military strictly separate from politics in the name of maintaining civilian control and ensuring that the only people with enough firepower to pull off a coup don’t try it. Civilian control of the military has been difficult to come by in most societies throughout time, and has even been endangered at certain times in our own history (see Bay of Pigs). The fact that Scott Brown has advertised on websites advocating a military coup makes his use of the military for political purposes even more egregious (see http://www.dailykos.com/storyo…
<
p>Posing in uniform for campaign purposes is deeply offensive to those soldiers who are in the military for any reason other than furtherance of political ambitions, and the appropriate response to his flagrant refusal to obey the rules is a court martial followed by a dishonorable discharge.
Excellent point about the tenuousness of civilian control of the military, PatrickLong. I think that maybe we Americans tend to forget what a big deal it is that the civilian government here ultimately calls the shots (or is supposed to) with regard to what the military should or shouldn’t do (though we often defer to military to determine HOW to carry out those civilian directives).
<
p>Brown’s wearing of a “combat” style uniform is certainly in keeping with normal regulations, but his uniformed appearances in photos or at events with any campaign-related activity ARE a big deal. Unfortunately, I’m no authority on the details of the policy (nor an attorney, much less a JAG), so I hesitate to say “court martial.” I won’t, however, dispute you for saying it đŸ™‚
I am a yellow-dog Democrat and have no great love for Senator Brown, but I think the chagrin over his uniform may be misplaced. I believe the uniform in his National Guard photo is referred to as the Army Combat Uniform:
<
p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A…
<
p>If I understand the policy correctly, soldiers in the full-time Army, Guard and Reserve would wear these uniforms as everyday-business uniforms unless required by circumstance to wear more formal versions (Class A, etc.). I’ve seen other officers in a variety of positions wear the same uniform for everyday business in their respective areas.
<
p>As for the regs about him appearing in uniform in campaign-related appearances or material, that may very well be another matter. I saw him weeks ago do a stand-up with an NECN reporter while he was in uniform at the construction of a home for a disabled soldier, and the interview had a campaign-slant to it. (I think it was the weekend of the Army-Navy football game.) I think that does warrant further explanation. Perhaps it’s okay–if it is, I don’t think it’s too much to ask for him to produce military legal opinions backing him up on such a situation, or a letter from a superior officer spelling out what he may or may not do given his particular circumstances.
An Air Force colonel oversees the software project I work on and he showed up at our last user group meeting in combat fatigues. It’s their version of business casual.
<
p>I was going to write the photo off as a campaign aide who wasn’t aware of the regulations sending the photo to the paper, but if he’s wearing the uniform to an event not directly connected to his JAG service where he can reasonably expect to be on camera, then I do believe he’s violating the spirit, if not the letter of the regulation. Not a big issue in my book, but as has been stated elsewhere a JAG should know better.
it may not be JAG related but it is definitely military-related.
Did we not imprison or hang people for such actions against our servicemen last century? Perhaps in the next photo of Mr. Brown we will see him draped in the flag.
<
p>“When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.” – Sinclair Lewis
<
p>I think I’ll support our American youth, serving so well overseas for so long, by requesting our elected bring them home.
This photo is kosher. It simply shows that he is in the military. No more, no less.
<
p>Campaign materials or actively campaigning in uniform would cross the line.
… like a Facebook site?
… “closer to the line” according to friend.
<
p>From the lawyer –
<
p>