GOP Convention in VIOLATION of it's own DOD Directive issued 8/02/04

[rob-ok-vin]

In direct violation of DOD policy issued August 02, 2004, the Republican National Convention is touting 3% of it's 4800 delegates (144 delegates) as active duty military personnel. The new initiative, put out and signed by Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz outlines the policies regarding active duty military personnel. Among the policy's prohibited behaviors or activities is listed in DOD Directive 1344.10 under section 4.1.2.3 is:


4.1.2. A member on active duty shall not:

4.1.2.3. Participate in partisan political management, campaigns, or conventions (unless attending a convention as a spectator when not in uniform).

This new policy, enacted after the Democratic Convention (July 26-29), clearly states the prohibited and acceptable behaviors of military personnel in regards to political affiliation and endorsements.

The Republican National Party is touting these military delegates in direct violation of their own Defense Department directive. These delegates face disciplinary action under the DOD directive:

4.4.4. A member who violates any of the prohibitions in sub-paragraphs 4.1.2., 4.2.1., 4.3.1., or 4.3.4., or enclosure 3, of this Directive may be subject to disciplinary or adverse administrative action under Service regulations.

This is unbelievable breaking news which has not, to my knowledge, been covered in any other media outlet. This is a DU exclusive.

Let's get this story out to the mainstream media before the start of the RNC and put the focus on this administration's further violations of it's own policies and procedures.

[ParanoidPat]

1. LOL!

Nice catch! :evilgrin: :toast:

:kick:

[Spazito]

2. Good catch!

As usual, it seems to be do as I say not as I do with the repubs.

[sunscreened]

3. Hmmm

Wanna bet this is why Florida declined to release the names of its delegates. Sounds like a good reason to me!

[comsymp]

4. 6. Effective Immediately

nt

[rocktivity]

5. They can be spectators but not delegates? Holy hypocrisy, Batman!

Don't just sit there--TO THE DU MEDIA BLASTER, Rob-ok-vin!!!!

:headbang:
rocknation

[realFedUp]

6. active duty military personnel

have certainly sat behind Bush in so
many photo op speeches.

[wndycty]

7. Of course this will be spun that the Democrats don't want . . .

. . .active duty military to participate in the political process.

[lostnfound]

20. 'Never understood why Bush wanted to prevent it in the 1st place' nt

[yellowdawg]

8. Posted to Craigslist

. . . under the "Political" section. (I deleted the apostrophe from "it's")

http://www.craigslist.org/sfc/pol/40772683.html

[Julian English]

9. Looks like a busy week

The Shore Patrol and the MPs ought be busy rounding up these folks.

Seriously, though, the press needs to get a hold of this.

[KittyWampus]

10. Sadly, Can't Nominate This For Homepage

cause it's over 24 hours old.

However, this is significant. Hope other DU'ers click on this thread.

[juajen]

11. I clicked, am glad I did

:kick: :kick:

[jmowreader]

12. What happens when the final tally is 4656-144?

As in the 144 troops write in anyone else?

[MrScorpio]

13. This pisses me off to no end

This very fact will be a discussion on base Monday morning

[Julian English]

14. The question is whether these are truly active Armed Forces members?

If they are reservists, then it is OK for them to be delegates. The GOP website may have gotten the story wrong or lied. (Presumably, the AP got the numbers from the GOP. In any case whether the GOP lied or provided the wrong facts to the AP, that would be about par for the GOP.)

Has anyone checked to see if there is any more information to prove that these are actual active member of the armed forces? Or is it just this one story. I would think that this would be fairly easy to confirm.

[Supersedeas]

15. Only partisan if it is anything other than the Rovian Repug Party

I guess.

One Party to Rule them All.

[Blue Gardener]

16. Welcome to DU rob-ok-vin!

Excellent post. Let's get this story out there!

[Guaranteed]

17. Are delegates considered spectators? nt

[Mortos]

19. Not according to the directive

they are distinct from one another. The directive specifically denies them the right to be delegates but allows them to spectate.

[MGKrebs]

18. At the least, they should be put on notice that they are not to wear their

uniforms.