Pentagon investigating Sen. Mark Kelly over 'refuse illegal orders' video

[Oompa Loompa]

Pentagon investigating Sen. Mark Kelly over 'refuse illegal orders' video

The Pentagon said it is reviewing whether Sen. Mark Kelly, a retired Navy captain, broke military law by urging troops to refuse unlawful orders.

www.usatoday.com

The Pentagon announced Nov. 24 that it was investigating Sen. Mark Kelly for "serious allegations of misconduct" after the Arizona Democrat called for U.S. troops to refuse unlawful orders.

Officials are reviewing whether Kelly was involved in a breach of military law, according to a post on X from the Department of War, formally the Department of Defense.

Kelly was among a group of six Democratic lawmakers who put out a video directed at service members telling them they have the right not to obey orders they believe to be illegal.

"A thorough review" of the allegations was initiated to determine further actions against Kelly, a retired U.S. Navy captain, "which may include recall to active duty for court-martial proceedings or administrative measures," the post reads.

The social media post cited a federal law that allows retired military members to be recalled to active duty if ordered.

This should be interesting.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

It's a case of "show politics"

Mark Kelly made his statement "for show", the administration is going to go after him "for show"

I don't expect anything significant to come of it.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

It's a case of "show politics"

Mark Kelly made his statement "for show", the administration is going to go after him "for show"

I don't expect anything significant to come of it.

I agree. Yes, retired officers can be recalled to face a military court. However, this is usually only the case when a crime occurred while the individual was on active duty. I don't think any jury will convict. However, this may send a clear message that such rhetoric, which disrupts the good order and discipline of the military, will not be tolerated.

 

[RDKirk]

I agree. Yes, retired officers can be recalled to face a military court. However, this is usually only the case when a crime occurred while the individual was on active duty. I don't think any jury will convict. However, this may send a clear message that such rhetoric, which disrupts the good order and discipline of the military, will not be tolerated.

True enough that usually happens when it's discovered that a retiree had committed a crime while on active duty.

But a fairly recent federal law prohibits a sitting member of Congress from going into military active duty. In order to go back into active duty, Kelly would have to resign from the Senate.

If Kelly refuses to resign and refuses to report to active duty, in one technical sense he would be in violation of the UCMJ. Members of Congress are not subject to the UCMJ, however.

So, basically, as a Senator he can tell the Pentagon to pound sand.

Also, in three months Kelly will be beyond the statutory age of being recalled back to active duty.

Not to mention that the case itself would be laughable. Both the UCMJ and US Code require use of force to be a component of a sedition charge. Before they even consider recalling Kelly to face a court-martial, they've got to invent a charge that won't be laughed at by any military judge.

I don't think anyone in uniform in the Pentagon wants to harass Kelly. This isn't a matter that will make them look good or feel good. They've got to tap dance for their boss, but I wouldn't be surprised if they tap dance very, very slowly for the next three months.

 

[Aldebaran]

It's a case of "show politics"

Mark Kelly made his statement "for show", the administration is going to go after him "for show"

I don't expect anything significant to come of it.

Probably more likely that Kelly and the others made their statement in preparation for what they think is coming, which is future military operations--perhaps in Venezuela. Those Democrats made their statement about not having to follow "illegal orders". Then what do you think these same Democrats would once military operations got started? They'd be standing on the House and Senate floors crowing about how Trump is conducting an "illegal operation" using the military. They would keep saying things like that to go along with their previous assertion about how military members don't have obey illegal orders, thus encouraging mutiny within our own military. I don't doubt this is exactly what they want. It's not like they haven't stooped to such low levels before.

 

[rjs330]

It all political theater. I wish everyone would knock it off and just get back to governing. Democrats and Republicans both.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Pentagon investigating Sen. Mark Kelly over 'refuse illegal orders' video

The Pentagon said it is reviewing whether Sen. Mark Kelly, a retired Navy captain, broke military law by urging troops to refuse unlawful orders.

www.usatoday.com

This should be interesting.

Perfect example of right is wrong and wrong is right. Even when it is clearly presented, "refuse unlawful orders", somehow this glaring word goes unnoticed.
Let us reason, please!

 

[wing2000]

True enough that usually happens when it's discovered that a retiree had committed a crime while on active duty.

But a fairly recent federal law prohibits a sitting member of Congress from going into military active duty. In order to go back into active duty, Kelly would have to resign from the Senate.

If Kelly refuses to resign and refuses to report to active duty, in one technical sense he would be in violation of the UCMJ. Members of Congress are not subject to the UCMJ, however.

So, basically, as a Senator he can tell the Pentagon to pound sand.

Also, in three months Kelly will be beyond the statutory age of being recalled back to active duty.

Not to mention that the case itself would be laughable. Both the UCMJ and US Code require use of force to be a component of a sedition charge. Before they even consider recalling Kelly to face a court-martial, they've got to invent a charge that won't be laughed at by any military judge.

I don't think anyone in uniform in the Pentagon wants to harass Kelly. This isn't a matter that will make them look good or feel good. They've got to tap dance for their boss, but I wouldn't be surprised if they tap dance very, very slowly for the next three months.

...the next time Hegseth appears before the Senate Armed Services Committee, it will be interesting to watch Sen Kelly questioning of the war secretary.

[....of course, that assumes Hegseth ever bothers to go to Congress again. As I write this, a Navy armada is assembled off the coast of Venezuela, and to date, the Administration has not briefed Congress on their plans....much less the American people].

 

[Matt5]

I said "illegal" orders should be ignored. What is illegal? Anything I don't like.

@DataRepublican calls it seditious-adjacent behavior. This call to refuse illegal orders didn't fall out of the sky. @DataRepublican posts about it on X.

DataRepublican (small r) on X:

"Excellent find. I think we are getting very, very warm as to whose NGO's idea it was to have the Senators produce a video about refusing illegal orders. National Lawyers Guild issued a document about refusing illegal orders on 11 November. And now they have partnered with Win Without War to advertise seditious-adjacent behavior on billboards. And Win Without War has multiple Congressional liaisons on their "About" page. National Lawyers Guild is an infamous supporter of antifa per @MrAndyNgo, which of course is now a foreign terrorist organization.

https://t.co/Yvm3fpkoV7" / X

https://x.com/DataRepublican/status/1993582203151028534

The Department of War is weighing the matter.

Department of War on X: "OFFICIAL STATEMENT: The Department of War has received serious allegations of misconduct against Captain Mark Kelly, USN (Ret.). In accordance with the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 688, and other applicable regulations, a thorough review of these allegations" / X

https://x.com/DeptofWar/status/1992999267967905905

 

[BCP1928]

Probably more likely that Kelly and the others made their statement in preparation for what they think is coming, which is future military operations--perhaps in Venezuela. Those Democrats made their statement about not having to follow "illegal orders". Then what do you think these same Democrats would once military operations got started? They'd be standing on the House and Senate floors crowing about how Trump is conducting an "illegal operation" using the military. They would keep saying things like that to go along with their previous assertion about how military members don't have obey illegal orders, thus encouraging mutiny within our own military. I don't doubt this is exactly what they want. It's not like they haven't stooped to such low levels before.

Disobeying illegal orders is mutiny?

 

[hedrick]

It all political theater. I wish everyone would knock it off and just get back to governing. Democrats and Republicans both.

One plausible suggestion is that this was an invitation for Trump to overreact. If so, it was successful.

 

[RDKirk]

Probably more likely that Kelly and the others made their statement in preparation for what they think is coming, which is future military operations--perhaps in Venezuela. Those Democrats made their statement about not having to follow "illegal orders". Then what do you think these same Democrats would once military operations got started? They'd be standing on the House and Senate floors crowing about how Trump is conducting an "illegal operation" using the military. They would keep saying things like that to go along with their previous assertion about how military members don't have obey illegal orders, thus encouraging mutiny within our own military. I don't doubt this is exactly what they want. It's not like they haven't stooped to such low levels before.

What would be the rationale for conducting war with Venezuela that is covered by any current Congressional resolution?

And if it's not, why shouldn't Congresspeople call that an illegal operation?

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Perfect example of right is wrong and wrong is right. Even when it is clearly presented, "refuse unlawful orders", somehow this glaring word goes unnoticed.
Let us reason, please!

The sole mission is to undermine, sabatoge, and resist Trump by all means possible. The No Kings rally did nothing and the government shutdown was a flop. They have nothing left. So in their frustration, they tried to sow confusion and discord amongst the military ranks to encourage a soft mutiny. Who knows how many young junior enlisted, with minimal understanding of military law, are now going to have this dumb idea that they can refuse to follow orders just because they don't like Trump or disagree with his policies. Was it wrong? Yes! Is anyone going to be charged with any crimes? Probably only the nieve servicemembers who bought into the nonsense.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Disobeying illegal orders is mutiny?

No. But someone refusing to obey orders will eventually have to stand before a court and convince a judge that the orders were illegal. If they fail to do so, they will be spending time in Fort Leavenworth and receive a dishonorable discharge. So the service member better be darn sure the orders were illegal.

 

[RDKirk]

No. But someone refusing to obey orders will eventually have to stand before a court and convince a judge that the orders were illegal. If they fail to do so, they will be spending time in Fort Leavenworth and receive a dishonorable discharge. So the service member better be darn sure the orders were illegal.

More likely a Bad Conduct Discharge or possibly even a "General Discharge Under Other than Honorable Conditions."

Civilians throw around "Dishonorable Discharge" a lot, but the bar for that is high. Dishonorable Discharges follow convictions for capital crimes and usually accompany 10- or 20-year or life prison sentences.

Officers, btw, don't get discharged (Dishonorable or otherwise), they get Dismissed.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

More likely a Bad Conduct Discharge or possibly even a "General Discharge Under Other than Honorable Conditions."

Civilians throw around "Dishonorable Discharge" a lot, but the bar for that is high. Dishonorable Discharges follow convictions for capital crimes and usually accompany 10- or 20-year or life prison sentences.

Officers, btw, don't get discharged (Dishonorable or otherwise), they get Dismissed.

Regardless, refusing orders, legal or not, will result in a long and grueling legal process that a servicemember better be prepared to endure.

 

[RDKirk]

Regardless, refusing orders, legal or not, will result in a long and grueling legal process that a servicemember better be prepared to endure.

Maybe, maybe not. I know of a couple of circumstances in combat where soldiers refused to follow illegal orders (orders to break clearly known and understood law) and their superiors wisely chose not to press it.

 

[Yarddog]

Pentagon investigating Sen. Mark Kelly over 'refuse illegal orders' video

The Pentagon said it is reviewing whether Sen. Mark Kelly, a retired Navy captain, broke military law by urging troops to refuse unlawful orders.

www.usatoday.com

This should be interesting.

Investigation won't turn up anything wrong. It's like me telling my son to obey the law and don't do anything illegal, regardless of who wants you to.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

The sole mission is to undermine, sabatoge, and resist Trump by all means possible. The No Kings rally did nothing and the government shutdown was a flop. They have nothing left. So in their frustration, they tried to sow confusion and discord amongst the military ranks to encourage a soft mutiny. Who knows how many young junior enlisted, with minimal understanding of military law, are now going to have this dumb idea that they can refuse to follow orders just because they don't like Trump or disagree with his policies. Was it wrong? Yes! Is anyone going to be charged with any crimes? Probably only the nieve servicemembers who bought into the nonsense.

I trust common sense will be exercised
by our men and women who protect our nation and who uphold the constitution. Presidents come and go but our military does not . They stand for righteousness and shield us from those who depart from
what is morally just according to their system of ethics.

For your review:
The ethical code of the U.S. military mandates that every service member's highest allegiance is to the Constitution, as sworn in their oath. Although service members are required to obey the orders of the President and their superiors, this obedience is strictly conditioned by the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). If the President or any commander issues an order that is manifestly unlawful—meaning it clearly and fundamentally violates the Constitution or other federal law—the service member has a legal and ethical obligation to refuse the order, as the duty to uphold the supreme law of the land supersedes the duty to obey any individual.