Department of War Mulls Court-Martialing Senator and Inactive-Duty Officer Mark Kelly for Urging Troops to Defy the Duly-Elected Commander in Chief

Officers in the US Armed Forces are under a special obligation to respect the chain of command.

Aren't they?

The Department of War is reportedly considering recalling Kelly to active duty, just to face an court martial for insubordination (and, I guess, insurrection).

Department of War
@DeptofWar

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. sec. 688, and other applicable regulations, a thorough review of these allegations has been initiated to determine further actions, which may include recall to active duty for court-martial proceedings or administrative measures. This matter will be handled in compliance with military law, ensuring due process and impartiality. Further official comments will be limited, to preserve the integrity of the proceedings.

The Department of War reminds all individuals that military retirees remain subject to the UCMJ for applicable offenses, and federal laws such as 18 U.S.C. § 2387 prohibit actions intended to interfere with the loyalty, morale, or good order and discipline of the armed forces. Any violations will be addressed through appropriate legal channels.

All servicemembers are reminded that they have a legal obligation under the UCMJ to obey lawful orders and that orders are presumed to be lawful. A servicemember's personal philosophy does not justify or excuse the disobedience of an otherwise lawful order.

Pete Hegseth put an exclamation point on the DOW's statement:

Pete Hegseth @PeteHegseth

1h

The video made by the "Seditious Six" was despicable, reckless, and false. Encouraging our warriors to ignore the orders of their Commanders undermines every aspect of "good order and discipline." Their foolish screed sows doubt and confusion -- which only puts our warriors in danger.

Five of the six individuals in that video do not fall under @DeptofWar
jurisdiction (one is CIA and four are former military but not "retired", so they are no longer subject to UCMJ). However, Mark Kelly (retired Navy Commander) is still subject to UCMJ--and he knows that.

As was announced, the Department is reviewing his statements and actions, which were addressed directly to all troops while explicitly using his rank and service affiliation--lending the appearance of authority to his words. Kelly's conduct brings discredit upon the armed forces and will be addressed appropriately.

RedState's Rusty Weiss notes that the military does permit (or oblige) troops to refuse a "manifestly" illegal order -- but also tells them they're supposed to treat all orders as presumably legal and obey them.

Mark Kelly and the other seditionists told troops to substitute their own opinion for the duly-elected Commander-in-Chief's.

The problem is that there is a vast difference between manifestly illegal orders and those whose illegality is debatable. The latter of which, refusing to obey an order one feels personally questionable, is itself illegal, under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).

In other words, service members can't simply say they feel immigration enforcement, for example, is unlawful and walk away, which is precisely what these Democrat lawmakers were trying to incite.

posted by Ace at 02:30 PM

| Access Comments