Writes David Cole, in "Mark Kelly Is Being Investigated for Telling the Truth" (NYT)(gift link, so you can read the whole thing, including the part that rejects the idea that Kelly has less free speech because he's a retired member of the military).
November 26, 2025
"[I]t is now clearly established that I cannot be prosecuted for saying, in this essay, 'Members of the military have not only the right, but the obligation, to refuse illegal orders.'"
"Nor could I be prosecuted for stating, as I also have, that the orders to kill suspected drug smugglers are illegal. The First Amendment protects all such statements. Indeed, it protects explicit calls for illegal conduct unless the speech is both intended and likely to incite imminent illegality, a standard rarely met, and one not even approached by Senator Kelly’s words...."
Posts
156 comments:
He's subject to the UCMJ.
Cole is playing the same game all the other defenders of the infamous video are playing: It's just a public service announcement. It has no deeper meaning. You can't arrets people for making public service announcements!"
They fool no one, though many who find it useful will pretend to be fooled. Will they get arrested? I don't know how that will go, but the standards for censure and court marshal are quite different, whether Cole wants to admit that or not.
Only under the speech and debate clause that doesnt apply here
I took the remarks as addressed to the trannies and queers in the military though, its politcal faction.
I can respect and follow his argument so far as Mark Kelly goes. Why isn't that same argument applicable to the various speeches and conversations that Trump has had, speech for which they wanted to imprison him for the rest of his life.
§894. Art. 94. Mutiny or sedition
(a) Any person subject to this chapter who-
(1) with intent to usurp or override lawful military authority, refuses, in concert with any other person, to obey orders or otherwise do his duty or creates any violence or disturbance is guilty of mutiny;
(2) with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of lawful civil authority, creates, in concert with any other person, revolt, violence, or other disturbance against that authority is guilty of sedition;
(3) fails to do his utmost to prevent and suppress a mutiny or sedition being committed in his presence, or fails to take all reasonable means to inform his superior commissioned officer or commanding officer of a mutiny or sedition which he knows or has reason to believe is taking place, is guilty of a failure to suppress or report a mutiny or sedition.
Captain Mark Kelly (USN ret.) potentially violated the UCMJ.
Capitol punishment or legal abortion? All's fair or self-defense? Social justice, perhaps.
The implication of his speech is a clear and progressive call to insurrection.
The sedation aspect is because he IMPLIES the President of The United States sanctions such illegal orders.
And the attack on the drug boats follow the MONROE DOCTRINE ( U.S. foreign policy established in 1823 that warned European powers against further colonization or intervention in the Western Hemisphere. It declared the Americas closed to European influence, while the U.S. promised not to interfere in European affairs. Over time, the doctrine's interpretation evolved to justify U.S. intervention in Latin America, most notably through Theodore Roosevelt's Corollary. )
So Trump has issued no illegal orders.
Perhaps Cole is correct, but perhaps for members of Congress to exhort the military to disobey orders that they merely believe to be unlawful sinks below free speech into a different, lawless realm. Either way, despite the delusions of TDS, it was unseemly and dangerous.
No he isnt correct and his firm represents terrorists likr the 20th hijacker and the benghazi attack planner now you know
They can say that all they want, it is even mostly true. Calling out the Democrat Party's propaganda campaign smearingTrump's legal behavior and legal orders is the point here. Ask them, "What was an illegal order Trump has issued?" and the answer will be, as already has been reported, that they know of no illegal orders being issued. To hell with them.
It's just a public service announcement. It has no deeper meaning. You can't arrets people for making public service announcements!
Screws fall out all the time, the world is an imperfect place.
I don't really care about the First Amendment aspect here. I care about the fact that these idiots did something utterly reprehensible. I posted the following on X. I believe this is the real issue:
"Everyone in the military is EXPLICITLY trained to disobey CLEARLY unconstitutional or illegal orders. At the same time, they are also trained to assume the orders they are given are legal and that they are duty bound to follow them. There is an inevitable tension then between these two obligations. The point is, however, that NO US soldier needs to get this simplistic and breathless blather from a bunch of lawmakers whose partisan opposition to the president is palpable."
What was an illegal order Trump has issued?
Blowing up boats and killing the crews when they pose no threat to the military.
they know of no illegal orders being issued.
To know of illegal orders being given while making those public statements is to go behind making an innocuous public service announcement.
I would go so far as to say the media questions to which they publicly disavowed knowing of any illegal orders were purposely staged to bolster their defense after the fact.
’Blowing up boats and killing the crews when they pose no threat to the military.’
So the military exists only to defend threats against itself? Interesting…
David Cole, a/k/a David Stein has a history of saying things that are not true and later recanting. He can be amusing, and I remember chuckling at his essays in Takimag. He is quite the gadfly with a reputation of being a "Holocaust denier," whether that is accurate or (as he says) not. I can only wonder why the NYT thought his opinion was worthwhile. Could it be his anti-Trumpian stance? Something to ponder while I contemplate whether the sun will seem to rise in the east tomorrow.
God bless America.
There's hope for us yet...
Never let anyone intimidate you into silence.
Subversion.
Military code of conduct has the definition.
It's real easy to figure this one out. Just switch the parties involved, and imagine what they'd be saying.
As far as recalling Kelley to active duty, there is plenty of precedence.
We all know what taunting is - we learn that on the playground as kids. We also learn how effective it is too, goading others into misbehavior. They are taunting the President and goading the military. When you make a ceremony of something, and omit highly relevant context - specifics like 'this order is illegal' or 'all orders are presumed legal in theater', then you are using the tactic of glaring omission to imply more.
The military has been conditioned since Obama to accept more and more of what used to be considered as 'conduct unbecoming', behavior and activities that are antithetical to military disciple and readiness.
We all know what they did. Would anybody like to say why they think the government is out of line, by scrutinizing such an unusual PSA to the degree that it makes the actors highly uncomfortable? Even if it makes them suffer from focus of official intention, while they figure out what exactly was meant?
Military preparedness and effectiveness depends on order. They have just damaged that by implying that military orders, instead of being presumed legal, are now subject to individual reviews of conscience before acting on them. That helps our enemies.
People miss the fact the Venezuelan government is directing the narcotics trafficking, creating a narco-state attacking US citizens.
That elevates this activity above mere crime.
Theses leftist-democrats ran their language by their lawyers. The word "Illegal" gets them off the hook. That said - Mark Kelly is probably guilty of Subversion.
(Not treason)
might i suggest?
that the Democrat Party return to an old symbol of theirs?
Now that Pennies have been discontinued; the Democrats could cut out the middle of the penny, and use that symbol to mark their resistance to the way things are going.
They've done ALL this before, might as well reuse the old symbol
Another stupid show with untalented actors. I'm wondering who the producers are.
If Biden critics had put out a similar video, it would have been touted as a call to insurrection. Although, the Supremes are yet to be heard on whether or not one could insurrect against an auto-pen.
all were silent when it came to the magic potion.
Eric Daugherty on X: "🚨 BREAKING: It's been revealed that a nonprofit linked to George Soros is fomenting sedition within the military around the same time a "script" went out to Democrat members of Congress urging rebellion within the ranks against President Trump. There are also links to ANTIFA. https://t.co/1S4roMD4Vk" / X https://share.google/QolZ7v0HNS7pLs74O
The point is, however, that NO US soldier needs to get this simplistic and breathless blather from a bunch of lawmakers whose partisan opposition to the president is palpable."
----------
If they are indeed as well trained as you say, they are smart enough to take the advice, right?
Chelsea Manning was right to speak out, in what she saw. Maybe not to steal and smuggle out secrets, but imagine what went down in the prosecution of the Cheney/Bush wars even the law profs were cheering on back in the day. (something about their patriotic coffee-making parents serving the world and inculcating loyalism in them to help them along in their careers and all. Like trying on religions for advancement too... "go along to get along, little children.")
After Gaza, it's only time before the US drones and military are justifying the killing of unarmed civilians, women, children and elders too. For profit, not because they legitimately threaten us...
Somewhere along the line, life got really cheap in America. Of course no one opens their eyes to it until an innocent close to them suffers, it seems. Open your eyes and defend the innocent, America. These things always come home here when we worship weapons/guns over laws/justice.
God bless us all.
I wish Trump would hold back his emotional outbursts. he ends up handing the assholes on the left a cudgel to beat him with.
This video's sole purpose was to place the CIC in harms way. period.
Althouse delayed post on this story tells me she knows the answer.
Not merely see above
People miss the fact the Venezuelan government is directing the narcotics trafficking, creating a narco-state attacking US citizens.
People "miss the fact" because it isn't a fact at all. It falls soundly in the realm of bullshit.
Even if you believe that the Venezuelan government is indeed sponsoring drug gangs, the contention that these boats are carrying fentanyl or even headed to the U.S., is bullshit.
The US would do itself a big favor by following the lead of more determined countries and stripping Soros of his citizenship, declare him 'persona non grata' Hungary figured him out a long time ago and took action.
I don't get the attempts to apply the First Amendment to this situation, other than it's simply throwing sand in the same way it's thrown in many cases when people want to avoid the consequences of their words. Am I wrong in thinking that when the relationship between the speaker and the government is more or less one of an employer and employee (member of the military in this case) that the government has the same rights to police conduct and speech as any other employer according to the policies laid out in documents the speaker has agreed to (UCMJ)? How could any restrictions on political activities of government employees be valid if this was not the case?
Its his apparat like spectre, which is involved
The US would do itself a big favor by following the lead of more determined countries and stripping Soros of his citizenship
On what grounds? For exercising his first amendment rights?
It's all so tiresome
The more likely consequence of the Democrats' "public service announcement" con isn't just that some personnel will actually disobey orders but that many of them will start to CHALLENGE orders. What kind of morale, readiness, and ability to quickly initiate missions will our military have if every dumb gadfly/Inga-type there starts demanding to know if their imminent mission is "lawful"? What next, a lawyer in every platoon?
No, this isn't civilian free speech, it's a strategy to encourage challenges to all superior officers' orders. "Challenge-delay-pissoff" is their objective. And, yes, it will definitely damage military morale, readiness, and operational effectiveness. Pretty much what an enemy of this country would want to happen.
The US government with all its assets at the president’s discretion knows more about the Venezuelan government than the Trump critics. I take Trump at his word on this matter.
How could any restrictions on political activities of government employees be valid if this was not the case?
Because representatives and senators are part of the legislative branch, not the executive branch. By definition, they are supposed to be partisan.
Servicemembers do not enjoy all the rights as the rest of US citizens and retired officers are subject to recall for their actions by the military if they have not resigned their commission. Most retired officers retain their commission in retirement because it increases their retirement pay.
Political animals like Kelly will throw military members under the bus in 3 minutes if it will benefit their side. Kelly is using military members as pawns in his political games and he should not be trusted. He does not respect them at all.
Ann’s a self described proponent of free speech…except here. Get your own blog…
I take Trump at his word on this matter.
And yet he has provided absolutely zero evidence to back up his claims.
NYT's defends Democrat. Shocking. Since DoD hasn't charged Kelly with anything, why even talk about it. Military personnel don't have "free speech" they're bound by USMC.
In any case, even if DoD charges him, a US District Court will immediately free him on some lawfare nonsense.
US District judges are Gods that walk the earth, and Democrat ones will make sure none of their friends are convicted by Trump's DOJ. Unlike the 1000 J6ers who were automatically convicted and harshly sentenced.
The Times keeps its readers in the dark like mushrooms
Mind you the journal or the bezos post arent any better
Yah retired service members get restricted on what they can do and say. Brother in law did intelligence in Desert Storm. He’s still on travel restrictions. He’d be subject to recall and arrest if he defies. Spare me the lefties always know best…
’Even if you believe that the Venezuelan government is indeed sponsoring drug gangs, the contention that these boats are carrying fentanyl or even headed to the U.S., is bullshit.’
How do you know this to be bullshit?
And if he wants to go to war with Venezuela he needs to go to congress, which he has steadfastly refused to do (under some bullshit theory that since no service members are subject to harm, the War Powers Act does not apply)
“ Because representatives and senators are part of the legislative branch, not the executive branch. By definition, they are supposed to be partisan.”
Freder is correct. Political ilk like Kelly get to be partisan in their roles, but it is not carte blanch to foment mutiny in the ranks.
Kelly through his camouflaged words desires a purely partisan military.
These leftist clowns are now saying that our service members already know this.
So what was the point of the video?
The point is to bring potential harm to the CIC. Period.
Only Kelly is at risk and only under the military code, and he is quite demonstrably guilty under that code. The intent of the video was exactly to undermine the chain of command and I doubt a tribunal is going to be fooled by Kelly's argument one iota.
With that said, I don't think he will be court-martialed precisely because his argument is weak- it really does fool no one.
As usual the communist nlg is involved
No the eating crow guy who has removed all doubt in the past is another
Doesn't context matter? Why did these politicians make a video saying this one thing and not something else useful and informative?
"the contention that these boats are carrying fentanyl or even headed to the U.S., is bullshit."
Prove your contention, Freder.
hombre said...
Perhaps Cole is correct,
Others have already touched on the issue implicitly, and it's likely if our Hostess taught Con Law, however.
The UCMJ is not the USC, and under the UCMJ, 1st Amend rights are more narrow. For example, you can do hard time under Art 88 for contemptuous statements about POTUS.
The NYT here does not mention the UCMJ, and is therefore not useful.
How do you know this to be bullshit?
Because fentanyl consumed in this country comes from Mexico (using mostly Chinese precursors). Also, look at the boats they are blowing up. How many times would you have to refuel to make it to the U.S. If they are carrying drugs, it is most likely cocaine headed through the Caribbean islands to Europe.
Cartel of the sun tied to hezbollah
People miss the fact the Venezuelan government is directing the narcotics trafficking, creating a narco-state attacking US citizens.
Uh huh. Sure, Marsha. These are the same lying assholes that told us that there were "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq. If these were "narco-terrorists" why are we returning them to their home countries instead of bleeding them for intel at Guantanamo.
You dummies will believe literally anything as long as the right person tell you the lie. No better than the dummies that believed Biden was competent. You'll believe literally fucking anything.
Rights come with obligations and responsibilities, all of which Kelly accepted with his commission and agreed to upon retirement. He has free speech, but when citing his rank and service like he did, he has a responsibility to adhere to the UCMJ and not sow dissension in the ranks OR if advising of an illegal order to CITE THE ORDER word for word and explain why it is illegal.
Otherwise you are stirring up dissension and "advising" enlisted members to question orders without providing any criteria for identifying orders that are potentially unlawful. Now you are just advising open treason. And each of the seditious six knows this fact. Just like they know 100% that ZERO members needed their reminder, because the code is drilled into them in context. Remember "context"? It's that thing the Media never provide when reporting on Trump policy. Context is only useful to propagandist's when excusing their own behavior.
Note that Cole purports to provide the specificity that Kelly and the others did not. The video was just an open-ended encouragement to military members to disobey orders that liberals suspect are "unlawful," with the assurance that "We have your back." But Cole doesn't know what the video participants were referring to--could be INS/Border patrol, could be national guard, could be any number of things.
What happens when some misguided and unhappy private takes their message to heart? "Ooops, you misunderstood us. We didn't want you to disobey that order. Too bad for you, kid."
So you see the bigger picture
What was an illegal order Trump has issued?
Blowing up boats and killing the crews when they pose no threat to the military.
If that was what they were referring to, why didn't they say so? Cowardice?
Even if you believe that the Venezuelan government is indeed sponsoring drug gangs, the contention that these boats are carrying fentanyl or even headed to the U.S., is bullshit.
Interesting. Is that your take? The Venezuelan president's take was "These are just poor kids who are forced to run fentanyl for a living." The defense that they are not running drugs has been muted at best.
"Because fentanyl consumed in this country comes from Mexico (using mostly Chinese precursors)."
And you know this, how exactly, Fredo?
How does Freder know what's in the boats and how they formulate their cocaine, which has been known to often include fentanyl? It's very suspicious to have such knowledge, but he claims to.
I think Cole is right. Kelly is entirely within his rights as a citizen, although I'm not so clear on the UCMJ aspects. But what harm could it do to have 10 or 20 FBI agents bust down Kelly's door at 5:00 AM, hold his family at gunpoint for hours in pajamas on the snow-covered lawn , shoot his dog and drag him off in chains? They could stash him in a gulag somewhere for 30 or 40 months, and have the guards beat him up from time to time. Offer him a plea bargain, with credit for time served. I'm guessing he'll eventually plead guilty, so he must not have had that right after all. Anyway, let's just see. He has the look of an insurrectionist to me.
"You dummies will believe literally anything as long as the right person tell you the lie. ..."
Ironic isn't it? Most of us don't believe a word people like you say, or for that matter those brave souls making insinuating calls to mutiny and coyly calling them 'Public Service Announcements.'
It must really tick you off the way some people command this thing called 'credibility' while others seemingly are entitled to none, without checking the facts first.
IamDevo said...
David Cole, a/k/a David Stein has a history of saying things that are not true and later recanting.
From the article:
"David Cole is a visiting professor at Columbia Law School and a former national legal director of the A.C.L.U."
Different David Cole.
"And if he wants to go to war with Venezuela he needs to go to congress,"
Obviously not true since I've been hearing that my whole life, and I think we have done some war stuff without it. "We came, we saw, he died."
As a veteran I can tell Senator Kelly that he should refresh his memory of the UCMJ. In the military you better follow the orders or expect to explain the reason at your court Martial.
Oh, my. This is that David Cole? He has made some new friends, it seems.
Even with the UCMJ stuff, it's hard to see how telling soldiers they have a duty to disobey illegal orders can be seditious, if the military tells them that in training. Too bad about the dog, I guess.
In the first sentence, the ACLU author calls Pete Hegseth the "Secretary of Defense." Wrong. He's Secretary of War.
No credibility.
If my side did this, I'd probably try to excuse it the same way. I might not be right to do so, but what's that got to do with anything?
Yeah just how is Libya these days? Since Hillary freed them from a dictator and had absolutely no plan what to do next. Ah, still an open-air slave auction site I see. Great work all round, Foggy Bottom.
If Hillary Clinton was Trump's Secretary of State we'd have video of Maduro's body in a ditch.
’Also, look at the boats they are blowing up. How many times would you have to refuel to make it to the U.S.’
In addition to his maritime expertise, Fredo must be on the distribution list for the President’s Daily Brief.
Insurrection is cool again we (D)o it!
RHardin wins the thread:
This lawless Senator is NOT FREE to say whatever he wants. Those rights are reserved for citizens not in the United States military.
This is settled law and has been for 2 decades. Many many cases have been decided by the Supreme Court that make it perfectly clear to every US citizen:
If you are in the military, you do NOT HAVE free speech. Your speech may be regulated by the military, which in the United States is run by the Commander In Chief:
Donald J. Trump
frederson is correct:
These drug boats pose no threat to our military.
They do however, represent a clear and present danger to the people of the United States of America, whom our military has sworn an oath to protect.
And so we're going to fucking kill them all.
And it's legal.
"People miss the fact the Venezuelan government is directing the narcotics trafficking, creating a narco-state attacking US citizens.
People "miss the fact" because it isn't a fact at all. It falls soundly in the realm of bullshit.
Even if you believe that the Venezuelan government is indeed sponsoring drug gangs, the contention that these boats are carrying fentanyl or even headed to the U.S., is bullshit."
Where was this skepticism when it was pee pee tapes and Russian consulates in Miami?
LOL.
You don't get to do that for 7 years and now decide "bullshit" no longer is acceptable.
If some idiot of a judge tries to say that it's illegal to shoot smugglers, then that judge needs to dangle from a tree.
Jupiter said...
I think Cole is right. Kelly is entirely within his rights as a citizen, although I'm not so clear on the UCMJ aspects. But what harm could it do to have 10 or 20 FBI agents bust down Kelly's door at 5:00 AM, hold his family at gunpoint for hours in pajamas on the snow-covered lawn , shoot his dog and drag him off in chains? They could stash him in a gulag somewhere for 30 or 40 months, and have the guards beat him up from time to time. Offer him a plea bargain, with credit for time served. I'm guessing he'll eventually plead guilty, so he must not have had that right after all. Anyway, let's just see. He has the look of an insurrectionist to me.
Mark Keely is fucked if he is in the chain of command and faces UCMJ.
As far as citizens go the way the J6 protestors were treated by DC as you have mentioned have really voided all constitutional protections they are owed.
We really can't have a social contract that provides freedom and rights with people like Freder Frederson in the country. They have to go before we can have a free country.
Freder Frederson said...
How do you know this to be bullshit?
Because fentanyl consumed in this country comes from Mexico (using mostly Chinese precursors). Also, look at the boats they are blowing up. How many times would you have to refuel to make it to the U.S. If they are carrying drugs, it is most likely cocaine headed through the Caribbean islands to Europe.
So you support Trump closing the border and putting tariffs on China right?
Right?
"If Hillary Clinton was Trump's Secretary of State we'd have video of Maduro's body in a ditch."
LOL - Yes!
Yancey Ward said...
Only Kelly is at risk and only under the military code, and he is quite demonstrably guilty under that code. The intent of the video was exactly to undermine the chain of command and I doubt a tribunal is going to be fooled by Kelly's argument one iota.
Any regular soldier is looking at dishonorable discharge minimum.
An officer would face more. Most likely jail time depending on if he had a command or not. He would be fucked in the Army.
Not sure about the Navy. But the UCMJ is very clear about what Jim Kelly did.
He is such a piece of shit.
Fentanyl migration reform because [Black] lives matter.
"How many times would you have to refuel to make it to the U.S.’"
Everybody who has ever tortured a worm to death knows that running out of gas in the middle of the ocean is just good fishing tactics.
Leftists don't care about young children being trafficked for sex -thanks to biden's illegal open border.
But their hearts bleed for drug smugglers.
Freder Frederson said...
The US would do itself a big favor by following the lead of more determined countries and stripping Soros of his citizenship
On what grounds? For exercising his first amendment rights?
Funding and organizing terrorist activities.
Insurrection because Black Lives Matter Incorporated.
[I]t is now clearly established that I cannot be prosecuted for saying, in this post ‘Members (heh) of the chattering classes have not only the right, but the obligation, to refuse to have sex with a chicken.'
Nor could I be prosecuted for stating, as I also have, that the orders to kill suspected chicken lovers are illegal. The First Amendment protects all such statements. Indeed, it protects explicit calls for illegal conduct unless the speech is both intended and likely to incite imminent illegality, such as having sex with chickens; [a standard] not approached by Senator Kelly’s words or conduct.
Leland, @ 8:46, this is a complete misread of Article 94.
Nothing Sen. Kelly said even remotely approaches “mutiny” or “sedition” under the UCMJ.
Article 94 applies only when service members: refuse to obey a lawful order in concert with others with intent to overthrow authority, or attempt to overthrow civil authority, or
fail to report an actual mutiny.
None of that matches what Kelly did.
Kelly didn’t tell pilots to refuse orders.
He reminded them of the law they are already required to follow — the exact same JAG-approved Rules of Engagement he himself flew under for decades.
This is key- A pilot refusing a lawful order = illegal. A pilot refusing an unlawful order = required. (That’s UCMJ Articles 92 and 118, plus LOAC.)
Reminding pilots of their legal duty to verify an order’s lawfulness is not mutiny — it’s standard military training. Every service member hears this before they’re ever allowed near a cockpit, a weapon, or a deck watch.
If anything, ordering a pilot to fire without proper vetting is what triggers legal exposure up the chain — and that’s why the Pentagon keeps mission logs, JAG sign-offs, and ROE documentation.
That’s where the question belongs.
If those records show proper vetting, everyone is in the clear.
If they don’t, responsibility moves upward — not toward Kelly, who isn’t even in the chain of command.
So invoking “mutiny” here is not only wrong, it flips military law upside down.
Kelly reminded pilots to follow the law.
Mutiny is when you don’t.
Another area of concern is the purge of JAG officers under Trump which means that the “checks and balances” many assumed existed are now compromised.
And yet he has provided absolutely zero evidence to back up his claims.
Sources and methods. Also, Trump relishes the idea of critics with egg on their faces.
This is key- A pilot refusing a lawful order = illegal. A pilot refusing an unlawful order = required. (That’s UCMJ Articles 92 and 118, plus LOAC.)
That law degree must come in handy after getting court-martialed out of the military.
Speaking of broken norms, the dems have clearly decided that it's their job to prevent the duly elected president from exercising the powers of his office, while at the same time creating one crisis after another simply to foment chaos that they also hope will make it harder for him to accomplish anything. This is the stuff of "A republic, if you can keep it." We've almost always had partisan division, but never before has the party out of power adopted a general, across-the-board policy of actively undermining everything the election-winners were doing simply for the sake of denying them (and the country) of any success. It's utterly shameful.
You all are misunderstanding the UCMJ angle here.
The problem for Kelly isn’t that he told soldiers to disobey illegal orders.
The problem for Kelly is that he told soldiers that Trump’s orders were illegal.
He is fucked.
I understand that the Smith Act of 1940 is still on the books, and I know that the first prosecutions under the Smith Act were for pretty much exactly what the six Democrats were saying. However we’ve had 85 years of caselaw and amendments so I’m not sure what the jurisprudence is surrounding the Smith Act and how it might apply to the the video in question.
Meanwhile I must say that I’m disappointed in Jupiter — an Althouse commentator with whom I generally agree — that he declines to research what the UCMJ actually says about Kelly’s specific case.
Ronald J. Ward said...
Leland, @ 8:46, this is a complete misread of Article 94.
Dumb Fuck Chuck; it was a direct quote. It is possible you misread it, but I quoted it.
The only way Kelly could be “fucked,” legally, is if…
…Achilles magically places him back on active duty, rewrites the UCMJ, and ignores First Amendment protections for elected officials.
Leland, quoting the text of Article 94 wasn’t the issue.
Your interpretation of it was.
Article 94 applies to people who are subject to the UCMJ and who, in concert with others, refuse to obey lawful orders, try to overthrow authority, or fail to report an actual mutiny.
None of that applies to a retired officer serving as a U.S. Senator commenting on the legality of hypothetical orders. Kelly isn’t on active duty, he isn’t under UCMJ jurisdiction, and he didn’t instruct anyone to revolt or disobey anything.
So yes, the text is correct — but your application of it has nothing to do with Kelly or with the facts of this situation.
"A few good men" - Is a Movie. you know - a movie. It's not real.
Your interpretation of it was.
It is a direct quote.
Since you can't read minds, you do not know my interpretation. You know only your interpretation, and if you think that is wrong, then take it up with yourself, DFC.
Freder sounds like a drug dealer.
Where do you think those boats are going, Freder?
When I was talking to my husband about the videos he wanted to know how the video was being distributed and how it was going to be seen by active duty and National Guard troops. It's a good question and I don't know the answer.
The whole project stinks of walking up to the incitement line but with plausible deniability. The perpetrators should be ashamed of themselves.
Ronald J. Ward said...
The only way Kelly could be “fucked,” legally, is if…
…Achilles magically places him back on active duty, rewrites the UCMJ, and ignores First Amendment protections for elected officials.
Wow you just like posting stupid ignorant, shit about things you know nothing about.
Kelly has a commanding officer if he is in the reserves. His commanding officer reports to another officer who is his commanding officer they all report up the chain of command.
Guess who their commanding officer is retard.
The first amendment does not apply to people who are under the jurisdiction of UCMJ. That has been settled for a long time.
You just are not very smart.
I subscribe to Cmd Salamander's substack. He addressed the video in a piece about how Capt Kelly, USN, retired with this video put the SHIPS act in danger:
There is no attempt here to specifically say WHAT orders are illegal. Of course not. No. What they are trying to do here is provoke someone to take their advice and personally/professionally/legally self-immolate themselves for some stupid reason so the politicians can consume that person—a real person with a life, family, and future-—for crass political purposes.
I will let others focus on Slotkin, Crow, Deluzio, Goodlander, and Houlahan—they are not my specific concern. As far as I can tell, in this gathering, Senator—belay my last—Captain Kelly is the Senior Officer Present Afloat (SOPA). As such, this is all on him. This is a stunt I would expect from some overly enthusiastic and narrowly experienced politician who has done nothing else in their life…but a career naval officer?
No.
Coming from him, it is bad in two different ways.
Cdr Salamander served in the Navy and knows his stuff. Let's stipulate that Capt Kelly, USN, retired did not break the law. Let's even stipulate that he did not violate the Uniform Code of Military Justice to which he is subject. Look at the quote above. This was a crass stunt with a political purpose. And Capt Kelly, USN, retired of all people should have known better.
The purpose is to disrupt President Trump's role as Commander in Chief. The video might contain a veiled threat to go after anyone who follows orders that trace back to the president. Dems consistently behave like people who (1) think they will always be in power or (2) will one day return to power.
In regards to "blowing up Venezuelan boats" as illegal; the Democrats that created the video were asked specifically to state what illegal orders Trump issued? They didn't name any. They were then prompted about the boats, which they were forced to acknowledge were legal orders.
But please go on with the notion that legal orders were illegal. This could be very useful to the prosecution.
Leora said...
When I was talking to my husband about the videos he wanted to know how the video was being distributed and how it was going to be seen by active duty and National Guard troops. It's a good question and I don't know the answer.
Only to determine intent.
If it is found that Mark Kelly was trying to undermine the orders of a superior officer, he has run a foul of UCMJ. Kelly could not make it any more clear that he was trying to undermine President Trump’s orders and President Trump is his superior officer.
Secretary Pete Hegseth, a Princeton graduate, was unable to comprehend that photographs create mirror images of their subjects. Here's why affirmative action has lowered the standards of Ivy League admissions.
"What they are trying to do here is provoke someone to take their advice and personally/professionally/legally self-immolate themselves for some stupid reason so the politicians can consume that person—a real person with a life, family, and future-—for crass political purposes."
This is *exactly* what is happening, and anybody with two brain cells to rub together knows it. It's just the dishonest left that's saying otherwise.
Funny thing is- they didn't think any of this was necessary when a commander-in-chief with obvious mental issues was supposedly in charge. Because that was (D)ifferent.
Taking a selfy on a phone creates a mirror image, if the camera app is set to save it like that; it's so you get the same mirrored image you saw while taking it. (mirrored image is easier because we're used to looking at a mirror). My app has a setting to choose how it is saved..
What would happen if these jokers were Concern Trolled to the extreme? Once the FBI concludes their investigation, the House and the Senate could convene, and place the 6 under oath with closed door testimony, one at a time.
Any reason they wouldn't comply with a subpoena? And, behind closed doors, they can be probed to exhaust any doubts that they are sincere with their concerns, and under oath, be quizzed to understand those concerns, chapter and verse, in great detail. You know, to fully understand, given the seriousness of this surprising, unexpected, and grave message.
And then, the Speaker and the Majority Leader can use their positions of authority to explain to the American People, every day, what has been learned from the testimony that day. Those lessons which aren't Classified, of course - it would all have to be filtered, after all.
And after a few weeks of this, they can take their time and be absolutely clear that (a) there have been no illegal orders, (b) the real purpose of the PSA apparently is to seed doubt about 'following orders' in the mind of the troops when orders are given (see (a)), at a time when Antifa and other subversive organizations are making similar efforts, and (c) how highly unfortunate it is that the important tasks of Congress, i.e. passing laws to improve the economy, health care, and contribute to a better life for Americans, is instead having to be devoted to understand ambiguous and inflammatory messages like this one, from supposedly reputable people. Sad, that it has turned out to be a waste of time, pure partisan political posturing, but sadly these challenges to a duly elected President must be studied and taken seriously, don't they.
Now, we don't want to waste America's time by censuring such unserious people, we have important work to do. We are confident that America understands what this process has uncovered.
Rick67 said...
I subscribe to Cmd Salamander's substack. He addressed the video in a piece about how Capt Kelly, USN, retired with this video put the SHIPS act in danger:
Is Kelly in the chain of command?
Does he have a commanding officer?
I am seeing both answers. Is he out out with discharge papers? or is he reserve and still reporting?
And yet another Comey/James debacle made so the North and South can beat the subject to death and going nowhere.There is no chance anything comes of this JUST NOISE. Again MAGAS beating a dead horse. :(
So Kelly’s defense is that he is merely a grandstanding clown pretending that he is courageously protecting the Constitution. In other words, he is a great example of the current sorry state of the Democrat Party.
There's much to be said for that argument. I don't see the case going anywhere. The problem is that nobody in politics is ever purely informational. They always have an agenda and always want something from you and/or for themselves, so the purely "informational" part of the clip can't be taken at face value.
I don't think that Kelly is liable for prosecution for what he said about illegal orders. It was, in fact, a true statement and any of us who have served and paid attention know it. Should he be disciplined for encouraging mutinous behavior? I think yes. I am unclear as to his status as a retired officer, but, as a retired officer, he was fully aware that he was in fact suggesting that subordinates question the orders they are given.
As young officers we all learned that article 134 of the UCMJ covers the following categories of officer misbehavior :
" Disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces
Service-discrediting conduct
Offenses that bring discredit upon the armed forces
Each category is distinct, targeting behavior that might not be criminal in a civilian context but is considered inappropriate or destructive within the military."
134 is an umbrella article that one can jokingly say that if none of the above articles don't apply 134 will always get you.
Kelly knows better than do do what he did and as a former officer he should at the very least be shamed for what he did. If he can be recalled and punished I think it would serves as a healthy message "pour encourager les autres"!
RJW: Kelly isn’t on active duty, he isn’t under UCMJ jurisdiction ...
A retired regular officer who receives retired pay is subject to the UCMJ according to Article 2(a)(4) of the UCMJ..
" Good piece on service retirees liabilities under the UCMJ.
Let’s imagine they had said something like “military members need to remember that it would be illegal for them to show up at the White House tomorrow and burn it to to the ground “
Here is a more detailed explanation.
Today I found myself mulling over the fact that Charles Manson didn't actually kill anybody.
Achilles, I could go into detail, again, but your argument requires all of this to be true at once:
Kelly is secretly on active duty.
Kelly has a commanding officer.
A sitting U.S. senator can be court-martialed for political speech.
ROE/JAG reminders count as “mutiny”.
And the First Amendment doesn’t apply to elected officials
None of that is real in the slightest.
It doesn’t add up.
Leland, we don’t know if the attacks are legal or not because we haven’t seen the logs. We don’t know which chain of command issued the order, if the pilot asked for verification from JAG, if a response was given, and if the response was satisfactory for the attack to be legally executed.
But there are several things we do know. We do know a verification request was warranted under these conditions from the pilot. We do know that Trump fired senior JAG officers prior and we know of several reportings that JAG has been out of the picture. We also know that Trump has strongly suggested this is all on him-his doings.
If, and I say if because we do not know, the response to the pilot was because it was a presidential order, that is not a legal qualification.
The Pentagon has these laws yet they’re playing politics.
Hey Kak.
Its not a mirror image. You can read the words on the awards.
Plus, if it was a mirror image, the decorations would be on the other side.
But you have never served. You wouldn't know that.
So Kelly’s defense is that he is merely a grandstanding clown pretending that he is courageously protecting the Constitution.
By encouraging members of the military to put themselves at risk of court martial - yup. "Don't give up the ship!" Was that part of the helpful PSA? "This administration is pitting the uniformed military against American citizens" - was that the part where they were actually showing some spine and calling out some illegal order that the military should already have disobeyed? Except that now they deny that they know of any illegal orders?
So yes, grandstanding clown - and cowardly to boot, hiding behind active duty military and the defensive claims of a 13-year-old bully - pretty much nails it.
But this middle school gambit - "I didn't actually trip her, she just happened to be walking past when I stuck out my foot for a totally different reason" - is a huge bet on the restraint of both military members and the American people. In other words, nothing new, from Democrats: they're always counting on the rest of us to behave responsibly so they can act with childish impunity.
RJW: ... ROE/JAG reminders count as “mutiny”.
And the First Amendment doesn’t apply to elected officials
None of that is real in the slightest.
In case you missed it, Kelly is subject to the UCMJ, which limits the 1A.
Kelly's idiotic, arrogant, and condescending comments, delivered under the color of uniform, outside the Senate, could very well qualify as being prejudicial to good order and discipline.
What's worse, they came as part of the hyper annoying jump cut editing that B-listers used to absolute death during 'Rona.
Leland, we don’t know if the attacks are legal or not because we haven’t seen the logs. We don’t know which chain of command issued the order, if the pilot asked for verification from JAG, if a response was given, and if the response was satisfactory for the attack to be legally executed.
I used to do this for a living. You don't know what you are talking about.
Don’t worry. All these new found rights for military personnel to determine the legitimacy of presidential orders will immediately disappear in a cloud of dust the next time a Democrat is elected.
“RJW: Kelly isn’t on active duty, he isn’t under UCMJ jurisdiction”
How about that?! A self-inflicted wound by Ronald J Ward, which is rare in his field of expertise.
We do know a verification request was warranted under these conditions from the pilot.
Do explain how, you know. If you haven't seen the "logs", then how do you know? If you don't know what chain of command issued the orders, then how do you know?
You can start by telling us the history of your military training and your current rank or rank at retirement, because we don't know if you have any, but we can guess. We do know Captain Mark Kelly's rank and military training.
No one's mentioning UCMJ Article 134: actions detrimental to good order and discipline. Also known as the "general article" because you don't know what's in it until you get convicted for it. Can you use it on retirees? Dunno. Can you drag a retiree through years of court to find out? Si, se puede! CC, JSM
YouTube: Obama Told Aides "I'm Really Good At Killing People"
And yet he never struck targets in north africa or the levant
“Secretary Pete Hegseth, a Princeton graduate, was unable to comprehend that photographs create mirror images of their subjects. Here's why affirmative action has lowered the standards of Ivy League admissions.”
Lying kak lies again, he is a serial liar. A mirror image has reversed letters, but kak never took a physics class in his life, or is too stupid to remember it. Make up a better lie man.
Kakistocracy said...
Secretary Pete Hegseth, a Princeton graduate, was unable to comprehend that **photographs create mirror images of their subjects**. Here's why affirmative action has lowered the standards of Ivy League admissions.
**********
Say what? If you take a selfie using a mirror, you'll get...wait for it....a mirror imge. Otherwise not so. The camera sees what your eyes see.
It's very satisfying to see you jeer at someone's intelligence while stepping on your own pecker. That's gotta hurt!
DERP
Leland, you’re mixing up two very different things: 1) what the pilot actually did and 2) what the pilot was legally required to do under ROE and LOAC
You’re asking how I can know #1 without seeing the logs.
I’ve never claimed to know #1.
What I do know — and what anyone familiar with military ROE, JAG review, or LOAC can tell you — is #2:
A verification request is required whenever these conditions exist: no declared conflict, no imminent threat to U.S. assets, civilian-like vessels in international waters, uncertainties about PID, questions about legal authority for the strike, possible absence of JAG review, and potential civilian presence.
Those are the conditions reported around these attacks.
You don’t have to know what actually happened to know what the pilot is trained and obligated to do in such an environment.
That’s not my personal theory — that is simply how the ROE and LOAC work.
ROE doesn’t change depending on who’s President, ROE changes depending on the tactical and legal environment.
And this environment is exactly the kind where verification is mandatory.
As for the “what’s your rank?” stuff — that’s just a dodge.
Understanding ROE, LOAC, and JAG vetting does not require being military and legal obligations don’t disappear because a civilian is stating them.
And ironically, you cited Kelly’s rank as if that supports your argument while Kelly is the one saying exactly what I’m saying: pilots must verify legality before firing.
So if you want to appeal to rank and training, Kelly’s statements are the ones that confirm my point, not yours.
It is you who are stupid Mr. Effinga kak said that cameras create mirror images and Hegseth is stupid for not knowing that. He has no way of knowing that Hegseth does not know that because no one has discussed selfies in mirrors but you. The discussion was about a photo of a uniform on a hanger that was not a selfie in a mirror, do this o snide one, write I am stupid on a piece of paper, hold it up to a mirror, the letters are reversed, so the medals in Kelly’s pic were not reversed. The writing is normal, so it was not a mirror image. You write in an ugly boasting way about things you stupidly believe, no one was talking about a selfie in a mirror. And you call other people stupid.
JAG reminders count as “mutiny”
If the JAG implies, as the video including Captain Mark Kelly USN ret.; "you know when the Commander in Chief called up your National Guard unit and ordered it to protect the civilian population and federal buildings; did you consider that you didn't have to follow illegal orders?" That's a problem.
If the JAG, in routine training states, "Irrespective of any particular events, you have a duty to refuse unlawful orders", then they are likely on solid ground. Even better if the JAG didn't provide that training and left it up to training personnel to do their job. That way, the JAG's ethics for getting involved in training wouldn't be questioned, when there are already people in the training role.
Ronald J. Ward said...
Leland, you’re mixing up two very different things: 1) what the pilot actually did and 2) what the pilot was legally required to do under ROE and LOAC
Damn man. Will you stop with straw manning my comments and then playing with fire.
My comment: "Do explain how, you know."
I don't know. I never claimed I did know. You are the one to claimed to know what the pilot did and what the pilot was legally required to do. Again, how do you know?
Don't claim I know and confused it, when I never said I knew. You keep making these lies of what I think and then attacking them. You don't know what I think about what the pilot did because I never claimed I did know. Fuck, I don't even know if it was a pilot, drone operator, or surface weapons officer. I never claimed to know. You did.
Now back to my question... how do you know?
They are fishing for another Vindman and fomenting a color revolution.
I wonder if this is how Althouse feels when she directly quotes an article, provides attribution to whose thoughts they are, and then people accuse her of having the opinions of those quoted. I think the difference here is Dumb Fuck Chuck is accusing me of holding opinions such as "what the pilot did", when I never used the word "pilot" nor made any assumption of their actions. DFC used the term and suggested action and inactions. Yet, rather than explain how he knows; DFC makes up a claim that I know and that it is wrong.
Considering how DFC can't even figure out my simple comments or questions in this thread; I'm certain he can't at all grasp the complexity of the overall topic. He lacks the reading comprehension to do so.
Leland, you’re reading things into my comments that I never said.
I have not claimed to know what the pilot (or operator) did in regards to following protocol.
I have said, repeatedly, that we don’t know — because the logs and JAG chain aren’t public.
What I did say — and what you keep reacting to as if it’s a personal claim of secret knowledge — is something different:
We can know what a pilot is required to do when certain conditions exist.
That’s not guessing, and it’s not claiming access to logs.
It’s simply how ROE, LOAC, and JAG procedures work.
In other words: I don’t know what happened. I do know what should happen under those conditions. And the reported conditions (international waters, no imminent threat, civilian-like vessels, no declared hostilities) are precisely the type that require verification.
That’s not a “claim to know the facts.” It’s a statement of the legal framework.
You’re collapsing the two together and then accusing me of something I never said.
So to answer your question directly: How do I know?
Because if the publicly reported conditions are accurate, then the ROE itself requires verification, regardless of what the pilot/operator actually did.
No more, no less.
If the reports are false, then the requirements shift.
If the reports are accurate, then the requirements stand.
That’s it.
Trump is a Republican with the temperament of a Democrat. He loves to run his mouth off and say wild shit about his enemies. This is common Democrat behavior. He loves to say some people need to die and Commie and treason and all the rest of it. His rhetoric is identical to the hateful rhetoric that Democrats have been spewing about Republicans for my entire life. He's a Republican on the inside, conservative about behavior and how people should act. And a Democrat on the outside, especially with his speech. He is utterly comfortable with trash talk. This is a man who used to be a professional wrestler.
He makes Democrats insane because his rhetoric matches what they say. A major difference is that Democrats actually do the hateful things they say. Trump says he wants to lock Hillary up. Democrats not only said they wanted to lock Trump up, they locked him up.
Trump was a Democrat in NYC forever. He used to run around with Al Sharpton trying to get real estate deals done. Doonesbury was actually nice to Trump, back in the day. He's got a New York trash talking mouth. Democrats will respect him, after he is dead. In the meantime, I think they know by now that they are safe saying whatever shit they want to say about him. They are playing like it's a wrestling match. I always hated professional wrestling when I was a kid. Fake and stupid. Trump still has that temperament. But as a president, he's been a shocking surprise to me, in a good way.
This too shall blow over. Especially when Trump (and Rubio) stop the Russian-Ukraine war.
"The problem for Kelly is that he told soldiers that Trump’s orders were illegal."
"This administration is pitting our uniformed military"
"Like us, you all swore an oath"
"Our laws are clear; you can refuse illegal orders"
"And that it's a difficult time to be a public servant"
"your vigilance is critical"
"and who we are as Americans. Don't give up"
Hmmmm. If you consider just what he said, he clearly did not say that the President is giving illegal orders. If you consider the video as a whole, it's a bit more complicated.
Ronald J. Ward said...
Leland, you’re reading things into my comments that I never said.
Fuck off troll. I've quoted you directly each and every time.
A whole lot of "If" for someone that claims to know.
No Leland, you did not quote me. You gave an interpretation of my quote.
Western Lensman on X: "Psaki and MSNOW amplify the 'Dems will prosecute anyone taking part in the Mark Kelly investigation' intimidation campaign: Psaki: “What do you think the consequences should be for people who are abiding by following these steps from the Commander In Chief?" Kirschner: "They're https://t.co/0Z0XL7uTxU" / X https://share.google/GXskhy68mHJQmcEXF
To discuss this as a free speech issue deflects from the real reason they did it. Don't fall for it.
Who knew Freder would add foreign drug smugglers to his terrorist-sympathizer resume?
/raises hand
If my side did this, I'd probably try to excuse it the same way.
Thing is 'our' side had a chance to do it - with far more credibility - when Obama was droning people. People who were US citizens, even.
But we didn't.
Don't worry Ronald. You and Senator Kelly got your wish. A couple NGs just got killed.
Chuck the Serial Killer simply assumes that Kelly and the others were talking about the interdiction with extreme prejudice of the Venezuelan drug running boats.
For which there is zero support from Kelly or his cohorts. Indeed, Slotkin specifically said that she is unaware of any illegal orders. And declined to provide any specificity.
Why are you talking about that, Chuck? Did Kelly or any of the others say that the video was addressing the Venezuelan issue?
Answer: No. No, they did not.
They just threw it out there. Let someone else do the heavy lifting.
Does this seem a trifle...cowardly? Disingenuous? Weak?
Tell us all about how courageous and righteous these congresspersons are, Chuck.
RJW: ROE doesn’t change depending on who’s President, ROE changes depending on the tactical and legal environment.
And this environment is exactly the kind where verification is mandatory.
Here's how this works. It starts with an Air Tasking Order (ATO) assigning assets and targets. There will be ROE — what is required for target identification, how far other vessels must be from the target.
Stop talking about "logs" or JAGs. The JAG involvement came in reviewing intended targets and ROE.
Pilots (with which I am including drone operators) satisfying the ROE counts as verification.
This is the "legal framework": if it looks like a drug smuggling boat, and acts like a drug smuggling boat, then it is a drug smuggling boat; if there are no other vessels in range, then blow it up.
Post a Comment
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 2 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith.