In its statement, the Pentagon suggested that Kelly’s statements in the video interfered with the “loyalty, morale, or good order and discipline of the armed forces” by citing the federal law that prohibits such actions. “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,” the statement said.
Here's the controversial video:
Posts
149 comments:
These idiots knew exactly what they were doing. It's not like Trump called a "Code Red." IYKYK.
I recall when I was still serving in a reserve unit. Another LTC was gripping about then president Bush in ranks. I hand to pull her aside and advise her that was "prejudicial to good order."
Clearly correct as a statement of the law, and also clearly protected by the First Amendment, no?
No doubt there will be a "Federal Judge" found somewhere who will have authority to put a stop to this.
The DOD is investigating the incident and is considering recalling Senator Kelly for court martial.
https://x.com/nicksortor/status/1993002557367521634?s=46&t=GYqQIB0mZmpQI196Gs-UKA
Also seems pretty telling that the DOD views urging servicemembers to comply with the law as disloyalty. Captains Bligh and Queeg would approve.
"clearly protected by the First Amendment, no?"
You should read the article Stephen. No, he is not protected by the first amendment.
This whole episode of TDS has me shaking my head. Hanks to the expiration of my student deferment I went through Basic Combat Training in early 1969, roughly a year after the My Lai massacre. One of our classroom sessions was about our requirement to refuse to obey illegal orders. But I also recall that the drill sergeant conducting the session reminded us that we were under the UCMJ and our refusal to obey an order would probably lead to a court martial, and if the officers conducting the court martial ruled that the order was legal, then se’d be looking at some serious prison time. At least serious prison time.
Question for more recent members of the military: does BCT still include this training?
Which orders are illegal, and must be disobeyed?
I absolutely hate this. Those wicked few gave themselves plausible deniability - maybe - by not actually saying what would constitute an illegal order... but what is their pretext for making the video? That they're just supplementing military members' training? What a transparent dodge.
There is no reason to make a video like this except one or more of the following:
* to undermine good order in the military # get the tank and file to question every order they're given
* to cast doubt on the lawful orders of the CiC and his direct reports (which of course means to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the presidency itself)
* to undermine civilian support for the military by implying that if they have to be exhorted, begged, to disobey illegal orders, at any time they might be acting illegally
* to make commanders wonder what their fate will be if they obey orders of which these disgusting Congress members disapprove, once Democrats are back in authority
* to force Trump to respond hardly because to let their statement stand is to undermine the presidency - not just trump but the Presidency - both at home and abroad
Name me another reason. One that doesn't make what they did both reprehensible and incredibly dangerous.
That court martial proceeding would be a disaster for the government. The fact that DOD is even putting the idea out there is another sign that Hedgseth doesn't have a clue.
"Which orders are illegal, and must be disobeyed?"
They are probably talking about the sinking of 'Venezuelan' alleged drug boats.
Why'd they make this video right now. Stephen, you literal tool?
Alleged Venezuelan drug boats.
@tcrosse, orders to shoot unarmed civilians, orders to shoot disarmed POWs, orders to bomb clearly-marked hospitals, that sort of thing.
This was another leftist stunt. they knew what they were doing - placing the CIC in danger. full stop.
He retired from the military almost 15-years ago. Besides, troopers aren't obligated to follow unlawful orders. The "I fuzz ownlink doowink my dootie" excuse was eliminated at the Nuremberg Trials.
Stephen said...Also seems pretty telling that the DOD views urging servicemembers to comply with the law as disloyalty.
This is the funniest reaction of all. "It's just a Public Service Announcement, who could object to a simple Public Service Announcement?"
Everybody who wasn't born yesterday.
Yeah - but the vague video carefully threaded the word "illegal" in there... which is why the stack of Trump hating leftists didn't mention a single specific illegal act.
They'll just make a martyr of this clown.
It was a "public service" announcement - kkrafted to place Trump in harms way. Same old, same old. ... from the power-obsessed Trump hate left.
They are probably talking about the sinking of 'Venezuelan' alleged drug boats.
@Lem, of course they are. But are those sinkings illegal? If the boats refused orders to stop and be boarded for inspection sinking them is absolutely allowed.
One wonders how much the drug cartels contributed to Kelly’s campaign coffers.
HOMEWORK read UCMJ for all information based on LEGAL and Illegal orders given in the Military.
Do I have the right to refuse illegal orders?
Yes! All members of the military have the right, and in some cases have the duty, to refuse illegal orders. Your oath is to the Constitution (which incorporates international treaties ratified by the U.S. on human rights and the law of war), not to the Commander-In-Chief or to any other individual in the chain of command.
Under the UCMJ, a servicemember may be punished by court-martial for failure to obey any lawful general order or regulation. The UCMJ does not define what “lawful” means. The Rules for Courts-Martial say that an order is lawful, “unless it is contrary to the Constitution, the laws of the United States, or lawful superior orders or for some other reason is beyond the authority of the official issuing it.” The Rules go on to say that, “This inference does not apply to a patently illegal order, such as one that directs the commission of a crime.” Finally, the Rules say, “The lawfulness of an order is a question of law to be determined by the military judge.” That determination normally can be made only after a servicemember refuses or obeys an order, in a court martial or a war crimes tribunal. MAGAS purposely leave out the word ILLEGAL when opining on trumps madness and he spin machine. DO YOUR HOMEWORK for the facts. I served under Johnson and Nixon (65-72) 2 more knuckleheads who got over 52000+ of my brothers and sisters killed and never reached the goal that was established for victory.(look up the goal for victory) And came home (blessed)and were spit on....
Please, please, please, court-martial Kelly.
If you can. If he''s on reserved status I suppose that can be done. But if he's out of the military, how could he be recalled to service?
Lem identified it. It's a warning about shooting Venezuelan drug boats.
Good. It he's guilty of a crime = prosecute. A far-left judge will probably throw it out. But at least try.
Imagine the court martial. Who is going to find that Kelly's correct statement of the law is incorrect or that reminding troops of their obligation to obey the law is itself illegal. Will military lawyers actually stand up and make that argument? Will the court martial accept it? And how about the notion that the military retains jurisdiction to harm a retired officer who dares to speak out on a matter of public interest, even if that officer is professionally engaged in politics, or the notion that the First Amendment does not protect speech on matters of public interest, especially, if, as the article suggests, the speech as a practical matter will have no effect on the conduct of rank and file soldiers.
If this is wrong, perhaps Professor Althouse will offer her own analysis.
Otherwise, I'll conclude that this is just another example of how the majority of readers on this blog love the first amendment only for right wing speech.
Kelly has crazy eyes, and his professional career path, if one inspects it (setting aside for a moment his achievements), is someone that is methodically using the system for aggrandizement, while calling himself a public servant. He's publicly paid; he serves himself.
The video was made, I think, because the leaks have been stopped, the 'resistance' members continue to be identified and expelled, and there are no longer easy pickin's when it comes to sabotaging the administration.
This is not helpful to the mid-terms effort. The video is a warning to those serving loyally, now, that their fortunes will change once Democrats are back in power. It's also a not-so-subtle nudge for the weaker insiders to start leaking things, it's important because electioneering will kick off in a couple of months. You might notice that reactions to things like this Peace Plan, which was 'leaked', are capitalizing on OhMyGod shock ! Shocked I tell you !
A few tenuously related observations:
VDH has been predicting that this would happen to a retired officer. And crediting Trump’s willingness to do so for the much lowered retired officer rumblings this time around.
Today on Morning Blow, everyone was focused on the domestic troop deployments as the unlawful orders. Scarborough conceded that the foreign actions would be allowed by any SCOTUS as squarely within the Persodents powers. I think the domestic deployments are more complex than just violating posse comitatus, if only because each deployment is its own unique animal.
I have never liked the idea of a Nurnburg Rule that disallows orders as a defense. Mainly because orders are coercion, and coercion has always been an affirmative defense. Just like “I carried that kilo on the plane because otherwise Escobar was gonna kill my mom” is a defense, so is “I shot that school bus full of nuns because otherwise Hitler was going to strangle me with piano wire.” If you decide to refuse the order and dare your superiors to do something about it, that makes you a hero. But the definition of heroism is something that no one could blame you for not doing.
Now some of the high ranking nazis were clearly conspirators and only tried the orders defense as a legal maneuver, so screw them. But the majority of troops caught between a rock and a hard place shouldn’t get screwed . CC, JSM
"... there are no longer easy pickin's when it comes to sabotaging the administration."
James Comey and Letitia James have entered the chat.
It's not a correct statement of law that simply any illegal order must be disobeyed. That command only applies to "manifestly" or "patently" illegal orders. And why are these people purporting to give legal advice at all, especially misleading advice that could have disastrous career and/or criminal consequences for any soldier that heeds it? Clearly, the overall effect and intent was to encourage members of the military to defy orders.
Imagine if Trump had done this during Biden's presidency.
You don't arrest Kelly.
You recall Kelly to active duty. Demote him. Assign him to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Make him clean latrines of terrorists with a toothbrush for the rest of his enlistment. And then keep busting him down in rank every 2 or 3 days for not doing a good enough job until he's a fucking private again. Then let him retire on a private's pension.
Donald Trump doesn't know how to play hardball with these rat fuckers. He's a country club Republican pussy.
They're planning to have the next Democrat president declare some of the Pentagon's orders made under Trump retroactively illegal, and then prosecute soldiers and sailors for following them. And they're hinting right now that they will do that, hoping to convince some of the more gullible soldiers and sailors to mutiny now, or at least commit some sedition.
They're also planning on having some of their pet judges declare some military orders illegal, so they can prosecute soldiers and sailors now. Even if (or rather when) the court orders are overturned, and the military orders are declared legal, by the Supreme Court, they can do some serious damage to military morale and effectiveness in the interval.
Of course, trying to prosecute soldiers and sailors for military infractions in civil court shouldn't work, and they can't make Trump's Department of War court-martial them, but the point is to damage Trump, damage the military, and damage the US, all for their own advantage.
"But if he's out of the military, how could he be recalled to service?"
You should ask some of the guys I served with in Iraq. Some were called out of retirement. They weren't too happy?
Howard said...
He retired from the military almost 15-years ago. Besides, troopers aren't obligated to follow unlawful orders. The "I fuzz ownlink doowink my dootie" excuse was eliminated at the Nuremberg Trials.
11/24/25, 12:17 PM
Missing the forest for the trees. On the one hand you have legacy media, politicians, etc... shouting about all of the illegal actions taken by this administration ('just look at all of the TROs and injunctions and court cases!'). Now you have, in the case of Kelly, a retired O6 blathering on about a duty to refuse to act on illegal orders. An O6 for junior enlisted and junior officers, by the way, is seen as a true Authority. What they say is truth, and the policy they put out is what is followed. Good, bad, or indifferent, if an O6 tells a group to jump, people get to jumping really quick. It is the nature of the military.
Now, or yourself in the shoes of E4 Shmuckatelly, with a head full of duty and a mind full of TDS. He gets told to do something he politically disagrees with, refuses to do it under color of 'unlawful order' and gets the book thrown at him and his life significantly and negatively impacted because the order was, in fact, lawful. Now one guy (and maybe his family) is left trying to pick up the pieces, the military is down a future leader after spending years and lots of money training him. All for no good reason.
That is the insidiousness of this video. That is why it is prejudicial to good order and discipline. To have done it correctly, they should have provided tools to be able to distinguish legal from illegal orders. They did not do that. They gave vague advice knowing full well, at least in the case of CAPT Kelly, USN (ret), that young sailors, soldiers, airmen, marines, and guardians will use this to sea lawyer their way in to big trouble.
When is the Vindman action coming? He got all dressed up in his military blues for the 2019 Kangaroo Court Impeachment #482,349 or whatever...
Kelley will be our Admiral Bing. “Pour encouragement Les autres.”
Christ, Stephen. When Trump placed values on his real estate loan applications, was that also free speech? When someone gives perjured testimony, is that just speech? Obviously, there are all kinds of statements someone can make that are subject to legal consequences. Here, there's a statute that prohibits trying to discourage soldiers from obeying orders. The only question that matters here is whether what these partisan dems did falls within or without the ambit of that statute.
Dialogue on the new season of "The Blue Lights" (great series) Head hoodlum to an underling, as he admires a picture of the underling's daughter. "My, she sure is stunning. She can go a long way. It would really be a shame if she wound up on the streets of Dublin. Or worse. Never talk to me about getting out again."
Is that a threat? One could argue that there is no threat there. One could argue that those Senators telling troops about not following unlawful orders or they will be persecuted, is not a threat. When I was in the Navy in the 60s and 70s, we would be reminded of our obligation to follow ALL lawful orders instantly and unquestioningly. We were also reminded NEVER to follow unlawful orders and to kick it up the chain of command if we got one. We had mandatory weekly military training (Sometimes just watching a Victory at Sea episode) and probably once a month we got lectured about following and not following orders and what constituted an unlawful order.
Basically all orders are assumed to be lawful and not to be questioned unless it is something obviously unlawful.
For Mark Kelley and the others to make a statement in the way they did is akin to that Irish hoodlum.
You never retire from the Navy, you transfer to the Fleet Reserve, inactive reserve duty for life. (90 years old? Tough shit, we need you, you are active starting tomorrow)
I hope they use this tool against Kelly. No major punishment, probably, I'd be happy with a conviction and public reprimand.
He came close to urging mutiny. Maybe crossed the line. That is still a capital offense. It needs to be treated seriously.
John Henry
Before you folks start raging about how much of a rapist, a pedo and a fascist Trump is, the military can do this. U.S. v. Lantz Nave illustrates how a retiree can be involuntarily ordered to active duty to face court-martial charges. Leaving the military does not make you untouchable to military justice.
Stephens just singing the second verse or the refrain, being cute with sedition and pretending it all falls under the protection of 'Muh Free Speech !'.
Now for like-minded people like Stephen, we want you to know that it's your duty to ignore any impulses or instructions that you might get to pursue pedophilia online or in person. However strong those urges might be, you MUST ignore these illegal activities. And we'll be notifying your employer that as far as we can determine, you have been successfully fighting down any urges to explore embezzlement opportunities at your job. Because you KNOW such activities are illegal. We'll be providing your church, and your community, and your employer weekly updates on your status on these activities. It's our Free Speech ! We're just trying to be good citizens for a stronger community.
E.T. go home!
Big Mike,
As you say, if you refuse to obey an order thinking it illegal, you may well be court martialed and if the order was found to be legal punished.
If by yourself, you are guilty of refusing to follow orders. If you try to prevent others from following the order, you are still guilty but now you are also guilty of fomenting "mutiny" and if you are successful, you are guilty of mutiny.
John Henry
Nasty and vindictive. Snowflakes in the administration are rampant. Grow a pair, Petey.
Trump’s administration wants to pick a fight about the military code with a guy who has his resume?
Setting aside for a moment the lunacy and authoritarianism surrounding the threat by Trump and Hegseth to court-martial Mark Kelly, it is also politically moronic. No military court or jury would uphold this, and it would only do Kelly a tremendous favor by making him more popular than ever.
tcrosse said...
Which orders are illegal, and must be disobeyed?
THAT is the big question that worried me and my shipmates. Some orders are clearly unlawful, most clearly lawful.
I was in the Navy at the time of MyLai and there were a lot of people who thought Calley got a bad rap. If he had been flying an A-4 and had napalmed the village, there would have been no problem at all.
"William Calley died for our sins" Is a phrase I heard at at the time. In the sense that there was a lot of horror that went on in VN and Calley was not the worst but an example was needed and Seymour Hersh was getting a lot of publicity.
I'm not defending him. I'm just saying that the lines can be pretty fuzzy and you are in the shit if you get it wrong either way.
John Henry
Slotkin admitted on TV that they know of no illegal orders given. So why are they doing this? That is the question that they should answer. What prompted this out of thin air if you are not aware of any such orders? (The Venezuela actions are mighty similar to things done by Clinton and Obama so they need to tread carefully.). These acts by the Democrats would embarrass even the most liberal Democrat politician from the 1960s. Slotkin should know better but these people seem to undergo lobotomies once they are elected.
I haven't seen anyone who criticizes my First Amendment analysis provide any authority. The ad is clearly not fraudulent--a knowingly false statement. Further, speech concerning matters of great public importance is often protected even if it is not 100% accurate--see Donald Trump's entire career. Also, first amendment law distinguishes between speech in a public forum and speech given as part of a confidential advisory relationship like doctor patient or lawyer client. Still waiting for someone to offer up an argument that has some actual legal traction.
A question for the lawyers: Suppose Congress passes and the prez approves, and it can be threaded through the constitution, a law authorizing sinking of suspected drug boats.
If it is an unlawful order now, it would not be then.
It might still be morally repugnant but could the gunner be legally justified in refusing the order?
John Henry
Hey victoria - why do you think they made this video right now? And what's your supporting evidence?
They do things like this - and you support things like this - because you all know Trump isn't a dictator and Republicans aren't Nazis. You count on it. You're the twelve-year-old girl screaming. "I hate you!!" at her parents but fully expecting food on the table that night.
Trump’s administration wants to pick a fight
WHO wants to pick a fight?!
Big Mike said...
@tcrosse, orders to shoot unarmed civilians, orders to shoot disarmed POWs, orders to bomb clearly-marked hospitals, that sort of thing.
Suppose the clearly marked hospital has artillery firing out of the ground floor? And patients are known to be in the upper floors.
Would an order to fire on it still be unlawful? (That was one actual case in WWII)
Or ordering a USN ship NOT to pick up friendly survivors because the risk to the ship is too great. Nobody knows if an enemy sub is lying doggo.
Lots of grey areas even when it might seem clear cut. And who decides, some lawyer in DC or the commander on the ground?
John Henry
Intelligence is not at the forefront of this administration. Nor is it an afterthought. A concept of an afterthought.
The purpose of what was done was clearly a political stunt and putting Kelly on trial will look like one also. But if Kelly plays politics then treat him with politics. He will not like being put on trial and the publicity will do him no good. He won't be convicted, but he will be exposed as an AH joining in an AH stunt.
There's no first amendment right to incite illegal conduct. What is really shocking about this is that Kelly is supposed to be a moderate, his wife was shot by a nutcase, and he should know better. Throw the book at him!
Spiros said...
Leaving the military does not make you untouchable to military justice.
Depends on how you leave. The standard enlistment used to be for 6 years. 4 years active plus 2 years inactive reserve. But once you got "discharged" (not just released) as I was after 7-1/2 years, the military has no claim on me at all for any reason.
Commissioned officers are different. Their commission is for life, active and inactive.
Ditto enlisted retirees, though I think those who retired with 30 years were "discharged" rather than transferred to inactive reserve.
John Henry
Kakistocracy said...
Trump’s administration wants to pick a fight about the military code with a guy who has his resume?
Go fuck yourself, Kak. A guy with your military record has no grounds for criticizing anyone on this.
John Henry
Stephen said...
"I haven't seen anyone who criticizes my First Amendment analysis provide any authority. "
The Uniform Code of Military Justice. This action is "prejudicial to good order and discipline."
The problem is what is an illegal order? Language and laws are often ambiguous. Judges, who are trained in such matters, can disagree on what is legal or illegal. Are we supposed to allow soldiers to apply their own interpretation of what is legal or illegal? These Senators are pulling a dangerous stunt. I agree with Trump, they are close to promoting insurrection.
I looked at the video with these six Dim clowns (at least five of them former service members). I had to laugh when one of them said "don't worry we will have your back" or words to that effect. I wondered if they were volunteering to serve as counsel for defendants in courts martial. Now it appears that one of them, Captain Kelly USN retired, might appear not as counsel, but as defendant. These six can weasel word all they want--but the video was a bad idea. Some poor not too bright slob is going to take them at their word--and get his or her self court martialed--and for what? A chance for these bozos to virtue signal?
The Secretary of Defense can recall retired officers to active duty in certain circumstances. But Hegseth is calling himself Secretary of War, a post for which he has not been confirmed by the U.S. Senate. See how that’s a Halligan problem!
but the video was a bad idea
It might have worked better if they didn't look so sleazy. It was all in the eyes. Phonies, the lot of them.
Also, recalling a sitting Representative or Senator to active duty would violate Article I, Section 6 of the Constitution. So the court martial order would be illegal!
Secretary of War Hegseth’s Halligan-type problem could mean that all of his orders are unlawful.
Put in the simplest terms, as an enlisted man there are things they can't make you do, but they can make you wish you had.
Stephen apparently thinks we won't notice that he HASN'T provided a First Amendment analysis. He's only asserted that the statements made on the video are protected by the First Amendment without telling us why. The only hint he has given as to how he arrived at this conclusion is his suggestion that the statements constituted a correct statement of the law (which is untrue) which were made simply in the spirit of educating troops about their legal rights (which is laughable, like claiming that the statement, "If you vote this way on legislation X, I'll give you $10,000" is protected speech because the speaker was simply educating the congressperson about the phenomenon of cause and effect).
Nuremberg Trials American version…coming.
From the urgency of the tone, they are clearly signaling that there are illegal actions military is being ordered to do which are illegal. Yet none of the Senators or Congresscritters will specify what those illegal orders that must be disobeyed are. So they are willing to sacrifice the lives and careers of enlisted men who disobey orders, without risk to themselves. Clearly officer material.
Uh-Oh: Mark Kelly Entering the ‘Find Out’ Phase After Urging Military to Defy Orders, and It's Not Good – RedState https://share.google/67lCxPUpeGFSArMLr
Whatever the legalities, it was a despicable, dangerous, irresponsible and entirely typical stunt for the modern Democrat party. They ruin valuable institutions, principles and people every day.
From the urgency of the tone, they are clearly signaling that there are illegal actions military is being ordered to do which are illegal. Yet none of the Senators or Congresscritters will specify what those illegal orders that must be disobeyed are.
If it's good enough for Alvin Bragg and Judge Merchan, it's good enough for them.
FWIW I don't think putting any of those clowns on trial is the right answer. I do think that a little bit of 'process as punishment' - you know, the favored tactics of the side that uses them the most - might be a better form of justice, and the more pernicious, the better.
These people are all pure despicable pieces of shit.
I can't imagine why Kelly and Slotkin thought this was a good idea. I see that one of their sidekicks cited a movie as an example. Sheesh.
The laws and the constitution are not the issue here. The democrat party and the people who currently support it are just proving that they will break any rules or laws to obtain the power necessary to steal our stuff.
Paper ballots, voter id, same day voting and counting.
These people are evil and can never be allowed to have power again.
Mark Kelly in particular is paid by the Chinese government.
He is the definition of a traitor.
“Nasty and vindictive.” ???
Specious, seditious and moronic are accurate when describing the actions of these Democrats.
When questioned about Trump's "illegal orders," Slotkin offered up the "Code Red" in the movie "A Few Good Men."
The First Amendment extends absolute or near absolute protection to political speech, true or false. Statements of opinion are also protected. The legislature can punish speech aimed at assisting or inciting illegal conduct--so that if a lawyer were to knowingly assist unlawful conduct, or a public speaker were to urge unlawful action in a situation where it is equivalent to putting a match to gasoline, the fact that speech is involved would not protect it. But a public, generalized statement that military and intelligence personnel have an obligation to obey the law and urging them to comply with that obligation? Clearly protected.
Who thought that tired format was a good idea? It's so cringe
Speech and Debate clause. Protected speech.
But a good idea to jerk this guy around a bit.
They accuse Trump of "pitting the American military and Intel. Community against the American people." That's what makes it seditious.
He wasnt on the senate floor
You have to ask yourself, how the USA managed to get through the Vietnam and Iraq wars, with all the partisan rhetoric--including questions about the justifications for the wars--without anything like this. Elected Legislative officials calling on the troops in the field to disobey any orders the soldier might consider "unlawful." But coming from the Democrat Party that considers enforcement of the US border illegal, I guess it should come as no surprise. (Presumably Mayorkas is recording a similar appeal to ICE officers as we speak.)
Ice officers hate him with a passion
Nuremberg Trials American version…coming.
Inga's predictions haven't been worth the pixels they're printed on.
Her track record is so bad she would have quit years ago if she contained an once of shame.
Is nothing more entertaining than listening to those who never served explain to those who did how the military works?
"I want you to protest peacefully." - incitement to insurrection
"Disobey your chain of command!" - /crickets
Captains Bligh and Queeg would approve.
This isn't a movie, you stupid ass.
Big Mike said...
@tcrosse, orders to shoot unarmed civilians, orders to shoot disarmed POWs, orders to bomb clearly-marked hospitals, that sort of thing.
---------
Howard said...
He retired from the military almost 15-years ago. Besides, troopers aren't obligated to follow
unlawful orders. The "I fuzz ownlink doowink my dootie" excuse was eliminated at the Nuremberg Trials.
----------------
That's the 20th century version, Howard...
Try it again with a Hebrew accent? Life is cheap. Gaza taught the world that... Welcome to the new day.
If this is wrong, perhaps Professor Althouse will offer her own analysis.
Otherwise, I'll conclude that this is just another example of how the majority of readers on this blog love the first amendment only for right wing speech.
-------------
(somebody is new to the meadehouse chatroom... ;-)
Maybe Mr. First Amendment Expert, Stephen, could explain to the rest of the class WHY they made this video.
And 'Because they could,' is not an acceptable answer.
“Inga's predictions haven't been worth the pixels they're printed on.”
LOL!
I predicted Obama would win in 2008, and again in 2012.
I predicted Biden would win in 2020.
You folks predicted Trump would win in 2016 and 2024. So I have three wins you have two.
Imagine the howls of rage from the left if a bunch of Republican congressmen/women from the Armed Services Committee made a similar video during the 2009-17 reign of Captain Kickass when he was droning people.
"You're the twelve-year-old girl screaming. "I hate you!!" at her parents but fully expecting food on the table that night."
Not just Vicky. All progressives are like this- everything's based on their feelz. "I want what I want when I want it!", nothing else matters.
You can't have a rational discussion with people who don't use reason to form their arguments.
Trump was sending dog whistles on Jan. 6, but this was just patriotic folks letting military folks, who obviously are unaware of this despite their training, that in the abstract, and specific to nothing, they should refuse unlawful orders.
You people sound just as hysterectomy as the Libturds crying and rendering they garments over Trump's claim that this was treason punishable by death.
"but this was just patriotic folks letting military folks, who obviously are unaware of this despite their training, that in the abstract, and specific to nothing, they should refuse unlawful orders."
"Was that wrong? Should I not have done that? I tell you, I gotta plead ignorance on this thing, because if anyone had said anything to me at all when I first started here that that sort of thing is frowned upon... you know, cause I've worked in a lot of offices, and I tell you, people do that all the time."
File under: Free speech Overton Window shifting we don't like.
I predicted Obama would win in 2008, and again in 2012.
So did most of us on these pages. Big whoop.
No, I'm talking about the hundred or so times you said THIS TIME was going to be Trump's downfall. Last week it was Jeffrey Epstein will end Trump's presidency and this week it's Nuremberg trials.
It will be something else by the end of the week, and it will be just as wrong.
Comedy gold I tell ya.
Stephen said...
The First Amendment extends absolute or near absolute protection to political speech, true or false. Statements of opinion are also protected.
Their speech is absolutely protected.
So is mine.
Democrats are vile pieces of shit that dance on their murdered political opponent's bodies and they incite insurrection in the ranks of our military.
Mark Kelly knows how difficult a job our men and women in uniform have.
That is why what he is doing is so vile. He is an absolute piece of shit but he is free to say what he said.
It is being on the payroll of the Chinese Communist party that makes him a traitor.
Howard said...
You people sound just as hysterectomy as the Libturds crying and rendering they garments over Trump's claim that this was treason punishable by death.
You can tell me in your wisdom and knowledge of what it means to be a soldier why the democrats in this video are not absolute pieces of shit.
They said that soldiers have a duty to disobey Trump.
They are also promising to prosecute people who follow Trump's orders.
If you are promising to prosecute a soldier or LEO for following their commander's orders when your only justification is political then you have crossed the line. That is what makes this sedition.
You folks predicted Trump would win in 2016 and 2024. So I have three wins you have two.
Nice sleight of hand there. I notice you didn't admit to boldly predicting Harris would win in 2024.
Obvious wins are easy. Getting your ass handed to you - countless times - for being so wrong is what we're pointing out.
Not just Vicky. All progressives are like this- everything's based on their feelz.
Yes indeed - my comment would have been a perfect place for me to deploy the Texas plural "all y'all."
And Stephen. Still insisting that these six wicked power-sellers were "just stating a legal fact." "Just supplementing military training." "Just..." what, exactly, Stephen? Why this video, right now? Why not during Biden's administration? Do they believe Trump or his direct reports are issuing illegal orders but they themselves are too skeered to call them out specifically - they're leaving it to soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines to do it?
That would make them cowards.
The other possibility is that their whole disgusting and dangerous gambit is a nothing but another attempt to Get Trump, and they're willing to sacrifice the social order - again, and in the most inflammatory way yet - to do it.
Dems keep expanding the rules of the game and allowable rhetoric. Hence the lawfare from Trump against Comey, James et al. I am still disappointed they did not Impeach Biden for something, does not really matter for what,, and now sedition is a ok so next time a Dem is President Republicans have the green light to encourage military disobedience. And thats not even getting to District Judges pretending they are Congress. That will be fun to block every Exec Order from next Dem President. Gotta destroy Democracy to save it am I right. Good times.
“That will be fun to block every Exec Order from next Dem President.”
Republicans won’t do it and Democrats know this.
This is another "see squirrel!" moment for MAGA. It will not go anywhere, and we all know it. The problem with MAGA is that they fundamentally do not believe in the First Amendment.
The victim of these Dem Pols' behavior won't be Trump -- it won't interfere in the slightest with his actions, whether it's bombing Venezuelan drug boats or anything else. The victims will be some poor shlubs in the service who decide they can refuse to obey an order and are court martialed as a result. I guess their fate doesn't matter to our liberal heroes, just necessary losses.
27 years USAF. Retired in 2000. Illegal order law is taught in basic training. Everyone in uniform knows this already. When the politicians claimed that this administration is pitting Uniformed military against the population. Did they cross a line? I think so. That statement is more than simply stating the law. It was a call to action? Totally disgraceful what they did. I wish they could be held accountable but pol rarely are.
The problem with MAGA is that they fundamentally do not believe in the First Amendment.
I'll ask you the same question I asked Stephen: WHY did they make the video?
And again, "Because they could," is not an acceptable answer.
"Do they believe Trump or his direct reports are issuing illegal orders but they themselves are too skeered to call them out specifically - they're leaving it to soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines to do it?"
Just like with the constant "Nazi" or "Hitler" crap, the goal is to wind up the loony left in the hope the crazier ones will act as those in charge are encouraging them to.
Great! We get to redo the Caine Mutiny Court-Martial!
Do the Ellisons get the streaming rights? We could replace that CBS evening news with some serious drama!
Imagine having the career/credentials Kelly did and then being threatened by a Fox co-host on weekends. I guess it's harder to run a department than run off with the mouth on Fox.
We have seen how this type of incitement inspired leaks by manning snowden et al
gspencer said...
Please, please, please, court-martial Kelly.
If you can. If he''s on reserved status I suppose that can be done. But if he's out of the military, how could he be recalled to service?
If you're retired, enlisted or officer- you're still in the service. There are some differences between enlisted and officer. Once a commission is accepted, an officer can be recalled to duty at any time- unless he resigns his commission. Enlisted have, currently, an 8 year obligation from the day they enlist. That time has changed from time to time. They enlist for a specific period, usually 2, 4, or 6 years. During war- they can be extended indefinitely. But let's say they finish their 4 year obligation and get out. And 3 years 11 months later the service needs their skill- they can be recalled to active duty and extended involuntarily as needed. At 4 years and 1 day after getting out- they're out.
So much for that...
John henry said...
A question for the lawyers: Suppose Congress passes and the prez approves, and it can be threaded through the constitution, a law authorizing sinking of suspected drug boats.
That law already exists, and applies under different laws, to both smugglers and pirates. Evasive action, refusal to heave to, whatever, and actions can be taken to force them to stop. Including warning shots, or disabling shots, or if needed, kill shots. And on the boats sunk so far, a disabling shot WILL be a kill shot. So sad, too bad. The law, any law, is always enforced because nations/states have monopoly on using deadly force, and many laws end up being enforced by deadly force. An example includes a criminal dying because he was selling loosies. (Look it up.)
A lot of the other hypotheticals are already covered by treaty and law. For example- a clearly marked hospital with artillery or rockets being fired from it loses all Geneva Convention protections. Which means, unfortunately for any innocent patients and doctors in there, so do they. Same with ambulances transporting weapons instead of injured- a common palestinian ploy. And if a particular enemy exhibits a practice of pretending to surrender then killing the soldiers taking their "surrender", by whatever means, hidden weapon or suicide vest, then surrender by others of that force no longer need be taken or honored. And convoys during WWI and WWII didn't slow down to rescue sailors from sunken ships.
Jim,
I am not a First Amendment expert, just a lawyer. Althouse is a First Amendment expert and says she cares about it too, but since she mostly stays silent on Trump's violations thereof, I thought I'd at least try to speak to some of the basic errors that were showing up here. As for what their motivation was in putting this out, I don't know, but two thoughts occur to me. First, it could be a way of drawing attention to the Trump administration's--and the DOW's--disregard for the rule of law, another issue on which Althouse is strikingly silent despite her avowed commitment to it. Second, it can be read as offering moral and perhaps modest practical encouragement to higher ranking military and intelligence personnel who are facing difficult choices between continuing their careers and insisting on compliance with the law--of whom there are probably quite a few.
Ah, yes. The Trump Administration's disregard for the rule of law ... with no specifics mentioned.
Name one, damn law the Trump Administration is breaking/has broken which would require members of our Armed Forces to make those difficult choices between following orders or giving up their careers.
Just one.
They got nuthin nuthin
It's just the Democrats sending a little chin music to the troops. In lieu of caroling.
Stephen. You're a lawyer--you say. If you are, you are trained to think carefully about the law. Or you should be. Merely citing "The First Amendment" without specificity is the opposite of legal analysis.
You should think about the question--What was the purpose and intent of the video? What do you think these people were trying to accomplish? And why would such a purpose and intent be potentially subject to prosecution, the First Amendment notwithstanding? Legal questions. Real ones.
Also--what do you mean when you refer to "Trump's violations" of the First Amendment?
And--as has been asked of the ex-military congresspersons who put this out--what "laws" are you claiming Trump has or is "disregarding?"
And--as has been asked of the ex-military congresspersons who put this out--what "laws" are you claiming Trump has or is "disregarding?"
I would guess you're not going to get an answer specifying which law(s) are being disregarded. From anybody on the left.
I’m not interested chasing the laser playing “catch the crime” with Trump, but Kelly brought up something I honestly hadn’t considered. I always assumed a disciplined soldier simply carried out orders without question. Come to find out, they’re trained—and legally obligated—to cover their own ass when something looks off.
A typical engagement order might sound like: “Falcon 2, this is Strike. Target vessel has demonstrated hostile act. You are cleared hot. I say again—CLEARED HOT. Target bearing 1–8–0, 14 miles, speed 22 knots. Positive ID as hostile.”
But no matter how forceful the language is, there are built-in red flags the pilot is trained to spot: PID as hostile to who? Where’s the hostile act if we’re not at war? Are civilians aboard? What’s the threat?
At that point, the pilot isn’t being insubordinate—they’re doing exactly what military law requires. They’re trained to ask:
“What level approved this target?” “Was this cleared by the legal cell (JAG)?” “Request ROE justification.” “Standing by for clarification.”
If command can’t answer those, or just says “orders came from higher up,” the pilot becomes legally responsible for firing on what could be a civilian vessel. That’s a manifestly unlawful order, and obeying it is a crime. He has every legal right, and has been trained to abort the mission.
dont piss off democrats. They may force you to get a shot.
Boatbuilder, I don't understand why the speaker's intent would make a difference here. Perhaps you can spell out your reasoning a bit more, and explain what it is that turns this broadcast speech on a matter of public interest into a violation of law that can be punished notwithstanding the First Amendment.
As for Trump actions that violate the rule of law, national security lawyers are in broad agreement that the deadly military assaults on civilians in international waters are unlawful. Also, how about the farcical proceedings in connection with the Comey indictment, in which Trump, unable to find an experienced prosecutor who thought he had a case, fired the people who understood the law and the facts, and put in place an insurance lawyer whose only qualification for the job was her personal loyalty to Trump. Leading to a circus of legal errors.
As for Trump actions that violate the rule of law, national security lawyers are in broad agreement that the deadly military assaults on civilians in international waters are unlawful.
No, they're not. The one you read are. Broaden your horizon. Perhaps look up the laws on smugglers and pirates yourself.
Is Sen. Kelly an example of the level of ethics among our military? I'm sure he's an example of it among our politicians. What I'm wondering is, was he like this before he became a politician?
I hope he changed after he went into politics. If our military is like this, America is screwed.
I do not believe that Kelly violated any law, military or civil. However, neither do I believe that he was merely exercising his first amendment rights as a citizen. It is hard to see what his purpose might have been, if it was not to lure American soldiers over a line they should not cross.
He's not a criminal. Just a piece of shit.
Boatbuilder: IMO, they're looking at Trump as being an illegitimate President. Therefore any order he might give, even ones that would be legal by any impartial evaluation, are seen as automatically illegal and shouldn't be obeyed.
Considering how this came around when the shooting of the Venezuelan drug boats started, I'm wondering how much of this is pressure from their 'constituents' who've donated so very much to their election campaigns...
@Jerry, especially the donors who are drug cartels.
@Jupiter, what you believe and what the UCMJ say may be two different things.
What's with the bug eyes? Walz and now Kelly, is it the Kool Aid?
It is ironic, that the unseemly haste with which the American prosecutors at Nuremberg sucked Soviet dick has resulted in a situation in which "appeals to conscience" like this one are not merely possible but unavoidable. Soldiers are required to obey orders, on pain of death. The notion that they should also be expected to parse the legality of those orders, is clearly impractical, and impracticable. But, God! that Soviet dick tasted good! And hanging those Nip generals! Oh, victors' justice was so sweet! Never mind that the whole undertaking would have passed for a farce, had it not ended in honorable men dangling from ropes held by men who weren't fit to clean their shoes. We learned a lot from the NazIs. We studied at their feet, with teaching assistants supplied by Uncle Joe Stalin.
For those whose knowledge of the atrocity at Nuremberg is confined to the noble lies Hollywood has spoonfed them, start here;
"Robert Jackson, the chief US prosecutor at the Nuremberg Tribunal of 1945-46, privately acknowledged in a letter to President Truman, that the Allies “have done or are doing some of the very things we are prosecuting the Germans for. "
Jackson was a US Supreme Court justice, assigned to represent the US at the travesty at Nuremberg.
Here is Lincoln on victor's justice;
"Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with or even before the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces but let us judge not that we be not judged."
Lincoln did not have Soviet allies. Nor British allies, for that matter.
I have read speculation that Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation was intended to forestall the possibility of British recognition of the Confederacy. The Brits favored the Confederacy, for several reasons. They conducted a very lucrative trade in cotton; they found the aristocratic attitudes of the Southerners congenial, and, perhaps most important, the strategic practice of Britain, as a sea-faring island nation, had for centuries been to oppose the formation of powerful continental alliances. Support for the Confederacy simply applied this long-standing strategic principle to the American continent, which had lately shown itself to be as problematic as Europe.
By joining his war aims to the long-standing British attempt to suppress slavery, Lincoln made it much more difficult for the British administration to take the side of his opponents.
So. Perhaps Lincoln did, in fact, have British allies. They just didn't happen to be the Brits running the British government.
As for Trump actions that violate the rule of law, national security lawyers are in broad agreement that the deadly military assaults on civilians in international waters are unlawful.
I figured this is where you'd go. And you're full of shit.
Which is why - when pressed - none of the six congressmembers mentioned any specifics.
And then you lean on the Comey case as unlawful activity? Which has absolutely NOTHING to do with the video in question?
Find another hobby.
This incident highlights the real damage done by the spread of tendentious legalistic parsing into seemingly every nook and cranny of American life.
Speech should not be evaluated in terms of its "illocutionary force"--what the speaker intended to accomplish with it. Fine-grained parsing is appropriate for contracts and other written documents, but applying it to speech empowers fundamentally dishonest people and gums up communication for no appreciable benefit.
The video as obviously crafted to avoid particular magic words while still encouraging troops to refuse orders if the same people who made the video were to assert than they were 'illegal.'
No one makes such a video simply to 'remind' troops of the law, and everybody knows that. The obvious implication is that current or soon-to-be given orders are illegal: otherwise why publish the video at this moment?
That absolutely everybody knows what a statement is intended to do but we still pretend that it somehow really doesn't mean that even though it has communicated the intended idea show shows why expanding micro-parsing beyond its proper domain is harmful.
Trump administration lawyers lied when they said that U.S. military personnel engaged in lethal action in Latin America would not be exposed to future prosecution.
“The [boat] strikes were ordered consistent with the laws of armed conflict, and as such are lawful orders.” First, the U.S. is not in an armed conflict; as many commentators have observed, no country or organized group has attacked or used armed force against us. Nor can a plausible claim be made that such an armed attack is imminent.
First principle: Orders are presumed to be lawful, but that presumption is rebuttable rather than conclusive under the 2024 Manual for Courts-Martial,
Second principle: The Manual of Court Martial infers that an order is lawful “does not apply to a patently illegal order, such as one that directs the commission of a crime.” Unfortunately, this principle seems to apply to the murder boat strikes.
Third principle: The Manual continues: “The lawfulness of an order is a question of law to be determined by the military judge.” No authority is granted to the DOJ or the President.
Top officers, including Adm. Alvin Holsey, the head of Southern Command, sought caution on such strikes. In October, he abruptly announced that he is resigning effective at year’s end. If this whole thing goes south, he will be at the top of the list for Nuremberg II military trials.
Jupiter said: "Robert Jackson, the chief US prosecutor at the Nuremberg Tribunal of 1945-46, privately acknowledged in a letter to President Truman, that the Allies 'have done or are doing some of the very things we are prosecuting the Germans for. '"
Jackson was wrong. War is hell, but we did not gas 3 million Jews. After we entered WWII, we brought German prisoners in by the shiploads to work at midwestern food processing plants. Wisconsin had over 30 POW locations, most famously, Reedsburg and Eau Claire, and New Ulm, MN, is by its name, a town founded by Germans, so translators were already on site. The prisoners were paid 80 cents per day.
“As for Trump’s actions that violate the rule of law, national security lawyers are in broad agreement that the deadly military assaults on civilians in international waters are unlawful.”
The problem is that most people immediately jump to arguing the legality of the strikes themselves, when—as we’ve already concluded—the legality often depends on whether the pilot followed the required protocol. That leaves us with a set of hypotheticals, because we don’t yet know what the pilot was told and what vetting actually occurred.
If proper vetting happened and the pilot received correct answers, then everyone down the line is likely in the clear.
If the pilot was given incorrect information, the responsibility moves up the chain.
And yes, in theory that chain could end with Trump—but that would only be true if the misinformation came directly from him. It could have come from multiple levels in between, which is exactly why you investigate the logs.
What I find interesting—and troubling—is that the Pentagon seems more focused on investigating Mark Kelly for simply reminding pilots of their legal obligations than on the actual strike records themselves. They have the logs. They have the incident reports. They know exactly who approved what.
Yet the heat is on Kelly for explaining protocol to pilots, not on determining whether that protocol was ever followed.
It almost gives the impression that they don’t want the average American to understand the rules—or to know that pilots must question an order that doesn’t pass legal muster.
There’s a small difference between an “illegal order” and ordering someone to do something illegal. If Joe Biden orders you to take an experimental “vaccine” or you’ll be discharged, the order is illegal, but you’ll be fine if you obey. If Barack Obama orders you to murder an American citizen with a drone, then your oath obligates you to disobey that order (even though he is immune from prosecution).
Interesting comments- I enjoy reading when people are not being bitchy. Jupiter had some good well thought out points, Stephen's 1A argument is strong-especially as it is clearly political speech, and should be protected.
Birches mentioned the cringe--jeeze yes the style is tired and trite. I don't know who thinks these are a good idea, and i doubt that active duty was the intended audience.
I did not see anyone address the question I had when watching the video: Why did they equate intelligence communities with military? Are CIA agents under the UCMJ? Do they have a duty to refuse orders against the constitution? I thought our spooks were sort of proud of the fact that they can illegally spy on Sens and Reps and Presidential Candidates and you and me and foreign leaders and opposition parties in friendly and neutral nations. Isn't most everything the intelligence community does against the constitution? (Secret trials with secret judges conducted in secret issuing secret court orders for secret crimes that may have been committed in secret is NOT my idea of constitutional.)
How many Generals did the stuttering clusterphuck Obama fire? How many service members were purged for not getting the "magic potion"?
Speech should not be evaluated in terms of its "illocutionary force"--what the speaker intended to accomplish with it.
That is not the law. Speech is constantly evaluated according to intent under the law. Defamation--"actual malice"--assault--was the speech intended to terrify or threaten?--"insurrection"--was the speech intended to provoke or inspire rioting? etc. Why wasn't the impeachment of Trump simply invalidated as an attempt to curb his First Amendment rights?
Olson Johnson is right! said...
I did not see anyone address the question I had when watching the video: Why did they equate intelligence communities with military?
To provide cover for CIA agents to refuse to cooperate with investigations into Biden CIA spying on Republican Senators.
Senator Kelly is a nutcase. I'm ashamed that he is one of my Senators.
simply reminding pilots of their legal obligations
Is that what Kelly was doing? "Simply reminding"?
Why? Have they been ordered - or, let's say, might they have been ordered - to do something illegal, and Kelly isn't man enough to name it? But he's perfectly willing to put a pilot in the hot seat to make that determination in the moment, potentially going to jail if he decides incorrectly according to a military judge?
"We have your back," my middle-aged white woman butt.
Kelly, and the rest of his co-conspirators, are a brood of vipers.
And those pretending that they didn't mean what they clearly meant - I cannot understand what it must feel like to be you in this situation. Just how flexible are your morals, anyway?
"As for Trump actions that violate the rule of law, national security lawyers are in broad agreement that the deadly military assaults on civilians in international waters are unlawful."
Name them. By your reasoning the "war on terror" was illegal since mostly civilians got killed. Ignoring the fact that the terrorists were civilians.
Our country has the absolute right like our citizens to defend ourselves.
Kelly might face military "Subversion"
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.