Sen. Kelly sues the Pentagon over attempts to punish him for his warnings about illegal orders

Officers more than enlisted have an obligation to promote good order and discipline in the ranks after retirement.

Kelly absolutely can be brought up on charges under the UCMJ for what he said.

Not sure what the result would be.
 
signalmankenneth said:
Good for him!

WASHINGTON (AP) — Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly sued the Pentagon on Monday over attempts to punish him for his warnings about illegal orders.

Kelly, a former Navy pilot, is seeking to block his censure from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth last week. Hegseth announced last Monday that he censured Kelly over the former Navy pilot’s participation in a video that called on troops to resist unlawful orders.

Hegseth said the censure — by itself simply a formal letter with little practical consequence — was “a necessary process step” to proceedings that could result in a demotion from Kelly’s retired rank of captain and subsequent reduction in retirement pay.

Kelly asked the court to declare the censure letter, the proceedings about his rank and any other punishments against him “unlawful and unconstitutional.

“The First Amendment forbids the government and its officials from punishing disfavored expression or retaliating against protected speech,” his lawsuit says. “That prohibition applies with particular force to legislators speaking on matters of public policy.”

The censure stemmed from Kelly’s participation in a video in November with five other Democratic lawmakers — all veterans of the armed services and intelligence community — in which they called on troops to uphold the Constitution and defy “illegal orders.”

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/sen-kelly-sues-pentagon-over-190917838.html
Click to expand...

I expect he will win this one despite the #TangerineTyrant's stacking of the courts with fascists. He merely stated the truth. In MAGATWorld, that is a punishable offense.
 
Whiskey Pete has no case under the UCMJ to punish a military person for saying to follow the UCMJ. You don't have to obey unlawful orders. Yes, Whiskey Pete can call him to military activation for good cause.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
Officers more than enlisted have an obligation to promote good order and discipline in the ranks after retirement.

Kelly absolutely can be brought up on charges under the UCMJ for what he said.

Not sure what the result would be.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you can explain to us how informing the ranks that they do not have to obey unlawful orders is violating the code. Ready set go!
 
  • Like
Reactions: QP!
Hawkeye10 said:
Officers more than enlisted have an obligation to promote good order and discipline in the ranks after retirement.

Kelly absolutely can be brought up on charges under the UCMJ for what he said.

Not sure what the result would be.
Click to expand...
That's one vote from someone who never served and wants to see the Trump administration embarrass themselves in court....again. :clink:
 
signalmankenneth said:
Good for him!

WASHINGTON (AP) — Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly sued the Pentagon on Monday over attempts to punish him for his warnings about illegal orders.

Kelly, a former Navy pilot, is seeking to block his censure from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth last week. Hegseth announced last Monday that he censured Kelly over the former Navy pilot’s participation in a video that called on troops to resist unlawful orders.

Hegseth said the censure — by itself simply a formal letter with little practical consequence — was “a necessary process step” to proceedings that could result in a demotion from Kelly’s retired rank of captain and subsequent reduction in retirement pay.

Kelly asked the court to declare the censure letter, the proceedings about his rank and any other punishments against him “unlawful and unconstitutional.

“The First Amendment forbids the government and its officials from punishing disfavored expression or retaliating against protected speech,” his lawsuit says. “That prohibition applies with particular force to legislators speaking on matters of public policy.”

The censure stemmed from Kelly’s participation in a video in November with five other Democratic lawmakers — all veterans of the armed services and intelligence community — in which they called on troops to uphold the Constitution and defy “illegal orders.”

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/sen-kelly-sues-pentagon-over-190917838.html
Click to expand...
LOL, I hope he has to mortgage his home before he's done. TDS turned him into a traitor and a disgrace to the country he once served. Disgusting man. What's really funny? The bitterness and hatred has literally wrinkled his face and bald head, lol. Poor bastard has Trump dancing in his head and I'm loving every minute and every dollar he spends. Maybe a few of you libtards should send him some of your money. It would be like Trump reaching into your pockets, pulling out $100 bills and lighting them on fire like he's doing to Kelly, lmfao.
 
Tobytone said:
LOL, I hope he has to mortgage his home before he's done. TDS turned him into a traitor and a disgrace to the country he once served. Disgusting man. What's really funny? The bitterness and hatred has literally wrinkled his face and bald head, lol. Poor bastard has Trump dancing in his head and I'm loving every minute and every dollar he spends. Maybe a few of you libtards should send him some of your money. It would be like Trump reaching into your pockets, pulling out $100 bills and lighting them on fire like he's doing to Kelly, lmfao.
Click to expand...
I'm thinking he'll be cleaning his gun drunk and have an "accident". :thup:

a93074.jpg
 
Hawkeye10 said:
I did not say that active is the same as retired so far as free speech goes...I said that retired is not the same as not military.

Pease try to keep up.
Click to expand...
You please try to keep up. You replied to this forum topic title with this as your first post, which would mean you were providing that info with regards to Kelly (retired) unless you specifically say otherwise. and you are were wrong.

Sen. Kelly sues the Pentagon over attempts to punish him for his warnings about illegal orders​

 
Hawkeye10 said:
Changing his retirement status maybe.....moving him to active and then convicting for his speech no.
Click to expand...
No.

He was retired at the time of saying the comments, so even if you grant the comments were problematic (they were not) you cannot call him back and then say the comments that were appropriately made while he was retired now are attributed to him in his unretired status.
 
RB 60 said:
I wonder how many (requested orders now?) fighter pilots we sent to bomb Iran refused to go? lol. Yeah, I bet...
Click to expand...
RB I will bet that you are still stupid enough to pretend you do know that both Hegseth (during Obama's POTUS) and Bondi (during Bidens) made similar comments and that you want say you think they broke the law or did something wrong.

As a lawyer for the conservative America First Policy Institute in a Supreme Court brief, Bondi wrote that “military officers are required not to carry out unlawful orders” and added that the military would not carry out an order to kill non-military targets because such an order would be illegal.
Click to expand...


Hegseth said that the military would not follow unlawful orders from their commander in chief and that there is a standard, ethos, and belief in the U.S. military that prevents them from obeying unlawful directives.
Click to expand...
 
Hawkeye10 said:
Officers more than enlisted have an obligation to promote good order and discipline in the ranks after retirement.

Kelly absolutely can be brought up on charges under the UCMJ for what he said.

Not sure what the result would be.
Click to expand...
Anyone can be brought up on charges for anything so that part of your statement is worthless.

The issue is would the charges stand or be dismissed and these would be dismissed and the only reason you do not know that is you are daft.

First you have to get passed 'speech and debate' protections that Congress have which are the most robust protections available. Second you have to get passed him being retired and thus not subject to the active military standard at the time. Third you have to get passed that these statements are fine for anyone, including active military to say, and thus why they are taught in military colleges and those teaching are not charged.

All of that would be evidence to dismiss and any hearing would address the question 'why are you teaching this... if it is illegal or improper to state'??
 
RB 60 said:
Are you? You people say they can refuse orders now (if they deem them "illegal orders")
Click to expand...
RB i know this will go over your head as you too dense to understand it but EACH and EVERY service member was instructed not only "can" they refuse an illegal order but they have an 'OBLIGATION' to do so and if they do not, they can and will be held accountable for the action they take.

and service people HAVE been charged and prosecuted for following illegal orders and they have tried the defense of "I was just following my orders" and it DID NOT get accepted as a defense.
 
QP! said:
RB i know this will go over your head as you too dense to understand it but EACH and EVERY service member was instructed not only "can" they refuse an illegal order but they have an 'OBLIGATION' to do so and if they do not, they can and will be held accountable for the action they take.

and service people HAVE been charged and prosecuted for following illegal orders and they have tried the defense of "I was just following my orders" and it DID NOT get accepted as a defense
Click to expand...

Well? How many pilots refused to bomb Iran and go in to Venezuela to capture their (criminal) "king"? .Answer my question. You have avoided it.

When and where?
 
RB 60 said:
Well? How many pilots refused to bomb Iran and go in to Venezuela to capture their (criminal) "king"? .Answer my question. You have avoided it.

When and where?
Click to expand...
Because it is a stupid question.

Did the pilots consider that an illegal order? If they did not, they need to follow it.

In any instance where the order is an illegal one, they are REQUIRED to not follow it and other service people have been charged and convicted for doing so and some have tried to 'I was just following orders' as a defense and the courts refused to consider that as a defense.

Do you understand that RB? Can you read it and comprehend it.

IF you had a kid in service who contacted during the Afghan activities and said 'I've seen my new unit is involved in the Opium trade and i am being given orders that i believe illegal to help out'... you, RB, would tell your kid 'you must follow the orders... shut up and follow them'.

And you RB, would tell your kid that as you are deeply stupid. the poorly educated at its worst.
 
QP! said:
Because it is a stupid question.

Did the pilots consider that an illegal order? If they did not, they need to follow it.

In any instance where the order is an illegal one, they are REQUIRED to not follow it and other service people have been charged and convicted for doing so and some have tried to 'I was just following orders' as a defense and the courts refused to consider that as a defense.

Do you understand that RB? Can you read it and comprehend it.

IF you had a kid in service who contacted during the Afghan activities and said 'I've seen my new unit is involved in the Opium trade and i am being given orders that i believe illegal to help out'... you, RB, would tell your kid 'you must follow the orders... shut up and follow them'.

And you RB, would tell your kid that as you are deeply stupid. the poorly educated at its worst.
Click to expand...

Why is it a stupid question? You say they can (if they are as stupid as you) refuse to fly a mission they are ordered to if they so choose because THEY think it's illegal?

Again, who decides if an order is illegal? You think a mission will go on hold until it gets to the Supreme Court?
If my kid were in the military, yes, I tell him to follow orders.

:rolleyes:

Stupid question..

So you think you're more educated than me? In what way? Knowledge of career path? Firearms? Mechanics? Etc...? How so?
 
RB 60 said:
Why is it a stupid question? You say they can (if they are as stupid as you) refuse to fly a mission they are ordered to if they so choose because THEY think it's illegal?

Again, who decides if an order is illegal? You think a mission will go on hold until it gets to the Supreme Court?
If my kid were in the military, yes, I tell him to follow orders.

:rolleyes:

Stupid question..

So you think you're more educated than me? In what way? Knowledge of career path? Firearms? Mechanics? Etc...? How so?
Click to expand...

that you do not understand why the question is stupid is why you, as the poorly educated, cannot understand the answer.
So again, despite knowing you cannot understand it:

RB - "...Again, who decides if an order is illegal?... "

The law literally says and it is TAUGHT IN MILITARY ACADEMY that EACH and EVERY service member is responsible for their decision and if they follow an illegal order they CAN and WILL be prosecuted and be punished.


So again, if RB had a son:

Son : Dad, RB, this new unit i just joined in Afghanistan seems to be doing work to help Opioids get to America like a lot of units have been caught doing here. I am being given orders i think are illegal and am not going to follow them. Other sol

Rb to Son : Son it is not your job to judge orders. Just follow them and shut up and if charged stand behind 'i was just following orders'. If you go to jail, you go to jail as that is what the RB family, we the poorly educated do, when those in power tell us to break the law on their behalf.
 
I want others to realize that it is exactly people like @RB 60 , who are the poorly educated, that elites have always relied upon to do the dirty work and go to jail for them, while they walk free.

see the exchange above where RB is arguing that someone like his son, even if he thinks he is being told to follow a clearly illegal order, and RB is saying the son should not question and just do it. The son would have no right or ability to decide for himself if he needs to seek out a jag, or others in leadership and to just not follow the order he thinks is illegal.

At all instances RB has one reply to his son or others which is 'follow the order... you are not one who can determine'.

that is despite the FACT it would be his son going to jail, if he follows it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top