Tags
Arizona, Article 90, Article 92, Fascist pigs, illegal order, mark kelly, Pete Hegseth, Rule 916, social media, Trump administration, UCMJ, Uniform Code of Military Justice, weaponization, Whiskey Pete
Pete Hegseth (r).
Weaponization of the law.
This morning:
Department of War @DeptofWar
OFFICIAL STATEMENT:
The Department of War has received serious allegations of misconduct against Captain Mark Kelly, USN (Ret.). In accordance with the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 688, and other applicable regulations, a thorough review of these allegations has been initiated to determine further actions, which may include recall to active duty for court-martial proceedings or administrative measures. This matter will be handled in compliance with military law, ensuring due process and impartiality. Further official comments will be limited, to preserve the integrity of the proceedings.
The Department of War reminds all individuals that military retirees remain subject to the UCMJ for applicable offenses, and federal laws such as 18 U.S.C. § 2387 prohibit actions intended to interfere with the loyalty, morale, or good order and discipline of the armed forces. Any violations will be addressed through appropriate legal channels.
All servicemembers are reminded that they have a legal obligation under the UCMJ to obey lawful orders and that orders are presumed to be lawful. A servicemember’s personal philosophy does not justify or excuse the disobedience of an otherwise lawful order.
“…otherwise lawful order.”
Responses on social media:
Tell us you don’t know the difference between “unlawful order” and “order” without telling us
This is hilarious. He didn’t do anything illegal by reminding those in active duty service that they have an obligation to follow the constitution and that they have not only the right, but the duty to ignore UNLAWFUL orders.
“Orders are presumed to be lawful…” except when it’s obvious that they are not. Service members have an obligation to refuse unlawful orders.
Sound like everyone is on the same page
Mark Kelly: “You have an obligation to refuse illegal orders”
SECWAR: “You must obey legal orders”
What’s the issue?
He reminded service members that their oath is to the Constitution, not to any individual leader. That is literally what every officer is trained to uphold. There is nothing unlawful about reminding troops of constitutional principles. In fact, it’s encouraged in military ethics training because the military’s loyalty must always be to the Constitution above any person or political figure.
the troops take an oath to support and defend the Constitution, not to the president as an individual. While the oath includes a pledge to “obey the orders of the President,” it is in the context of following LAWFUL orders according to the Constitution and the UMCJ.
Kelly was reminding the troops of their oath and to protect what they’ve earned.
25 years of dedicated service to our military including combat missions during the Gulf war. During his Navy career, Kelly received two Defense Superior Service Medals; one Legion of Merit; two Distinguished Flying Crosses; four Air Medals (two individual/two strike flight) with Combat “V”; two Navy Commendation Medals, (one with combat “V”); one Navy Achievement Medal; two Southwest Asia Service Medals; one Navy Expeditionary Medal; two Sea Service Deployment Ribbons; a NASA Distinguished Service Medal; and an Overseas Service Ribbon. Now he faces political retribution from the appointed civilian figurehead in charge of the “Department of War”. Thanks for your service, though.
“orders are presumed to be lawful”
99.9% of the time, this is correct. But presumption is not legally binding. Orders are lawful unless they’re very clearly not. So, advising to not follow **unlawful** orders has absolutely no conflict. They can try bringing it to UCMJ, but it’ll fall through without merit.
Gentlemen, you can’t fight in here, this is the War Department.
What’s the department of war? Because we’ll never hear that name again in three years.
Did you type this with a straight face?
Whiskey Pete has fallen off the wagon.
I’d be surprised if there’s anybody left in the JAG corps competent enough to take something like this on let alone excessively prosecute him.
Time to remember your oath of office, members of the department. You yourselves are gonna be liable for what you do. Captain Kelly is trying to remind you of that.
I think the most laughable part of that release is where they talk about the investigation being “impartial”. There’s nothing impartial about any of this. It’s Whiskey Pete continuing the Orange Donald’s campaign of retaliation. This has nothing to do with right or wrong…it’s good old fashioned revenge.
Ol Pete needs to lay off the whiskey for a few days and sober up. This is pure comedy at this point.
This isn’t an official department. Quit posing as such.
What a load of crap lol. Talk about political retribution just for what the ucmj already states. Any common sense judge would just throw any case out for wasting a court’s time. Oh did you also forget, it’s still the Department of Defense without Congressional action……
If only the top JAG officers weren’t fired, they’d be able to weigh in.
Order is Order, duty is duty.
[….]
On following orders:Service members of the United States Armed Forces are required to disobey orders that violate the law. As retired Marine Corps General John Allen recently said: “When we swear an oath to support and defend the Constitution…one of those is to ensure that we do not obey illegal orders.” While the Uniform Code of Military Justice demands obedience to the lawful orders of a superior commissioned officer, it equally demands disobedience when the order given is illegal. Military leaders such as Lieutenant General Sean MacFarland have spoken out to reaffirm that the U.S. military will not commit war crimes: “We are bound by the laws of armed conflict. And you know at the end of the day, it doesn’t only matter if you win, it matters how you win.” Both international and domestic courts have a robust history of convicting service members who carried out unlawful orders. When former Nazis claimed to have just been following orders, this defense was unequivocally rejected during the Nuremberg trials.
[….]
[….]
Principle IV
The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.
[….]
[….]
Previously:
It is happening here (October 31, 2025)
On the throne (November 21, 2025)
