Civil War-again?

[Bootstrap]

What I do know is that retirement is not what most people think. He’s still a commissioned officer.
Consider his retirement check as a retainer, not as a retirement check.
The same thing is technically true for enlisted who retire, but is a lot less common.
So yes, he could as far as I’m aware still be brought up in a court marshal. I suppose it gets increasingly sticky because he’s also in political office so I suspect it’s just a political hit piece.

Yes, a retired officer is still subject to the UCMJ, so in principle he can be recalled and charged.

But what would the actual charge be?

Encouraging troops to refuse illegal orders isn’t a crime. So which article would this fall under? What’s the specific offense supposed to be?

And if we game it out: would they really try to court-martial him? The risks are huge. A case like that would raise questions about retaliation, drag the legality of the underlying orders into the spotlight, and force JAGs and senior officers to pick between political pressure and the Constitution. It could easily backfire.

[Southerner]

Can you explain to me what is happening to Mark Kelly? I haven’t had a chance to read the article about it, he is being court martialed???

I don’t know the conditions or what specifically is going on because I haven’t read in detail, and I haven’t heard the officer I work for comment nor asked.
What I do know is that retirement is not what most people think. He’s still a commissioned officer.
Consider his retirement check as a retainer, not as a retirement check.
The same thing is technically true for enlisted who retire, but is a lot less common.
So yes, he could as far as I’m aware still be brought up in a court marshal. I suppose it gets increasingly sticky because he’s also in political office so I suspect it’s just a political hit piece.

Interesting. TY.

[Southerner]

For awhile I’ve been sensing we may be headed for civil war- in my own lifetime I’ve never seen this country so divided & vehemently so. It even works its way into a Mennonite forum.

How many years is "for awhile"? 10, 20, 30???

[Valerie]

...I’ve never seen this country so divided & vehemently so. It even works its way into a Mennonite forum.

Often by way of people who are not Mennonite.

Well there are a lot of topics started by Mennonite s here that are political. That being the case, it’s been obvious for years that there are conservatives and liberals on the forum, so what do you think might happen when a Mennonite starts a topic that is political and sometimes seems to be provoking, what do you think will happen since it’s your feeling that it’s often by those that aren’t Mennonite?

[Valerie]

What I do know is that retirement is not what most people think. He’s still a commissioned officer.
Consider his retirement check as a retainer, not as a retirement check.
The same thing is technically true for enlisted who retire, but is a lot less common.
So yes, he could as far as I’m aware still be brought up in a court marshal. I suppose it gets increasingly sticky because he’s also in political office so I suspect it’s just a political hit piece.

Yes, a retired officer is still subject to the UCMJ, so in principle he can be recalled and charged.

But what would the actual charge be?

Encouraging troops to refuse illegal orders isn’t a crime. So which article would this fall under? What’s the specific offense supposed to be?

And if we game it out: would they really try to court-martial him? The risks are huge. A case like that would raise questions about retaliation, drag the legality of the underlying orders into the spotlight, and force JAGs and senior officers to pick between political pressure and the Constitution. It could easily backfire.

As my brother pointed out, those who serve ALREADY know they are not to follow illegal orders. It is written in their Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Therefore this was meant to undermine the President, who is the Commander in Chief, to provoke & incite. Don’t fall for the claim they are trying to promote, we and THEY and the armed services know why they pulled this stunt.

[Valerie]

For awhile I’ve been sensing we may be headed for civil war- in my own lifetime I’ve never seen this country so divided & vehemently so. It even works its way into a Mennonite forum.

How many years is "for awhile"? 10, 20, 30???

Probably around the time of the pandemic, & increasingly so since.

[mike]

...I’ve never seen this country so divided & vehemently so. It even works its way into a Mennonite forum.

Often by way of people who are not Mennonite.

Well there are a lot of topics started by Mennonite s here that are political. That being the case, it’s been obvious for years that there are conservatives and liberals on the forum, so what do you think might happen when a Mennonite starts a topic that is political and sometimes seems to be provoking, what do you think will happen since it’s your feeling that it’s often by those that aren’t Mennonite?

I think that those who are provoked by such things will be provoked.

[Soloist]

They were disobeying a lawful order. An unethical order, I think, but a lawful one. To refuse a lawful order is insubordination, failure to obey, or desertion, depending on circumstances.

Many people would argue with you, but I won’t choose to argue as it’s fruitless

I agree that identifying an illegal order is almost impossible from lower in the chain of command. Only JAGs and senior officers are really in a position to judge that. And normally troops can safely assume that the lawyers and commanders have already vetted the legality.

As you see it, what specifically makes the Venezuela situation an unlawful order?

When an admiral retires suddenly, often that is their protest because there’s nothing else they can do.
If I needed to go into the various laws that the Venezuela action is breaking, I think this would be the wrong area to discuss it.

The consequences for refusing might have been the same either way. Even if the order was unlawful, a service member would still be charged with refusing a lawful order, because orders are presumed legal until a court rules otherwise. And I don't think the government would say "oh yes, you're right, our orders were unlawful.

So I was not in the military, and I do not have knowledge and experience in this area. But they do. And in the video, they specifically refer to the oath to defend the Constitution and the seriousness of that oath.

These people also swore an oath to the president.
To quote and leave that out seems like an intentional oversight.


Honestly, I have no interest in going into the details about the illegal orders that I was given. I don’t see any point in having Mennonet dissect whether or not it was a legitimate order or not, and what I should’ve done or should not do.

[Soloist]

Yes, a retired officer is still subject to the UCMJ, so in principle he can be recalled and charged.

But what would the actual charge be?

Encouraging troops to refuse illegal orders isn’t a crime. So which article would this fall under? What’s the specific offense supposed to be?

And if we game it out: would they really try to court-martial him? The risks are huge. A case like that would raise questions about retaliation, drag the legality of the underlying orders into the spotlight, and force JAGs and senior officers to pick between political pressure and the Constitution. It could easily backfire.

You presume it would be in the spotlight. The military is not subject to the same laws that civilians are, nor are they required to have civilian audiences or audiences at all.

[JohnH]

But what would the actual charge be?

Encouraging troops to refuse illegal orders isn’t a crime. So which article would this fall under? What’s the specific offense supposed to be?

And if we game it out: would they really try to court-martial him? The risks are huge. A case like that would raise questions about retaliation, drag the legality of the underlying orders into the spotlight, and force JAGs and senior officers to pick between political pressure and the Constitution. It could easily backfire.

What, exactly, is Ret. Capt. Kelly's intention with his remarks? That might be part of the question. "Raise questions about retaliation" - raise questions with whom?

"Drag the legality of the underlying orders into the spotlight" - has Sen. Kelly actually said any of the orders are unlawful?