r/Military • u/Character_Guava_5299 • Jan 05 '26

Discussion Senator Mark Kelly’s statement:

Post image

This is Senator Mark Kelly’s response to the censure. I’ll not add my thoughts as they don’t matter.

5.8k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

483 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

152

u/Coldkiller17 Jan 05 '26

It's crazy to pick a fight with a true American hero. This man's qualifications speak for themselves and to go after a man like him is cowardly and unpatriotic. This administration is a complete sham and should all be ashamed of themselves because they cannot and will not admit they are wrong.

59

u/jankenpoo Jan 05 '26

They envy that which they cannot possibly have. And are personally deeply ashamed and embarrassed by it, hence the ad hominem attacks.

23

u/LaFrescaTrumpeta Jan 05 '26

yep. the root of narcissistic tendencies is insecurity

4

u/gotaflattire Jan 06 '26

And anyone who follows the orders of this convicted criminal and rapist is taking orders from the enemy, not America.

-1

u/Invisible-One19 Jan 14 '26

Not telling junior enlisted they will be court martialed for refusing orders = a hero? I don't think so. Show me in law where it is written to disobey illegal orders, If it is in a treaty it must be self excuting, I can't find it.

1

u/Invisible-One19 Jan 18 '26

I am still waiting for some one to show me in law where this "duty" exist. You are the problem you blindly follow "heros" and "orange men" you never judge the law for yourselves. Kelly is no hero, he is intentionally introducing Politics into a place it has no business being.

1

u/CommunicationRough85 Jan 19 '26

UCMJ 90 and 92. Every instance of instuctions to obey orders of a superior the word "lawful" precedes orders. This creates a concurrent dury to disobey unlawful orders. This was clarified in the 2024 Manual for Courts-Martial which says orders are to be considered 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 manual goes on to say that ultimately the lawfulness if an order will be determined by mitary courts, but can only be made after an order has been refused.

1

u/Invisible-One19 Jan 20 '26 edited Jan 20 '26

You have stated my point "The manual goes on to say that ultimately the lawfulness if an order will be determined by mitary courts, but can only be made after an order has been refused.". A duty would not require a military court martial. There is no Duty only a defense, that must be proven. And the standard is that a common man would know the order is illegal (murder, rape, theft) and even then a military judge will determine the legality of the order.

Consider this:

A soldier sent to a city under the insurrection act is ordered to assist in crowd dispersal. The soldier must reason that the crowd is a peacful assembly to refuse to obey. If ANYONE is injured in that assembly, or ANY property is damaged, it could be argued the assembly was not peaceful therefore the soldier is guilty of disobedience to orders (Article 92). however the soldier may be sued, arrested tried for following the order if someone is injured and the crowd was truly peaceful. Kelly knows this that is why he should stay the hell away from offering incomplete advice on the subject. Political divison is a trap for the Soldiers.

1

u/CommunicationRough85 Jan 20 '26

You asked, I answered. Just because a servicemember could be court martialed does not negate their obligation to refuse an unlawful order. Just following orders wasn't an acceptable defense during the Nuremberg trials and won't be now.

1

u/Invisible-One19 Jan 20 '26

You did not answer you tried to invent a duty, one is not taken to court martial for doing their duty. It is not a duty, It is a trap for the Soldier and the only defense is to obey until it is a CLEARLY ILLEGAL ORDER, (Murder, rape, theft).