Tell me that MAGA does not deserve the egg on their face this time?

1. 82

   Credence2posted 4 days ago

   https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/tru … 48210.html
   
   I happen to like Mark Kelly as I have a soft spot for courageous military officers and astronauts,. How can it be that a man who is too yellow to even get his hair wet can begin to question a man of Kelly’s stature and background?  Is Kelly considered DEI? Could it be that DUM is the more appropriate acronym to describe Trump and MAGA at this point? But, again I saw the same inappropriate treatment of John McCain 10 years ago. That yellow streak is long lasting and has always been the hardest to expunge, has it not?
   
   Kelly has done nothing wrong unless reminding men and women in uniform of their obligation to belay an illegal order is a form of sedition. What is new about that? Isn’t that part of their obligation, anyway? What are Trump and Hegseth afraid of?

   replyreport
   1. 79

      Readmikenowposted 3 days agoin reply to this

      Kelly did a BIG thing wrong.
      
      He is spoke directly to the troops and told them to not follow unlawful orders without specifically defining what is and is not an unlawful order.  You can't have troops in active military operations thinking they are not being given a lawful order.  This could cause a lot of chaos.
      
      He knows better.  This is an intentional effort to undermine the chain of command.  His motivation is unclear.  I believe he deserves the maximum punishment for his actions.
      
      You can't have military officers conducting themselves in such a way.  It would do severe damage to the chain of command.
      
      If they were to recall Kelly to active duty and court martial him, I would fully support it.
      
      As a former Army officer, I find his behavior reprehensible.  I believe a court martial is something he well deserves in this case.  He has brought shame to the officer corps.  At the very least, he deserve a less than honorable discharge from the military.

      replyreport
      1. 82

         Credence2posted 3 days agoin reply to this

         Well, Mike, thanks for weighing in with your opinion on this.
         
         I don’t think that Kelly is in a position to speak “directly” to troops as he is retired and no longer in the ranks.
         
         You, yourself acknowledged the principle of an illegal order in other comments. And there is such a thing.
         
         I think that this is a good definition, what do you think?
         
         “Unlawful orders are those that clearly violate the U.S. Constitution, international human rights standards or the Geneva Conventions. Service members who follow an illegal order can be held liable and court-martialed or subject to prosecution by international tribunals. Following orders from a superior is no defense.”
         
         I think that clears things up substantially. The chain of command is not sacrosanct.
         
         Kelly is just reminding military members of their obligations as soldiers, airman and sailors to the corps and to humanity. So, what is the crime in that?
         
         Why is Trump and Hegseth getting their panties in a bunch? If they or their subordinates do not issue illegal orders as defined above, what is the problem?

         replyreport
         1. 79

            Readmikenowposted 3 days agoin reply to this

            Cred,
            
            Leading people in difficult situations is very challenging.  The last thing you need is some troop saying, "I don't want to go into that house because it's too dangerous.  That is an unlawful order.  I'm not going to do it."
            
            This would ruin the young man's military career.  I can see there being a troop who would do such a thing.  What if a group of troops got together and said they didn't want to go into an area because it was too dangerous and believed it was an unlawful order?  Then you'd have a real mess.
            
            Kelly didn't define what is and is not a lawful order.  He didn't reference the UCMJ.  He just left it wide open to interpretation by anyone.  This was an intentional  act on the part of these senators to undermine military discipline as well as the chain of command.
            
            Kelly is a Navy captain which is equal to an Army colonel.  This is one step below being a flag officer.  He knows better.  Kelly knew what he was doing.  It did nothing to help the US military but got him and the other seven low lifes a lot of political attention.  I think that is all they were after.

            replyreport
            1. 82

               Credence2posted 3 days agoin reply to this

               Reminds me of General Patton (blood and guts). Cowardice is not the same as resisting an illegal order. The definition for an illegal order is one that I provided. Our service people should be well trained to understand the distinction between an illegal order and legal one. You just don’t slaughter unarmed civilians, non-combatants-woman and children without cause. The PFC involved could be subject to prosecution. The principle behind lawful verses unlawful orders is not new, Mike.
               
               It behooves all of our people in uniform to consider the moral implications of an order rather than be a mere pawn on a chessboard. Because they may well find themselves held accountable if they don’t.
               
               This administration has questionably crossed the line in many of these matters, the subordinate military needs to be careful that they do not become a scapegoat for illegal activities.

               replyreport
            2. 86

               My Esotericposted 39 hours agoin reply to this

               But it is OK for the troops to think that the President is ordering me to murder people but I must do it anyway.

               replyreport
               1. 79

                  wildernessposted 37 hours agoin reply to this

                  The only troops that would think that are died-in-the-wool Democrats, and Democrats that cannot think for themselves in any case.

                  replyreport
                  1. 86

                     My Esotericposted 34 hours agoin reply to this

                     So you are saying Republicans can't tell the difference between what is murder and what is not? They shouldn't be allowed to enlist then.

                     replyreport
                     1. 79

                        wildernessposted 16 hours agoin reply to this

                        Well, apparently Democrats can't either - they promote in utero murder all the time, while claiming it is not.  Why should Republicans be any different?  We all have the same DNA.

                        replyreport
                        1. 86

                           My Esotericposted 15 hours agoin reply to this

                           That is a false analogy since abortion is not murder and blowing people out of the water is.

                           replyreport
      2. 86

         My Esotericposted 39 hours agoin reply to this

         So you DON'T believe in free-speech after all.
         
         As a former Army Combat Engineer, Infantry, Pilot, Vietnam Veteran Officer, I find Kelly's, and the other's, actions more than appropriate given who is president and Sec Def today. 
         
         Before them, it was unnecessary (but still legal) because America has never had a president and Sec Def who would knowingly issue illegal orders. But these two nimrods, in the opinion of MANY legal experts, have issued illegal orders to murder people.
         
         That makes the statements by the PATRIOTIC SIX more than necessary.

         replyreport
   2. 84

      Sharlee01posted 3 days agoin reply to this

      "Kelly has done nothing wrong unless reminding men and women in uniform of their obligation to belay an illegal order is a form of sedition." Cred
      
      I have a very simple argument here. I keep coming back to one very simple point. Every man and woman in our military takes an oath — and that oath already includes the duty to follow lawful orders. It’s built right into the foundation of military service. No one in uniform is ever required to obey an illegal order. In fact, they’re obligated not to.
      
      So when these lawmakers put out a video acting like they’re the guardians of some forgotten principle, it actually comes across as presumptuous and insulting to those who took the oath.  Our service members know their oath. They know the law. They don’t need politicians lecturing them on something that’s been drilled into them from day one.
      
      If anything, pushing this kind of message right before an election, in my view,  looks like nothing more than a political ploy designed to fool anyone paying attention; it might feel desperate.

      replyreport
      1. 82

         Credence2posted 3 days agoin reply to this

         Every man and woman in our military takes an oath — and that oath already includes the duty to follow lawful orders. It’s built right into the foundation of military service.
         ——-
         Is being reminded of that oath by a respected military officer a crime?
         The line has been crossed before, so it is not as if everybody is aware of the magnitude of the responsibility.
         
         The message is a valid one, whether an election is on the horizon or not.

         replyreport
      2. 86

         My Esotericposted 39 hours agoin reply to this

         When you have presidents and Sec Def's giving what many, many, many legal experts consider illegal orders to murder people on the high seas, then you should be able to see the confusion in the minds of moral airmen orders to execute those murders. So, to me, it makes all the sense  in the world to remind these soldiers of the oath they took, especially those who think they took an oath to Trump instead.

         replyreport
   3. 79

      wildernessposted 3 days agoin reply to this

      "Kelly has done nothing wrong unless reminding men and women in uniform of their obligation to belay an illegal order is a form of sedition."
      
      That, and encouraging military forces to believe that Trump is making lots of illegal orders.  Insinuating that most of what he orders is not legal.  Promoting personnel to refuse orders because of ideology rather than the law (keep in mind that precious few soldiers are lawyers!).

      replyreport
      1. 84

         Sharlee01posted 3 days agoin reply to this

         BINGO!  So well put.

         replyreport
      2. 82

         Credence2posted 3 days agoin reply to this

         “That, and encouraging military forces to believe that Trump is making lots of illegal orders.  Insinuating that most of what he orders is not legal.  Promoting personnel to refuse orders because of ideology rather than the law (keep in mind that precious few soldiers are lawyers!).”
         
         From what personal orifice is the source of this drivel? Kelly did not speak about legal orders from superiors. What insinuation? Is it the mere fact that he mentioned it have Trump and regime all bent out of shape?

         replyreport
      3. 86

         My Esotericposted 39 hours agoin reply to this

         Where did they mention Trump?

         replyreport
         1. 79

            wildernessposted 37 hours agoin reply to this

            Can't figure that out, eh?  Work on it - it will come to you.

            replyreport
            1. 86

               My Esotericposted 34 hours agoin reply to this

               Don't have to figure it out, they didn't mention him. Remember you deal in the literal world, no intuition allowed.

               replyreport
2. 84

   Sharlee01posted 3 days ago

   I did do some research on the issue regarding the legality. The facts show there is legal standing.
   
   What the Law Says
   
   Retirees Can Be Subject to the UCMJ
   
   Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), retired regular-component service members who are entitled to retired pay remain subject to military law.
   Congress.gov
   Army Military Police
   
   That means even though someone is “retired,” they can still be tried by court-martial for certain offenses.
   USMJ
   
   A recent court case (Wilson v. Curtis, 10th Circuit, 2025) reaffirmed that retirees maintain “military status” and can be recalled and tried.
   CaseMine
   https://www.casemine.com/commentary/us/ … hatgpt.com
   
   Recall to Active Duty
   
   The Secretary of the military department (e.g. Navy, Army) has statutory authority to order retired officers back to active duty under 10 U.S.C. § 688.
   Justia Law
   
   The recall can be for various purposes — not just to fill jobs, but also to face UCMJ charges.
   Library of Congress Maintenance
   
   According to Army policy (for example), retired personnel “subject to the Code” (i.e. UCMJ) are rarely tried unless there are extraordinary circumstances.
   JA GCNets
   
   What Kind of Misconduct Qualifies
   
   It’s not for trivial matters. The kinds of misconduct that typically trigger this are serious — e.g., crimes or conduct that “bring discredit” on the armed forces.
   UCMJ
   
   There is precedent: legal offices (e.g., the Army’s Office of Special Trial Counsel) have “re-opened” old cases against retirees for serious offenses.
   Philip D. Cave
   
   How That Relates to Sen. Mark Kelly’s Situation
   
   The Pentagon itself is saying that Kelly could be recalled for “court-martial proceedings or administrative measures.”
   Politico
   
   Because he’s a retired Navy captain, he qualifies under the category of retired members who are “entitled to pay” — so per UCMJ and federal law, he remains under military jurisdiction.
   Congress.gov
   
   If the Pentagon believes the alleged misconduct is serious enough (e.g., incitement, disloyalty, or something considered a UCMJ offense), they do have a legal pathway to recall him and potentially prosecute.
   
   Counter-Arguments & Risks
   
   While legal, prosecuting a sitting U.S. Senator in a court-martial raises big political and constitutional questions (free speech, separation of powers, command influence, etc.). Some legal experts are already raising those concerns in the media.
   Reuters
   
   Even though the law permits recall, military authorities may be cautious: courts-martial of retirees are relatively rare and often only pursued in “extraordinary” situations.
   JA GCNets
   
   Bottom Line
   
   Yes — it is legally possible for Kelly (or any retired, pay-entitled officer) to be recalled and court-martialed under UCMJ.
   
   But just because it’s legally possible doesn’t mean it’s inevitable. The military has discretion, there are practical/political barriers, and the case would likely be scrutinized heavily.

   replyreport
   1. 82

      Credence2posted 3 days agoin reply to this

      This is extensive, Sharlee. Still, I ask conservatives again what is the offense? Kelly said to uniformed military not to follow illegal orders. That applies to Trump as well as it applied to Clinton and others, etc. It is clear that “following orders” will not be an excuse for such a violation.
      
      All this is because Trump and Hegseth have thin skin. As far as I am concerned, I couldn’t care less what their opinions are. Mark Kelly is just reiterating a fact that should be understood by all in uniform. I will do what little  I can to support Kelly against the Trump administration. This is hardly an “extraordinary case” and amount to petty political reprisals from this administration.
      
      “That means even though someone is “retired,” they can still be tried by court-martial for certain offenses.”
      
      Who is going to believe that what Kelly said is so great an offense that court-martial is merited?

      replyreport
      1. 86

         My Esotericposted 39 hours agoin reply to this

         Come on, Cred. There doesn't need to be an offense. The offense is that they are a Democrat.

         replyreport
3. 83

   abwilliamsposted 3 days ago

   Kelly may have done great things in the past, but will be remembered as a seditionist.

   replyreport
   1. 85

      GA Andersonposted 3 days agoin reply to this

      Yep, he failed the 'yeah, but what have you done for me today?' test.
      
      GA

      replyreport
      1. 83

         abwilliamsposted 3 days agoin reply to this

         Just an observation, I have no opinion on Mark Kelly, the man, one way or the other. But I do believe that the video, which is circulating, is undermining and disrespectful, and was a colossal mistake.

         replyreport
         1. 85

            GA Andersonposted 3 days agoin reply to this

            I also think the video was a mistake, a politically motivated mistake. By the creators and the participants.
            
            From a Republican perspective, Kelly's participation can be seen as justifiably wrong as it is being claimed; I can see the 'casting doubt'  point. But ... from almost any non-Republican perspective, it can be seen as morally imperative for him to participate in it as a duty, a continuation of his service to his country.
            
            Like you, I know little about Kelly. I think a 'general' understanding of the known details is enough to form an opinion on this one.  Ya'll eating your own.    ;-)
            
            GA

            replyreport
         2. 84

            Sharlee01posted 3 days agoin reply to this

            I agree, Angie. But when will these kinds of disrespectful, cheap, and dangerous ploys stop? Every time we tolerate ads like this, we’re chipping away at the Nation we’ve built—with ingenuity, a Constitution, democracy, and common-sense values. If we keep learning to sit on the fence, all we’ll end up with is scratching our heads, saying, “What happened?” and a sore ass.

            replyreport
            1. 83

               abwilliamsposted 3 days agoin reply to this

               I hear ya! The fence riders get us nowhere fast!

               replyreport
            2. 85

               GA Andersonposted 3 days agoin reply to this

               ^5
               
               GA

               replyreport
            3. 86

               My Esotericposted 39 hours agoin reply to this

               When did simply reminding soldiers to follow their oaths become a "disrespectful, cheap, and dangerous ploy"?  Especially when you have a President and Sec Def issuing what many, many, many legal expects consider illegal orders to murder people on the high seas?
               
               In fact, I bet the only people who don't think those are illegal orders are sycophants or cult members.

               replyreport
               1. 79

                  wildernessposted 37 hours agoin reply to this

                  Perhaps when liberals country wide declared that "march peacefully" meant "take over the country in an insurrection".  Everybody gets to make their own meanings for words now.

                  replyreport
                  1. 86

                     My Esotericposted 34 hours agoin reply to this

                     non-sequitur

                     replyreport
                     1. 79

                        wildernessposted 16 hours agoin reply to this

                        Nothing similar, right?  Reading "between the lines" is only permissible when changing Trumps words into something really bad.  Not permitted when discussing Democrat's words.

                        replyreport
                        1. 86

                           My Esotericposted 15 hours agoin reply to this

                           You missed the point. "reading between the lines" is something you do not allow others to do. Remember all the times I point out you are "sharpshooting"?

                           replyreport
4. 85

   GA Andersonposted 3 days ago

   Hells bells, ya'll ain't just eating your own, you've rationalized it as a duty — with 'technicalities.' First, it was just the young and reckless (who gets 'primaried' next (MTG) for straying), but now it's military leaders too.
   
   GA

   replyreport
   1. 84

      Sharlee01posted 3 days agoin reply to this

      Oh No You Don't, Not So Fast!
      
      I get that you’re expressing frustration, but I think your flippant tone misses the real issue. We’re talking about members of Congress creating a commercial that crossed a line; it wasn’t just “eating your own,” it was a political ploy that could be seen as an insult to the military. To shrug it off or treat it lightly feels like avoiding a clear stance on an issue that is actually important. In my view, this kind of dog whistle could have consequences down the road. It promotes an ideology, essentially saying, if you disagree with an order’s legality, just ignore it. OMG!
      
      In my view, those responsible were wrong. It was ridiculous, unnecessary, and it disrespected people who serve our country. My question is, when does a political ploy stop being clever and start being insulting, and yes, dangerous? This isn’t hypothetical or a “technicality”, it’s about basic respect and common sense.
      
      Shar

      replyreport
      1. 85

         GA Andersonposted 3 days agoin reply to this

         Not so fast? 'O k  a  y ... I ' l l   t y p e  s  l ..'
         
         C'mon now, grin. You left that door open. ;-)
         
         And yes, it can be just that fast. But, again with the avoiding a stance thing? And again, from an ardent contextualist?
         
         You caught the "flippant tone" (purposefully so by word choice), and hint of disrespect, yet didn't see that as a clear stance? I even repeated the phrase: "ya'll eating your own"
         
         Given the literal context of the phrase and the demographic nuance of "ain't,"  I thought it was a clear stance — on the point of my remark. You're slipping ...
         
         You and the media, et al., are talking about all the stuff of your first paragraph. I wasn't. I was talking about the stuff of your second paragraph. Shockingly surprising, it describes my point almost word-for-word as I would have. Except for your question about it being seriously dangerous. That part's not a question for me.
         
         It's not. It's exactly as you described it. And it happens to every party, and every party does just what the Republicans are now. Even the "insult" tangent bites back: It seems equally insulting to insinuate our military personnel can't tell when a message is political.
         
         Yep, on this issue, flippant and dismissive works. It's a stance. I feel so freeeeee.
         
         GA ;-)

         replyreport
         1. 84

            Sharlee01posted 3 days agoin reply to this

            Ah, yes - he classic ‘contextualist wink and s-l-o-w typing’ move!  I get it, judgments aren’t really your style, but even so… how does a contextualist read the ripple effects of this little political ploy? Harmless mischief, or a tiny spark that could bite back?
            
            Come on, give me your take—you can stay fully judgment-free and still tease out the nuance.
            
            And yes, you feel free, but let’s not forget freedom comes with responsibility,  even when being delightfully dismissive. Don’t make me start grading your contextual nuance… I’m warning you, I take ‘demographic nuance’ very seriously!  Laughing pleasantly -------
            
            So, are you really free, or just free enough to dodge the part where your wink meets my “seriously dangerous” question?”  Not answering directly lets you keep the upper hand.  Does it not?

            replyreport
            1. 85

               GA Andersonposted 3 days agoin reply to this

               I did answer directly. I do not think the message is the danger Republicans claim it to be. I think this will fizzle away with the next news cycle (or two). Ripple effects are all you will see.
               
               GA

               replyreport
               1. 84

                  Sharlee01posted 2 days agoin reply to this

                  I see your point about the ad itself, and I agree it may fade from the news cycle quickly. My concern isn’t the immediate impact, but the ripple it can create over time. Even small messages can influence how people perceive the rules, norms, and authority of our institutions. When repeated, this can gradually erode respect for the Constitution and the separation of powers, potentially undermining the system that keeps our government balanced. While the Supreme Court wouldn’t intervene without a concrete legal challenge, these ripples could indirectly set the stage for disputes over presidential authority, including military decisions. It’s not dramatic overnight, but the slow accumulation of these effects is why I think we need to pay attention.
                  
                  Over time, repeated messaging that erodes respect for rules and authority could create a climate where even disciplined institutions, like the military, start to question orders or hesitate in ways that could unintentionally disrupt action, not because anyone is acting unlawfully, but because the norms guiding trust and responsibility have been weakened.
                  
                  Thanks for your reply — I guess we’ve pretty much exhausted this topic.   Shar

                  replyreport
   2. 86

      My Esotericposted 39 hours agoin reply to this

      Damn, I think we are in agreement.

      replyreport
5. 82

   Credence2posted 3 days ago

   I want to make a clarification and claw back some of my comments. After closer analysis, the message was an attack on the Trump administration specifically. If Kelly and the other Democrats have kept their message more in a generic vein, there would be less trouble. As it is, it could be considered a political attack. Our men and women in uniform are not to be subject to politics.
   
   However, as Kelly and other participants are civilians, I don’t believe that their right to express their opinion should be silenced just because they served in the military. These veterans are now politicians. If we want to assume that the men and women in uniform are aware of legal verses illegal orders, we can also acknowledge that they can discern a political based entreaty     Sent in their direction.
   
   Either way these people are not to be silenced solely because they now express an opinion as legislators. The idea of a court martial is well over the top and will find resistance from many corners.

   replyreport
   1. 84

      Sharlee01posted 3 days agoin reply to this

      Cred,  Thanks for clarifying—I appreciate the nuance you’re adding here. I agree that if the message had stayed generic, it would have been less controversial. And yes, in my view, veterans-turned-politicians absolutely retain the right to express opinions; silencing them simply because of their service would be wrong.
      
      At the same time, I think part of the concern isn’t about silencing them, but about the potential ripple effect when political messaging intersects with the military.   Even if our service members can discern the politics, repeated or pointed messaging risks creating confusion or undermining trust.
      
      Form my own view, our soldiers need to trust their superiors and be respected as human beings to be able to recognize if an order could be illegal.  Soldiers are there to follow orders, and that requires confidence in those giving them. I honestly can’t imagine what would happen if soldiers routinely questioned orders based on their personal thoughts on what is legal and what may be illegal, instead of following training and the chain of command.
      
      So yes, over-the-top reactions like calling for a court martial seem extreme—but the original point about careful messaging still feels relevant. It’s a tricky balance between free expression and the respect owed to those in uniform.

      replyreport
      1. 82

         Credence2posted 3 days agoin reply to this

         https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/2025/ … aign=share
         
         Thank you for hearing me out……
         
         Another voice making my view that much clearer.
         
         There has never really been a danger of soldiers questioning orders. But, I don’t want Trump and Hegseth to forget that there are boundaries and limitations inherent in their jobs that I am watching that they adhere to them.
         
         Trump seems to miss the point that a lawful order is not defined as his just giving any order that he wants……

         replyreport
         1. 84

            Sharlee01posted 2 days agoin reply to this

            The President cannot legally compel the military to commit illegal acts. Accountability comes through impeachment, post-office criminal liability, and internal military safeguards. However, proving illegality and pursuing accountability is complex and politically fraught, especially for sitting Presidents.
            
            I have researched the strikes and found information that indicates Trump followed the proper procedure.
            
            According to a report, the administration says it has given seven classified briefings to Congress about the boat‑strike campaign. That means lawmakers (or their staff) have been briefed on the operations.
            KTVZ
            
            In a public statement after a strike on a suspected drug‑smuggling boat, the Pete Hegseth (Secretary of Defense) said the strike was ordered under authority given by Trump.
            Military.com
            
            The official narrative claims the strikes are being conducted under a determination by Trump that certain drug‑trafficking organizations constitute “narco‑terrorists,” which — in administration statements — framed the conflict as a law-of‑war matter.
            Military.com

            replyreport
   2. 79

      wildernessposted 2 days agoin reply to this

      And their opinion is that our soldiers should refuse to follow orders they don't like because they come from Trump and are therefore illegal?
      
      I don't think so.  They have been there, and they know better.  No, it is a pretty clear case of stirring trouble, using the people as the pawns they see them as.

      replyreport
      1. 83

         abwilliamsposted 2 days agoin reply to this

         Amen and hear, hear!! ^5

         replyreport
      2. 82

         Credence2posted 2 days agoin reply to this

         Why do you keep befuddling things, Wilderness, as that is not what was said in the ad?

         replyreport
         1. 79

            wildernessposted 40 hours agoin reply to this

            Sure it is.  Of course, the words were slightly different, but the meaning comes through very clearly.  Very clearly.

            replyreport