By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Senator Mark Kelly responded to accusations from the Pentagon regarding a video advising military personnel to refuse illegal orders, asserting his statement was “non-controversial.” The Pentagon launched an investigation and hinted at recalling Kelly to active duty, citing a federal law that prohibits interference with the armed forces. Trump reacted strongly, accusing the senators of “seditious behavior,” which could carry a death penalty for active military. The controversy highlights the use of “sedition” and comes amid allegations from Democrats of the Pentagon issuing illegal orders, including sending personnel to the US-Mexico border and strikes on alleged drug-carrying boats.
Read the original article here
Mark Kelly’s stance on troops refusing illegal orders is, as many have noted, fundamentally “non-controversial.” It’s a sentiment that resonates not just with legal experts, but with anyone who has a basic understanding of military protocols and the very fabric of American governance. The core tenet is simple: soldiers are bound by an oath to uphold the Constitution, not to blindly obey any individual, including the President, if the order is illegal. This isn’t a novel concept, but a foundational principle deeply ingrained in the U.S. military.
The oath of enlistment, taken by every service member, is a powerful declaration of allegiance, primarily to the Constitution. It clearly stipulates a commitment to defending the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. This oath underscores that loyalty is owed to a set of principles and laws, not solely to a person, even the Commander-in-Chief. Furthermore, the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) reinforces this principle. Military personnel are legally obligated to obey lawful orders from superior officers, implicitly meaning they are not bound to obey illegal ones. The UCMJ provides the framework and the legal backing to ensure this fundamental principle is upheld. Therefore, Mark Kelly, in his call, is essentially echoing the established laws and regulations.
The controversy isn’t in the principle itself, but in the reaction. The fact that some quarters react with such outrage to the very suggestion of refusing illegal orders speaks volumes. It betrays a discomfort with the idea of checks and balances, and a desire for unchecked power. The vehement responses, including calls for severe punishment, actually highlights the desperation of those who seek to circumvent the law. These reactions are more telling than the message itself, revealing the underlying anxieties of those who would prefer a military force that simply follows their every command, regardless of legality or moral implications.
The implications extend far beyond military doctrine. The idea of “I was just following orders” has been repeatedly discredited throughout history, most notably by the Nuremberg trials. To suggest that obedience absolves one of responsibility for illegal actions is not only legally incorrect but also morally reprehensible. To those of us who believe in the rule of law, and a government *by* the people, *for* the people, and *of* the people, this should be considered obvious.
The focus on this particular stance may seem targeted at a specific political faction. However, it’s about holding everyone accountable to the same standards. The assertion that troops should not follow illegal orders is not an attack on the President, but a defense of the Constitution. It’s about protecting the integrity of the military and the American way of life. The fact that this has become a point of contention is a clear indication of a deeper ideological divide and, one might argue, of a growing disrespect for the fundamental principles of American democracy.
Some people feel that the legal and ethical framework for the military is being challenged or manipulated. The idea of the Supreme Court’s declaration of immunity for official acts may mean that some people see it as tacit approval for the President’s actions. This can easily lead to a situation where there is a presumption that all orders, regardless of their nature, are considered lawful. In fact, if the official stance is that the President’s words are law and that it is unlawful to disobey the President, then this becomes dangerous. This kind of attitude is something that should be avoided at all costs.
The reaction to Mark Kelly’s statement reveals more about the underlying power dynamics at play than it does about the merits of his argument. It’s like a litmus test, exposing those who value authority over law, or who believe that the military should operate outside the bounds of established legal and ethical standards. It is crucial to remember that the American republic has a foundation of checks and balances that should never be violated.