By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Pentagon’s investigation into Senator Mark Kelly, a retired Navy fighter pilot, over a video concerning “illegal orders” has sparked debate among legal experts. Some argue the Pentagon is misinterpreting military law, while others claim a sitting member of Congress cannot be prosecuted. Despite the investigation, Kelly maintains his actions as a senator are protected, and that he will not be deterred from his duties. Military law experts suggest the case could be dismissed, and question if military law can be applied in this situation. Furthermore, constitutional protections, rooted in the separation of powers, may shield Kelly from this investigation.
Read the original article here
Experts doubt the Pentagon can punish Kelly over the ‘illegal orders’ video, and frankly, it’s not surprising. The whole situation feels like a replay of a familiar script. It’s the oath service members take, the core of their duty, to not obey unlawful orders. This isn’t exactly rocket science, yet here we are, discussing whether someone should be punished for reminding people of their obligations.
The elephant in the room is the Speech and Debate Clause, which offers significant protection to elected officials. As a Senator, Kelly is largely shielded from any repercussions for his speech, even if what he said was, in some eyes, provocative. The whole idea of prosecuting someone for urging others not to break the law just seems absurd, right? It’s like arresting a lifeguard for telling people not to drown.
And let’s be honest, the “punishment” is already happening. The scrutiny, the accusations, the stress on his family—that’s all part of the game. The people involved know the end result is that the process will fail. They make a lot of noise, hoping to harass anyone who dares question a certain leader. The legal system isn’t always fair, with the experts involved sometimes overplaying their hand. A retired enlisted man, who did something illegal as a civilian doesn’t have the same protection a U.S. Senator has.
The core argument boils down to this: Kelly wasn’t doing anything illegal. He was simply reminding service members of their duty to uphold the law, and that’s not a crime. In a world where the lines between right and wrong are constantly blurred, it’s refreshing to see someone advocating for adherence to the law, especially when illegal orders may be on the table.
Of course, the whole issue is wrapped up in the political theater that has become so commonplace. Some perceive this as a tactic to silence dissent or punish anyone who dares to challenge the status quo. The fact that the target is a potential presidential candidate just adds another layer to the narrative.
The focus should be on the actions, not the messenger. If illegal orders are being given and obeyed, that’s where the investigation and condemnation should be directed, not at someone for pointing out the obvious. To punish someone for encouraging others to follow the law just seems counterintuitive and, frankly, a bit frightening. The fact that the administration is perceived to be anti-expert doesn’t help. They would rather have blind faith than sound judgment, which makes this even more troubling.
This is where the Constitution comes in: free speech. It’s not subject to the whims of any one person, and upholding the law is not a criminal offense. The point is to make the correct choice, even when under pressure.
Ultimately, the experts are right. They are just warning and don’t seem to affect what is happening. There’s nothing controversial about reminding troops to follow the law. The current administration has its priorities, and they don’t seem to include the rule of law. It’s about optics, power, and punishing anyone who dares to cross the line.