By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Pentagon announced it would cut Senator Mark Kelly’s military retirement pay and issued a formal letter of censure, citing his “seditious” statements in a video. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth stated the department would begin proceedings to reduce Kelly’s retirement rank due to “reckless misconduct.” Kelly, who has 30 days to respond, has vowed to fight the disciplinary action, calling Hegseth the “most unqualified Secretary of Defense in our country’s history.” The controversial video, which prompted the Pentagon’s response, addressed service members’ right to refuse illegal orders following U.S. airstrikes.
Read the original article here
So, the buzz around the water cooler, or perhaps the digital equivalent, is that the Pentagon is looking to cut Senator Mark Kelly’s military retirement pay. And the reason? A video that someone, particularly, Pete Hegseth, has deemed “seditious.” Now, before we dive into the specifics, let’s just pause and take a breath. It feels like we’re navigating a political minefield here, doesn’t it? The sheer audacity of potentially penalizing a former astronaut and decorated military officer, for what amounts to his exercise of free speech…it’s pretty striking.
The narrative emerging is that Senator Kelly, a man with a distinguished career as an A-6 and F-18 pilot, a Gulf War veteran, a Navy Captain, a NASA astronaut, and even a Space Shuttle Commander, is being targeted for expressing his views. And the crux of the issue revolves around a video where Senator Kelly allegedly advised service members to uphold the law, and perhaps, even the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Now, apparently, that’s sedition in some circles. It’s hard to wrap your head around the idea that quoting the UCMJ could be construed as something deserving of this.
This whole situation brings up some pretty significant questions about free speech, political motivations, and the treatment of veterans. It’s a bit ironic to see the folks who usually champion “free speech” suddenly quiet on this front, isn’t it? The idea that a combat veteran, an American hero, could lose earned benefits over a political statement feels like a direct slap in the face to every service member who has sworn an oath to defend the Constitution.
And, of course, the potential legal ramifications loom large. If this action does hold up, it sets a very dangerous precedent. It essentially puts every active and retired military member on notice: your hard-earned retirement is at risk if your political views don’t align with those in power. That’s a chilling thought, especially when you consider that we’re talking about men and women who have dedicated their lives to serving this country.
The argument seems to be that Senator Kelly’s video somehow undermines the chain of command or promotes insubordination. But, if a service member is following the law and abiding by the UCMJ, how can that be considered sedition? It feels less like an attempt to uphold military order, and more like a political power play, a means of silencing dissenting voices. Cutting a veteran’s retirement pay for expressing his views? It’s hard to see that as anything other than retaliation, or punishment for holding a different view.
And the irony just keeps piling up. The same people who may have previously criticized any discussion of accountability surrounding the actions of individuals involved in the events of January 6th, now find themselves accusing Kelly of sedition. It’s almost as if the rules only apply when they’re convenient, which is a common theme, isn’t it?
It’s hard to imagine that this kind of decision will stand up in court. If this goes to the Supreme Court, it’s difficult to envision how the arguments for this action would prevail, especially with all the obvious flaws. One would expect to see the law, and maybe even our foundational principles, stand their ground.
Ultimately, this whole situation underscores a larger point: our country is increasingly polarized. The administration may see this move as a way to send a message, but it risks further eroding trust in our institutions and damaging the already frayed relationship between the military and the political establishment. It’s a dangerous game, one that could have far-reaching consequences for our democracy.