By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is appealing a judge’s order that blocked him from punishing Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly for participating in a video urging troops to resist unlawful orders. The Justice Department filed a notice to ask a federal appeals court to review the ruling, which found that punishing Kelly violated his First Amendment free speech rights and threatened the constitutional liberties of millions of military retirees. Kelly stated the appeal aims to “keep trampling on the free speech rights of retired veterans and silence dissent,” while Hegseth countered that “sedition is sedition.” The video, featuring several Democratic lawmakers who are also veterans, called on troops to uphold the Constitution, prompting accusations of sedition from former President Donald Trump.
Read the original article here
The Pentagon’s recent appeal against an order that blocked punishment for Senator Mark Kelly’s statements is certainly a development that raises eyebrows, especially when viewed through the lens of military duty and the complexities of political discourse. It’s striking to see the Department of Defense taking such a stance, particularly when the core of the issue appears to be about reminding troops of their fundamental obligation to refuse unlawful orders.
One might ponder why the Pentagon would feel compelled to pursue this appeal. The argument seems to hinge on the idea that Kelly’s call to resist unlawful orders is somehow detrimental or undermines military discipline. However, this perspective feels rather thin-skinned, as questioning an order that violates established law is precisely what service members are trained and expected to do. It’s a cornerstone of military ethics and the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).
This entire situation appears to stem from a desire to punish dissent or to enforce a particular political viewpoint, rather than upholding the integrity of military service. The notion that troops should simply comply, even if an order is demonstrably illegal, is a dangerous precedent. It suggests a willingness by some within the military or its leadership to countenance unlawful actions, which is fundamentally at odds with the oath taken by service members.
The appeal itself, after an initial order blocking punishment, raises questions about the grounds. If the initial decision was based on the fact that Kelly was simply articulating a legal right and duty enshrined in military law, then what is there to appeal? It’s akin to appealing a ruling that affirms gravity because someone said the sky is blue. It makes the Pentagon, and by extension those who directed this appeal, look quite foolish and, frankly, petty.
The sentiment that this is an attempt to “chill free speech and discourage dissent” within the military community is a strong one, and it’s difficult to ignore. When individuals in positions of authority appear to be targeting those who uphold the law, even when it’s inconvenient for them, it sends a chilling message. It signals that loyalty to a particular faction or ideology might be valued over adherence to legal and ethical principles.
Moreover, the fact that Senator Kelly quoted directly from the UCMJ, the very rules governing military conduct, makes any attempt to punish him for it look utterly absurd. Basic training universally includes instruction on the obligation to disobey unlawful orders. To then try and penalize a senator for reminding people of this fundamental tenet is bewildering and makes the Pentagon appear out of touch with its own foundational principles.
This action also risks alienating and demoralizing the troops. Service members make immense sacrifices, and the idea that they could be punished for exercising their duty to refuse illegal orders could lead them to believe their government is vindictive. It suggests that the government itself might be the entity planning to issue such unlawful orders, and that the reminder of their duty to refuse is perceived as a threat.
The appeal’s existence, despite an apparent lack of valid grounds, feels like a political maneuver rather than a principled stand on military justice. It seems to be driven by a desire to make an example, to show that any deviation from a perceived line will be met with severe retribution. This approach is not only counterproductive to maintaining a disciplined and ethical military force but also deeply cynical.
Ultimately, the Pentagon’s decision to appeal this order is likely to backfire. It elevates Kelly’s position and highlights the perceived overreach and pettiness of those seeking to punish him. The troops, who are keenly aware of their rights and duties, will likely see this for what it is: an attempt to suppress a legitimate reminder of their core responsibilities. The appeal might be seen as a desperate move, a sign of weakness and insecurity rather than strength and resolve.