Gen. Mark Kelly on Trump

[Rideback]

Here's the history of your oath https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... enlistment

And because the oath relies on the Military Code of Justice, here's background
"The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) requires service members to obey lawful orders (Article 92) but imposes a duty to disobey orders that are "patently illegal," meaning they direct the commission of a crime or violate the Constitution/U.S. law, with disobeying an unlawful order being a defense against charges for failing to obey. While refusing a lawful order is punishable, executing an illegal one can lead to prosecution for the service member, highlighting the need to follow the chain of command for clear guidance rather than making personal legal calls in complex situations.
Key Principles of Unlawful Orders:
Duty to Obey Lawful Orders: Article 92 of the UCMJ penalizes failure to obey lawful orders or regulations.
Duty to Disobey Illegal Orders: Service members have a duty to refuse orders that are manifestly illegal (e.g., war crimes, torture, targeting civilians).
Defining "Unlawful": An order is unlawful if it violates the Constitution, U.S. laws, or is beyond the issuing official's authority, especially if it directs a crime.
Legal Ramifications:
Obeying an unlawful order can make the service member criminally liable.
Refusing a lawful order is a punishable offense, but it's a defense if the order was clearly illegal.
Practical Application: The system relies on the chain of command (JAG officers) for clarity, as assessing legality in real-time can be difficult, but the standard is clear for patently illegal acts.
Examples of Unlawful Orders:
Intentionally harming civilians or prisoners of war, Falsifying records or suppressing lawful protests, and Engaging in torture or abuse. "

[Jingles]

Which is why it's necessary for the enlisted men to have the right to refuse an illegal order. The basic premise is quite simply, that if those who follow an illegal order will be prosecuted for carrying out that illegal order they must have the right to defend themselves by not following that order.

Kelly is standing with the enlisted here. He's not throwing them under the bus. He's telling not just the rank and file but leadership as well that an illegal order should not be followed.

Prior to the mid 80's the oath of Enlistment was "will obey the lawful orders of the officers appointed over me" but that one word was eliminated for some reason. I know because I took that oath 5 times and was surprised it was taken out for the last 2. Again no idea why it was taken out or during which specific administration, above my pay grade.can only surmise that someone wanted unquestioned authority with no questions asked and felt the only people that should be making decisions were the "zeros" officers and the higher the rank the more they supposedly knew although they had very little or no real field experience, but because they had a college degree in accounting or social interaction they knew everything

[Rideback]

Apparently, neither Trump nor Hegseth were well informed enough to give pronouncements about the strikes.

https://www.cnn.com/2025/12/05/politics ... ke-bradley

[Rideback]

Your habit of attacking the messengers is irrelevant. Your whataboutisms are irrelevant. The facts are that illegal orders given by command do not have to be followed and if followed can result in court marshall.

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2 ... es-3-were/

[dorankj]

You're not debating honest, forthright fair people Jingles. They didn't care a hoot when Barak H. Obama bombed the hell out of civilians at weddings and even American citizens (they also had no problem with millions of deportations of illegals). There is zero integrity or honesty here, we ALL know the seditious six aren't simply offering fair legal analysis for soldiers. It's NO coincidence that they put that out and then the next week decided a bombing from Sept needed to be 'presented' as illegal! Scumbags all.

[mister_coffee]

I think the answer on who is in a "safe compound" kind of depends on the war you are fighting.

No one could argue that senior Navy officers at sea were not in harm's way.

While it is extremely rare for flag officers to fly combat missions, officers up to O-6 do so.

Even in the Army, it isn't simple. There are more truck drivers in the Army than infantry. That kind of comes with being an expeditionary military.

I'm not at all saying that the US Military isn't bloated and top-heavy (heck, the Navy has more Admirals than ships) but that the answers aren't simple and trying to make them simple is foolish. My own conclusion is that we are extremely poorly equipped for what the next war is likely to look like and our only saving grace at this point is that our likely opponents aren't well-equipped either. Which is cold comfort when Singapore or Norway whip our arse.

[Rideback]

Which is why it's necessary for the enlisted men to have the right to refuse an illegal order. The basic premise is quite simply, that if those who follow an illegal order will be prosecuted for carrying out that illegal order they must have the right to defend themselves by not following that order.

Kelly is standing with the enlisted here. He's not throwing them under the bus. He's telling not just the rank and file but leadership as well that an illegal order should not be followed.

[Jingles]

I should think that Jingles, being a veteran himself, would respect others who had served and put their lives on the line.

Yes I respect other vets that served and put their lives on the line, however I have seen how upper echelon get their ribbons and awards and that most above the 04 rank get credit for what those below them get accomplished while they set back in a safe compound. It might be that the officers think they run the military but it's the enlisted that make the military function and get things accomplished

[Rideback]

NY Post found a clip of Hegseth from '16 talking about how military shouldn't follow illegal orders
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBavSlRehOk

[mister_coffee]

I should think that Jingles, being a veteran himself, would respect others who had served and put their lives on the line.

[Rideback]

Yes, he retired at the rank of Captain. Unlike president bone spurs, he actually put in the work for his country. His record is something to be proud of. https://www.npsfoundation.org/faces-of-nps/mark-kelly

[mister_coffee]

Mark Kelley flew 39 combat missions in an A-6 during Desert Storm in 1991.

He also served in the Navy, which does not have the rank of General. I believe he retired from the navy as Captain.

[Jingles]

Mark Kelly is probably like most other upper echelon brass, gets credit for what the actual troops do, while sitting back in the rear with the gear. As far as being promoted to General just means he's a better azz kisser and brown noser.

[just-jim]

.

.