Mark Kelly’s Anti-Trump Video Backfires as Pentagon Moves to Slash Gun Banner’s Military Retirement

[powerboatr]

I didn't retire from the military but I've been told that once you retire you're not really "retired". You're on the list but they can recall you active duty and if you refuse they can take your retirement.

I remember people being recalled active duty during Desert Storm who were on the retired list.

I'm not sure what the rules are so what I'm about to say might not be relevant.

But if he did his service and retired honorably. They shouldn't retroactively take that away from him. But I'm guessing there is a clause somewhere in the uniform code of military Justice that says that if he behaves in a manner that discredits or dishonors the military they can do that.

That said I bet they could take his retirement pay and he wouldn't even notice it in his budget

well sort of
if you retire, or go on fleet reserve which is 20 years. year 20 and one day through 30 you are fleet reserve list
then at year 30 and one day you get put on the retired list.

you can be technically be recalled until your dead, i think for liberals its 3 years after death. the ww2 battleship guys know this from the 80s.
but anyway
they can activate you and send you a letter to report.

he can be pulled back and even taken to a UCMJ hearing as it is
he can also be pulled back and things taken away that deal with pay grade or even promoted, although the promotion part is very very rare.
big thing for kellly is he disgraced the navy and military , i believe in one part of video he indicated he was retired navy or something to that fact

personally as a retired sailor... he should have kept his trap shut, he has always been a dick any way so he gets what he deserves just because

i hated having Commanding Officers that thought the world was theirs and treated the command and its people as tool for personal gain
they are out there...and they are "loved"

i think hellll would freeze over if just one time they acted like they care about the country and not their trivial feelings
they are to represent the country NOT their egos

the folks on active duty know what they can and cannot do
and i bet zero even listened to the video without some witty banter being tossed his way

 

[Ethan Sackett]

For your question to number 2. Not necessarily, I have seen orders refused and when the dust all clears the orders were just say highly questionable and persons were not courtmartialed. Just like civilian law most instantances are not cut and dry. Some are but most not. People know the difference between right and wrong and just because someone orders you to do it doesn't make it right. Every instance is different. We were always told if it doesn't feel right ask before proceeding. I spent 23 years in the Army and Air Force. Most superiors were great people but there's always that one you have watch out for.

Thank you, I've better understanding now

 

[bc22wm]

Personally if you didn't serve this country and you don't understand the UCMJ you shouldn't be making comments.

What gives you the impression that I never served or understand the UCMJ. BTW having served doesn't make me or you any more special. Lest people forget service to the country IS service to the people and the people most certainly have the right to comment.

If a person believes that a given order is illegal, no matter who gives that order, the UCMJ gives that person the right to disobey.

I don't understand UCMJ??? One does not have the right to disobey orders. One can claim
at court martial that the order was illegal, however if/likely when the order is found to be a legal order your *** is going to be in a sling. Your beliefs aren't going to make a tinkers damn bit of difference. If servicemen had the "right" to disobey because of what they believed to be true, the military would be nothing more than a mob.

As for "Free Speech" V. "Sedition" we won't know that until after a trial and all appeals are exhausted. JMO, there is no doubt that the intent was to undermine the commander in chief and the military command structure. Especially in the lower enlisted ranks which we all know are a bunch of ignorant hillbillies and ghetto trash, otherwise they would be in institutions of higher indoctrination. If that isn't sedition it sure is toeing the line.

 

[Onewolf426]

When I was in, shortly after reporting on board my ship, we went underway for a shakedown after being in the yard for some maintenance. We went to San Clemente Island after doing reloading at Seal Beach. We were doing live fire exercises and the maindecks were secured during the exercises. Meaning no unauthorized personnel topside. My LPO wanted me to hump a 5 gallon bucket of Non-Skid from the forward paint locker to the fantail for deck repair after the exercise. He wanted me to go topside. I told him to pound sand. Anybody going topside who was not authorized would go to automatic Captians Mast. He threatened to write me up for disobeying an order. I told him to go ahead. He wrote me up. It didn't go past the Chief Master at Arms. Chief asked me if I disobeyed an order and why. I told him why, and he dismissed me. He had words with my LPO later, and that was that. To say that the military members need to be told that they can disobey an unlawful order is total bullcrap. If you don't have the commonsense enough to differentiate between a lawful and unlawful order, you don't belong in the military. Period. And to insinuate that our Military is not intelligent enough to know the difference, or that they have to be told, is an insult. Of course, that is not surprising coming from an arrogant, narcissistic turd democrat like kelly. These worthless pieces of excrement think everybody in the military is a moron. He should be disciplined for what he did.

 

[Cedric]

I didn't retire from the military but I've been told that once you retire you're not really "retired". You're on the list but they can recall you active duty and if you refuse they can take your retirement.

I remember people being recalled active duty during Desert Storm who were on the retired list.

I'm not sure what the rules are so what I'm about to say might not be relevant.

But if he did his service and retired honorably. They shouldn't retroactively take that away from him. But I'm guessing there is a clause somewhere in the uniform code of military Justice that says that if he behaves in a manner that discredits or dishonors the military they can do that.

That said I bet they could take his retirement pay and he wouldn't even notice it in his budget

I don't remember specific cases of folks being recalled to active duty during Desert Shield/Storm. Not saying it didn't happen, but compared to the Army of OIF, we were generally up to strength just coming off the Cold War. When I retired in 1996 I was given hip pocket orders as were many retirees. I didn't get recalled, but ran into a few in Iraq who did. My perception was it was not that many.

 

[powerboatr]

I don't remember specific cases of folks being recalled to active duty during Desert Shield/Storm. Not saying it didn't happen, but compared to the Army of OIF, we were generally up to strength just coming off the Cold War. When I retired in 1996 I was given hip pocket orders as were many retirees. I didn't get recalled, but ran into a few in Iraq who did. My perception was it was not that many.

as i recall most of the recalls were for the recommissioning of the battleships
IIRC some were put back on active duty and a whole bunch were given civilian titles and roles to get the crew trained up on the steam and weapons systems for the big guns etc
the part of being back in civilian khakis was the way to go.. better pay and all that
i bet a few did it for the fun.. i know i would if i get rolled back to my last area in the navy.

i do remember a bunch of old farts in supply that looked like moses during desert storm....not sure if they were just old civil service or old retirees... moved like molasses and smelled like ben gay

 

[The Night Rider]

I don't remember specific cases of folks being recalled to active duty during Desert Shield/Storm.

As far as actual retirees being called recalled active duty, I remember seeing that on the news. If I remember right they were very specialized MOSes. I was stationed at Fort Lewis during Desert Shield and Desert Storm and we were processing people through Fort Lewis that had been recalled to active duty and there were quite a few people at Fort Lewis who were stop lossed while I was there

 

[The Night Rider]

If a person believes that a given order is illegal, no matter who gives that order, the UCMJ gives that person the right to disobey.

Chapter and verse please?

When I was in the army and the late '80s and early 90s I remember the SMCT level 1 actually had a section on unlawful orders. And it stated that you were to express that you thought the order was illegal. You were to express why you thought the order was illegal. You would like to person know that you intended to report the illegal order. But ultimately you were to follow the order and then report it.

Now obviously, if they were ordering you to rape a civilian non-combatant and then cut their head off yeah, you get to disobey that.

But generally speaking if an officer gives you an order you follow it and then deal with whether or not it was legal later. That's what I was taught from day one in the army

 

[NMEDGE]

I agree except with when it comes to killing. Because once you do that, you can't take it back, it's done. Years ago I was involved in an incident. At the time it was very serious. I was not the only one involved. All I can say is that in the end we were proven right. The person in charge was relieved of duty and we were praised for what we had done. Not everything is cut and dry but again most people know the difference between right and wrong. It takes a lot of willpower to stand up for what is right and you must understand the consequences. I'm not saying Kelly was right by any means and i'm not saying our president was right either. All i'm saying is that as americans we have the right to agree to disagree.

 

[bc22wm]

 

[The Night Rider]

If a person believes that a given order is illegal, no matter who gives that order, the UCMJ gives that person the right to disobey.

Again, please quote the relevant portion of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. I want to read that one for myself.

I agree that if you refuse to obey a clearly illegal order, "Shoot that clearly unarmed nine-year-old." "Rape that 15 year old Iraqi girl" (really happened, if I remember right the soldiers were all from Fort Carson and every single one of them went to prison) "No prisoners, kill all the wounded." You're probably okay.

But I don't think that's what Kelly was talking about.

 

[OldGrunt]

This might come in handy for those who want to know more about the UCMJ. https://ucmj.us/

 

[NMEDGE]

Again, please quote the relevant portion of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. I want to read that one for myself.

I agree that if you refuse to obey a clearly illegal order, "Shoot that clearly unarmed nine-year-old." "Rape that 15 year old Iraqi girl" (really happened, if I remember right the soldiers were all from Fort Carson and every single one of them went to prison) "No prisoners, kill all the wounded." You're probably okay.

But I don't think that's what Kelly was talking about.

I don't either. I don't know what code it is. We were told if we had an issue to report asap to a superior and let them handle it. Of course you would be in deep trouble at that point until someone looked into the allegation.

 

[The Night Rider]

I don't either. I don't know what code it is. We were told if we had an issue to report asap to a superior and let them handle it. Of course you would be in deep trouble at that point until someone looked into the allegation.

That's why I never take anybody's word. If you can't tell me the relevant chapter paragraph line number all that and where to find it in the UCMJ I'm not going to trust "you" (you being whoever tells me whatever) for my legal advice.

I know for a fact that there was (Back when I served under Custer) a task dealing with this in the Soldier's Manual of Common Tasks.

That was an official Army publication and I could point to that book I could get the book out of my rucksack and show you exactly where it said that I was supposed to state that I thought the order was unlawful. Tell the person who gave me the order that I was going to report it up my chain of command. There were a few other things that it said we were supposed to do but the SMCT explicitly stated that we were to follow the order and report it afterwards.

That all came about because of the My Lai Massacre.

So assuming that I was involved in something like Mai Lai and I followed the standard to which I was trained and which I could document that I was trained to To. The. Letter.

I would have a solid legal defense should they choose to go all the way down the line and prosecute me.

I've talked about this before, when I was at Fort Lewis my battalion got put on alert to send a reaction force to Telecom Washington to assist local authorities in maintaining order as an anti-war protest.

I told my platoon sergeant that I didn't think it was a lawful order and that I wasn't going to bear arms against American citizens.

We never got called and I never had to put my principles to the test. But I was really wondering what I was going to do.

That's why I got really picky about that whole topic of unlawful orders

 

[The Night Rider]

I said this the last time this whole topic came up.

The highest rank I ever atained in the army was acting E6 in the National Guard.

There is a whole great big, long chain of command and NCO support chain between the President and me.

I generally would have to assume that by the time the order got from the president to the Joint Chiefs through the Army chief of staff. And through all the levels of headquarters Commanders down to my division Commander, then my Battalion Commander, then my Battery Commander then my platoon leader and then to me.

A whole bunch of people that the Army pays to be smarter than me would have decided that whatever they were telling me to do was a lawful order.

At that point I would have to assume that it was a lawful order

 

[Ozarker]

I didn't retire from the military but I've been told that once you retire you're not really "retired". You're on the list but they can recall you active duty and if you refuse they can take your retirement.

I remember people being recalled active duty during Desert Storm who were on the retired list.

I'm not sure what the rules are so what I'm about to say might not be relevant.

But if he did his service and retired honorably. They shouldn't retroactively take that away from him. But I'm guessing there is a clause somewhere in the uniform code of military Justice that says that if he behaves in a manner that discredits or dishonors the military they can do that.

That said I bet they could take his retirement pay and he wouldn't even notice it in his budget

Officers can be recalled to active duty, generally to age 60, medical officers and chaplains to age 68, in special circumstances to the needs of the service. Enlisted may be recalled but are not obligated after retirement.

Hegseth is in way over his head, not only is he grossly unqualified, he's grossly unfit. Cpt. Kelly was absolutely correct in his assessment of someone in the military not to comply with an illegal order. Clearly the Nurenburg trials showed this on an international basis and LT. William Calley, Jr. in the U.S. Army during Viet Nam.

Officers must know better, senior NCO's should know, the issue then is lower ranking servicemembers understanding what is and is not lawful. Just because a politician or anyone else gives an order doesn't make it a lawful order, no such authority exists with respect to our military.

There is a hot line to call JAG Officers about orders someone questions, local/unit JAGs should also be available.

Further, telling the first commissioned officer in your chain of command is the best immediate step to take, they must listen to an objection and in their own best interest, relieve that person of that obligation, if circumstances allow.

 

[OldGrunt]

Officers can be recalled to active duty, generally to age 60, medical officers and chaplains to age 68, in special circumstances to the needs of the service. Enlisted may be recalled but are not obligated after retirement.

Hegseth is in way over his head, not only is he grossly unqualified, he's grossly unfit. Cpt. Kelly was absolutely correct in his assessment of someone in the military not to comply with an illegal order. Clearly the Nurenburg trials showed this on an international basis and LT. William Calley, Jr. in the U.S. Army during Viet Nam.

Officers must know better, senior NCO's should know, the issue then is lower ranking servicemembers understanding what is and is not lawful. Just because a politician or anyone else gives an order doesn't make it a lawful order, no such authority exists with respect to our military.

894. ARTICLE 94. Mutiny or Sedition​

(a) Any person subject to this chapter who–

(1) with intent to usurp or override lawful military authority, refuses, in concert with any other person, to obey orders or otherwise do his duty or creates any violence or disturbance is guilty of mutiny; (2) with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of lawful civil authority, creates, in concert with any other person, revolt, violence, or disturbance against that authority is guilty of sedition; (3) fails to do his utmost to prevent and suppress a mutiny or sedition being committed in his presence, or fails to take all reasonable means to inform his superior commissioned officer or commanding officer of a mutiny or sedition which he knows or has reason to believe is taking place, is guilty of a failure to suppress or report a mutiny or sedition.

(b) A person who is found guilty of attempted mutiny, mutiny, sedition, or failure to suppress or report a mutiny or sedition shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a court- martial may direct.

 

[OldGrunt]

That's why I never take anybody's word. If you can't tell me the relevant chapter paragraph line number all that and where to find it in the UCMJ I'm not going to trust "you" (you being whoever tells me whatever) for my legal advice.

I know for a fact that there was (Back when I served under Custer) a task dealing with this in the Soldier's Manual of Common Tasks.

That was an official Army publication and I could point to that book I could get the book out of my rucksack and show you exactly where it said that I was supposed to state that I thought the order was unlawful. Tell the person who gave me the order that I was going to report it up my chain of command. There were a few other things that it said we were supposed to do but the SMCT explicitly stated that we were to follow the order and report it afterwards.

That all came about because of the My Lai Massacre.

So assuming that I was involved in something like Mai Lai and I followed the standard to which I was trained and which I could document that I was trained to To. The. Letter.

I would have a solid legal defense should they choose to go all the way down the line and prosecute me.

I've talked about this before, when I was at Fort Lewis my battalion got put on alert to send a reaction force to Telecom Washington to assist local authorities in maintaining order as an anti-war protest.

I told my platoon sergeant that I didn't think it was a lawful order and that I wasn't going to bear arms against American citizens.

We never got called and I never had to put my principles to the test. But I was really wondering what I was going to do.

That's why I got really picky about that whole topic of unlawful orders

I don't see anywhere in the UCMJ anything about unlawful orders. Unlawful orders are handled under case law and other publications just like the Soldier's Manual of Common Tasks. I'm sure the other branches have their own type of manual also. The UCMJ deals with not following lawful orders. Again, I don't see anything about unlawful orders in the UCMJ.

 

[Ozarker]

894. ARTICLE 94. Mutiny or Sedition​

(a) Any person subject to this chapter who–

(b) A person who is found guilty of attempted mutiny, mutiny, sedition, or failure to suppress or report a mutiny or sedition shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a court- martial may direct.

Sen. Mark Kelly is not under the jurisdiction of UCMJ at the time he made his comments, Article 94 covers;

• Active‑duty military
• Activated Guard/Reserve
• Certain retirees only when recalled to active duty
• Certain categories of retirees in very narrow circumstances (per CRS analysis)

A sitting U.S. Senator—even one who is a retired Navy Captain—is not subject to the UCMJ unless he is formally recalled to active duty, which he is not.

If he is recalled, charges cannot be retroactively applied as if he had been subject to UCMJ.

 

[OldGrunt]

Sen. Mark Kelly is not under the jurisdiction of UCMJ at the time he made his comments, Article 94 covers;

• Active‑duty military
• Activated Guard/Reserve
• Certain retirees only when recalled to active duty
• Certain categories of retirees in very narrow circumstances (per CRS analysis)

A sitting U.S. Senator—even one who is a retired Navy Captain—is not subject to the UCMJ unless he is formally recalled to active duty, which he is not.

If he is recalled, charges cannot be retroactively applied as if he had been subject to UCMJ.

We shall see what happens. I hope he burns.