Pentagon embarks upon investigation of Kelly

A

archives

Verified User

“Pentagon launches review of serious allegations of misconduct against Mark Kelly”​


Oh, oh, that “punishable by DEATH” video must have really pissed off Trump, how dare they steal the media’s attention from the Messiah

Beginning to wonder what person who is not a Trump ass kisser hasn’t been “investigated” by Comer, Jordan, or Trump, almost beginning to seem being “investigated” is similar to getting a red badge of courage
 
Jake Starkey said:
... besides the fact the UCMJ could not support such a charge against Kelly?
Click to expand...
Actually it can. Kelly retains his commission as an officer in retirement until past 65 (he's currently 61). In an oddity of US military rules, because he does retain his commission while receiving a pension he can be subject to the UCMJ in some instances, like this one.
 
We are talking about making the elements of a charge subject to the UCMJ, not whether he is subject to the UCMJ.

A charge cannot be sustained. The Judge would dismiss it.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Actually it can. Kelly retains his commission as an officer in retirement until past 65 (he's currently 61). In an oddity of US military rules, because he does retain his commission while receiving a pension he can be subject to the UCMJ in some instances, like this one.
Click to expand...
Indeed.

Yes, a retired military officer can be court-martialed. They can be court-martialed for offenses committed while on active duty, and in certain circumstances, for crimes committed after retirement. This jurisdiction is based on the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), which subjects active-duty retirees to military law, as they are considered to be on standby status for recall.

Reasons for court-martialing a retiree
  • Offenses committed while on active duty: Retirees can be court-martialed for crimes committed before they retired.

  • Offenses committed after retirement: They can be court-martialed for crimes committed after leaving active duty, especially if they are receiving military benefits or are still a part of the reserves.

  • Maintaining good order and discipline: Congress and the Department of Defense believe that retaining court-martial jurisdiction over retirees is necessary to maintain good order and discipline within the military.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Actually it can. Kelly retains his commission as an officer in retirement until past 65 (he's currently 61). In an oddity of US military rules, because he does retain his commission while receiving a pension he can be subject to the UCMJ in some instances, like this one.
Click to expand...
But there are no facts to support such a claim, repeating something that is taught to troops in basic training is not sedition.
 
Jarod said:
But there are no facts to support such a claim, repeating something that is taught to troops in basic training is not sedition.
Click to expand...
To phrase it as the people in that video did, it could be construed to be one. The specifically said that they were talking about Trump and the current administration. They then said troops had a duty to not obey "illegal" orders (from Trump and the administration). They weren't making some generalized statement but rather strongly implying that Trump and his administration were issuing illegal orders.

That is encouraging mutiny among the troops. While it's a very weak case, it no doubt is the case.
 
evince said:
Only a despot would hate someone repeating parts of our constitution and call it evil
Click to expand...
What they said was not "parts of our constitution." They were citing the UCMJ. When you join the military, you give up some parts of your constitutional rights and instead fall under the UCMJ.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
What they said was not "parts of our constitution." They were citing the UCMJ. When you join the military, you give up some parts of your constitutional rights and instead fall under the UCMJ.
Click to expand...
It’s part of the constitution that troops are expected to deny illegal orders

What makes you see that as a bad thing?


Troops were ordered to get a covid shot

How did you treat that presidential power under Biden?
 
T. A. Gardner said:
To phrase it as the people in that video did, it could be construed to be one.
Click to expand...
Speculations won't work in court.
T. A. Gardner said:
The specifically said that they were talking about Trump and the current administration.
Click to expand...
Where? I rewatched. No mention of Trump.
T. A. Gardner said:
They then said troops had a duty to not obey "illegal" orders
Click to expand...
Which is a true statement.
T. A. Gardner said:
(from Trump and the administration). They weren't making some generalized statement but rather strongly implying that Trump and his administration were issuing illegal orders.
Click to expand...
Where did they imply that? Even if it's true that Trump was issuing illegal orders, wouldn't it be their duty anyway?
T. A. Gardner said:
That is encouraging mutiny among the troops.
Click to expand...
Again, where? They did not say to disobey ALL orders from their superiors.
T. A. Gardner said:
While it's a very weak case, it no doubt is the case.
Click to expand...
There is NO case. It will be laughed out of court.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top