Skip to main content
Law

Return to Question

Post Timeline

Question Protected by Dale M♦
Notice removed Content dispute by Dale M♦
Post Unlocked by Dale M♦
Post Locked by Dale M♦
Notice added Content dispute by Dale M♦
Mod Moved Comments To Chat
Became Hot Network Question
added 91 characters in body
Source Link
TY Mathers
TY Mathers
  • 241
  • 1
  • 5

The US Department of War has announced that it will be launching an investigation into former Navy member Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ), over his recent participation in a video with five other congress members urging military personnel to refuse unlawful orders. Here is their announcement:

OFFICIAL STATEMENT:

The Department of War has received serious allegations of misconduct against Captain Mark Kelly, USN (Ret.). In accordance with the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 688, and other applicable regulations, a thorough review of these allegations has been initiated to determine further actions, which may include recall to active duty for court-martial proceedings or administrative measures. This matter will be handled in compliance with military law, ensuring due process and impartiality. Further official comments will be limited, to preserve the integrity of the proceedings.

The Department of War reminds all individuals that military retirees remain subject to the UCMJ for applicable offenses, and federal laws such as 18 U.S.C. § 2387 prohibit actions intended to interfere with the loyalty, morale, or good order and discipline of the armed forces. Any violations will be addressed through appropriate legal channels.

All servicemembers are reminded that they have a legal obligation under the UCMJ to obey lawful orders and that orders are presumed to be lawful. A servicemember’s personal philosophy does not justify or excuse the disobedience of an otherwise lawful order.

Trump has repeatedly called the behavior seditious and called for their arrest. I find it interesting that we are seeing the military courts come into play, so I am lead to the following question:

Is there any reason it would be easier to succeed in convicting Mark Kelly for this "seditious behavior" in a military court than it would be if, say, the DOJ were to bring charges against him? For instance, are the actual charges that could be attempted be different in this context?

I know next to nothing about how the military courts work, so there may be some basic misunderstandings to unravel here; i.e. whether being tried in civilian court can even be thought of as analogous to being tried in a regular court, whether being "convicted" here holds the same meaning/weight as in civilian court, or if there are important differences between the settings.

The US Department of War has announced that it will be launching an investigation into former Navy member Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ), over his recent participation in a video with five other congress members urging military personnel to refuse unlawful orders. Here is their announcement:

OFFICIAL STATEMENT:

The Department of War has received serious allegations of misconduct against Captain Mark Kelly, USN (Ret.). In accordance with the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 688, and other applicable regulations, a thorough review of these allegations has been initiated to determine further actions, which may include recall to active duty for court-martial proceedings or administrative measures. This matter will be handled in compliance with military law, ensuring due process and impartiality. Further official comments will be limited, to preserve the integrity of the proceedings.

The Department of War reminds all individuals that military retirees remain subject to the UCMJ for applicable offenses, and federal laws such as 18 U.S.C. § 2387 prohibit actions intended to interfere with the loyalty, morale, or good order and discipline of the armed forces. Any violations will be addressed through appropriate legal channels.

All servicemembers are reminded that they have a legal obligation under the UCMJ to obey lawful orders and that orders are presumed to be lawful. A servicemember’s personal philosophy does not justify or excuse the disobedience of an otherwise lawful order.

Trump has repeatedly called the behavior seditious and called for their arrest. I find it interesting that we are seeing the military courts come into play, so I am lead to the following question:

Is there any reason it would be easier to succeed in convicting Mark Kelly for this "seditious behavior" in a military court than it would be if, say, the DOJ were to bring charges against him?

I know next to nothing about how the military courts work, so there may be some basic misunderstandings to unravel here; i.e. whether being tried in civilian court can even be thought of as analogous to being tried in a regular court, whether being "convicted" here holds the same meaning/weight as in civilian court, or if there are important differences between the settings.

The US Department of War has announced that it will be launching an investigation into former Navy member Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ), over his recent participation in a video with five other congress members urging military personnel to refuse unlawful orders. Here is their announcement:

OFFICIAL STATEMENT:

The Department of War has received serious allegations of misconduct against Captain Mark Kelly, USN (Ret.). In accordance with the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 688, and other applicable regulations, a thorough review of these allegations has been initiated to determine further actions, which may include recall to active duty for court-martial proceedings or administrative measures. This matter will be handled in compliance with military law, ensuring due process and impartiality. Further official comments will be limited, to preserve the integrity of the proceedings.

The Department of War reminds all individuals that military retirees remain subject to the UCMJ for applicable offenses, and federal laws such as 18 U.S.C. § 2387 prohibit actions intended to interfere with the loyalty, morale, or good order and discipline of the armed forces. Any violations will be addressed through appropriate legal channels.

All servicemembers are reminded that they have a legal obligation under the UCMJ to obey lawful orders and that orders are presumed to be lawful. A servicemember’s personal philosophy does not justify or excuse the disobedience of an otherwise lawful order.

Trump has repeatedly called the behavior seditious and called for their arrest. I find it interesting that we are seeing the military courts come into play, so I am lead to the following question:

Is there any reason it would be easier to succeed in convicting Mark Kelly for this "seditious behavior" in a military court than it would be if, say, the DOJ were to bring charges against him? For instance, are the actual charges that could be attempted be different in this context?

I know next to nothing about how the military courts work, so there may be some basic misunderstandings to unravel here; i.e. whether being tried in civilian court can even be thought of as analogous to being tried in a regular court, whether being "convicted" here holds the same meaning/weight as in civilian court, or if there are important differences between the settings.

edited tags
Link
Barmar
Barmar
  • 12.3k
  • 1
  • 43
  • 78
Source Link
TY Mathers
TY Mathers
  • 241
  • 1
  • 5

Is there a difference in military court proceedings that would make it easier to convict the "seditious" congress members?

The US Department of War has announced that it will be launching an investigation into former Navy member Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ), over his recent participation in a video with five other congress members urging military personnel to refuse unlawful orders. Here is their announcement:

OFFICIAL STATEMENT:

The Department of War has received serious allegations of misconduct against Captain Mark Kelly, USN (Ret.). In accordance with the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 688, and other applicable regulations, a thorough review of these allegations has been initiated to determine further actions, which may include recall to active duty for court-martial proceedings or administrative measures. This matter will be handled in compliance with military law, ensuring due process and impartiality. Further official comments will be limited, to preserve the integrity of the proceedings.

The Department of War reminds all individuals that military retirees remain subject to the UCMJ for applicable offenses, and federal laws such as 18 U.S.C. § 2387 prohibit actions intended to interfere with the loyalty, morale, or good order and discipline of the armed forces. Any violations will be addressed through appropriate legal channels.

All servicemembers are reminded that they have a legal obligation under the UCMJ to obey lawful orders and that orders are presumed to be lawful. A servicemember’s personal philosophy does not justify or excuse the disobedience of an otherwise lawful order.

Trump has repeatedly called the behavior seditious and called for their arrest. I find it interesting that we are seeing the military courts come into play, so I am lead to the following question:

Is there any reason it would be easier to succeed in convicting Mark Kelly for this "seditious behavior" in a military court than it would be if, say, the DOJ were to bring charges against him?

I know next to nothing about how the military courts work, so there may be some basic misunderstandings to unravel here; i.e. whether being tried in civilian court can even be thought of as analogous to being tried in a regular court, whether being "convicted" here holds the same meaning/weight as in civilian court, or if there are important differences between the settings.