- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: A federal judge has just BLOCKED SecWar Pete Hegseth from disciplining or demoting seditio
Posted on 2/12/26 at 8:36 pm to Bourre
Posted on 2/12/26 at 8:36 pm to Bourre
quote:
encouraging military members to disobey orders or command.
What specific order did Kelly encourage them to disobey?
This post was edited on 2/12/26 at 8:36 pm
2
Posted on 2/12/26 at 8:36 pm to blueboy
quote:
What exactly did he say? If all he said was for them not to follow illegal orders, he's just stating a fact, right?
You're probably right, but it was still treasonous in nature and un-American.
Posted on 2/12/26 at 8:40 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
What specific order did Kelly encourage them to disobey?
I’m not going to opine on something I don’t know about, especially when discussing what a military officers oath entails.. What I do know is that officers are held to a different standard than enlisted service members and it’s up to a military judge to determine if that officer violated their oath and not for a civilian judge to make that ruling.
Posted on 2/12/26 at 8:47 pm to loogaroo
quote:I have to agree. Maybe the idea is that they keep saying 'don't follow illegal order' then when Trump does something, they falsely declare it to be illegal.
but it was still treasonous in nature
They're intentionally dancing around legality, and I think they might win this one. Kelly isn't even active military.
Posted on 2/12/26 at 8:57 pm to blueboy
Article 88
You sign that enlistment or commission contract to enter military service you agreed to the rules every veteran has to abide. He is retired. He understood that when he separated. We receive more than enough briefs and info regarding this during out-processing and ETS.
Period.
We are becoming a country of feelings instead of rule of law.
You sign that enlistment or commission contract to enter military service you agreed to the rules every veteran has to abide. He is retired. He understood that when he separated. We receive more than enough briefs and info regarding this during out-processing and ETS.
Period.
We are becoming a country of feelings instead of rule of law.
Posted on 2/12/26 at 9:00 pm to kilo
quote:
Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
This is what you think Kelly violated?
Posted on 2/12/26 at 9:06 pm to Bourre
quote:
I’m not going to opine on something I don’t know about, especially when discussing what a military officers oath entails.. What I do know is that officers are held to a different standard than enlisted service members and it’s up to a military judge to determine if that officer violated their oath and not for a civilian judge to make that ruling.
An officer telling service members to not obey unlawful orders is not worthy of punishment and something fairly common to reiterate. The only reason the executive branch cares is because in his official capacity as a US senator he stated something they do not like the inference a listener may make regarding orders issued by this executive branch.
He's one of a 100 senators, the rules can't quite be applied the same way it could for Captain Joe Blow. He has an official capacity as an elected official in the federal government. This has zero chance of surviving domestic judicial oversight that even the DoW is beholden to in some capacity. There is not overwhelming military necessity that Kelly gets busted down. It is clearly politically motivated.
This post was edited on 2/12/26 at 9:08 pm
Posted on 2/12/26 at 9:09 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
This is what you think Kelly violated?
Personally, I think he did violate his oath by using contemptuous words against the chain of command. He tried to be cute but knew what he was doing when he made that statement. But that isn’t my or a civilian judge’s ruling to make. Leave it to the military to make that determination and handle any potential discipline or exoneration.
Posted on 2/12/26 at 9:14 pm to Bourre
Are these contemptuous words against the C-I-C?
LINK
quote:
Flynn has been a vocal critic of the Obama and Bush administrations since leaving his job overseeing the Defense Intelligence Agency last year. Flynn told the German news outlet Der Spiegel on Sunday that removing Saddam Hussein in Iraq and Moammar Gadhafi in Libya destabilized the region.
“It was huge error. As brutal as Saddam Hussein was, it was a mistake to just eliminate him. The same is true for Moammar Gadhafi and for Libya, which is now a failed state. The historic lesson is that it was a strategic failure to go into Iraq. History will not be and should not be kind with that decision,” Flynn said.
LINK
Posted on 2/12/26 at 9:20 pm to Bourre
quote:
Personally, I think he did violate his oath by using contemptuous words against the chain of command. He tried to be cute but knew what he was doing when he made that statement. But that isn’t my or a civilian judge’s ruling to make. Leave it to the military to make that determination and handle any potential discipline or exoneration.
Ultimately, I don't think active or reserve service members should hold federal office because of the inherent political realities of their positions on matters involving the military and foreign policy being a potential conflict with the agenda of the chain of the command.
A senator should be able to say the things he said and I think it is on the balance bad for this norm to be established w/r/t political retribution of officers holding elected positions. My hunch is if the admin does end up getting this punishment to stick that this will be used as a cudgel more effectively on conservatives in the military whenever the liberals hold office.
There are some things I feel like this admin is not thinking too far ahead of the bend in that respect. Just let this one go, it was a bad idea to push the window of what is acceptable on this one.
Posted on 2/12/26 at 9:22 pm to boosiebadazz
No, I don’t think it’s the same. What you posted, I believe, is a policy critique which is different than what Kelley said..
Like I said earlier… if you aren’t versed on the UCMJ, it’s difficult to make a legal distinction. That’s why this should be left to the military courts.
Do you agree or disagree that this should be left to the military courts to decide whether he broke a military oath and not civilian courts?
Like I said earlier… if you aren’t versed on the UCMJ, it’s difficult to make a legal distinction. That’s why this should be left to the military courts.
Do you agree or disagree that this should be left to the military courts to decide whether he broke a military oath and not civilian courts?
Posted on 2/12/26 at 9:27 pm to Ailsa
Last time I checked, the Federal Judiciary has no jurisdiction over military matters under the UMCJ.
Pete needs to give this idiot the double middle finger.
Pete needs to give this idiot the double middle finger.
Posted on 2/12/26 at 9:28 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
This is what you think Kelly violated?
Biden DoD prosecuted under this article.
quote:
“In the military there are proper forums to raise concerns with the chain of command,” Capt. Sam Stephenson
(D)iffernt stokes for differnt folks.
Posted on 2/12/26 at 9:28 pm to Powerman
Look at this leftard
How you even try to pretend your not is incredible
How you even try to pretend your not is incredible
Posted on 2/12/26 at 9:29 pm to Bourre
quote:
Do you agree or disagree that this should be left to the military courts to decide whether he broke a military oath and not civilian courts?
I don’t think retired service members suffer an erosion of their First Amendment rights such that they cannot opine on matters of public concern. I understand and accept that rationale for active service members in order to maintain good discipline. The courts have, too.
The Government could not show the Court one instance where it sought these types of measures against a retired military member due to speech.
I think federal courts are the best arbiters of constitutional questions like these. Lifetime appointments are the best bulwarks against political pressure.
I thought we used to like free speech absolutism around here?
This post was edited on 2/12/26 at 9:35 pm
Posted on 2/12/26 at 9:29 pm to Clark14
There is absolutely NOTHING that the Trump Administration could ever do that would meet with your approval. TDS is real and you have the worst case I have ever seen.
This is the one and only post by you I intend to reply to because it is futile to attempt to talk to you.
This is the one and only post by you I intend to reply to because it is futile to attempt to talk to you.
Posted on 2/12/26 at 9:33 pm to Bourre
quote:
Do you agree or disagree that this should be left to the military courts to decide whether he broke a military oath and not civilian courts?
I do not feel like this is a situation where deference to military is overwhelmingly obvious. I don't think there is some unique insight a JAG would have regarding oath-breaking and sedition that a civilian judge could not understand.
This isn't something like My Lai massacre where the uniformed services have more subtle understanding of the military actions being investigated. I think a civilian judge can more than adequately understand the matters at hand here.
Posted on 2/12/26 at 10:00 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
I don’t think retired service members suffer an erosion of their First Amendment rights such that they cannot opine on matters of public concern.
You have no idea.
This post was edited on 2/12/26 at 10:03 pm
Posted on 2/12/26 at 10:04 pm to Clark14
quote:
reminder to troops about their responsibilities to obey the law?
You answered your own question dipshite.
He has not and will not order troops to disobey the law.
In your world, was the Civil War unlawful for Federal Troops to act on American soil?
Posted on 2/12/26 at 10:14 pm to Ailsa
The courts are going to protect the Dems and anybody else who acts against Trump. There might be an exception to the rule here and there, but, it's true.
Only thing to do here is for DoW to appeal the ruling.
It is a widely accepted legal fact that service members do not have unfettered First Amendment Rights. What about Retirees? I don't know. That's why the DoW should appeal the case. We need to find out.
Only thing to do here is for DoW to appeal the ruling.
It is a widely accepted legal fact that service members do not have unfettered First Amendment Rights. What about Retirees? I don't know. That's why the DoW should appeal the case. We need to find out.
This post was edited on 2/12/26 at 10:16 pm
Page 4 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News