Estimated Reading Time: 4 minutes

Calls for accountability are often heard but rarely delivered.  This case may be different.

Arizona’s Senior Democrat Senator, Mark Kelly, has received a censure from the Department of War. This ruling came after weeks of investigation into a video he joined with other lawmakers in calling for members of the armed services not follow “unlawful orders”.  Asked repeatedly, Kelly would not specify what unlawful orders he was referring to. None of the other Democrats in this video presentation cited any violations of law when asked. They only warned service personnel to be on the lookout for possible unlawful orders they might receive in the future.

They seem to hint that some kind of Nuremberg violations are likely, as if Trump is going to order the murder of civilians.

They further confused the issue by not specifying who would determine whether an order was lawful or unlawful. Do attorneys in the service branches do this, do service members do this, or does Senator Kelly make the ruling?  None of those issues was clarified by the group of Democratic lawmakers who apparently took it upon themselves to speak directly to service members because they hinted that President Trump would likely be the source of illegal orders.

The implication seemed to suggest that service members should be qualified to determine which orders they find lawful and which they don’t, which many felt undercut the requirement to follow orders from superior officers and, at a minimum,  spread doubt and uncertainty among the ranks.

And since none of the Democrats could find any violations to explain their outburst, critics thought the video, which was sort of a watered-down call for mutiny, made little sense.  Mutiny against what?  Civilian control of the military?  Against Donald Trump?  It was a bold but very vague charge.

Service members often have to follow orders they may not understand or lack information about.  To suggest that service personnel litigate orders before following them sets a strange precedent.  No one could cite when members of Congress have issued such a warning before, especially as a group and in the mass media.

Kelly immediately reacted by showing off his medals, which were earned for past achievements, suggesting they shielded him from his present-day folly.  It is like suggesting that someone who is awarded “teacher of the year” is somehow protected from running down a pedestrian in a crosswalk by showing the certificate of appreciation.  Yes, awards and medals do say something about a person as a whole, but they do not defend current and specific decisions that have gone awry.  Your medals, sir, are irrelevant.

He has also attempted to frame his predicament in the terms of free speech and Donald Trump’s attempt to stop the Senator from criticizing him. After hearing of the censure, Kelly said, “I will fight this with everything I’ve got—not for myself, but to send a message back that Pete Hegseth and Donald Trump don’t get to decide what Americans in this country get to say about their government.”

Senator Kelly, you were silent about free speech when the Biden Administration was spying on Congress, intimidating social media companies to censor, and putting protesters, not just law violators, in jail for January 6th offenses.

Further, there are limits on your speech that don’t apply to other citizens.  You, sir, are a military officer, receiving a pension, and you are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Other politicians who joined you are not subject to the UCMJ.  The others are not in as much trouble as you are.

You violated the USMJ and now pretend you are defending my right to free speech?  He is not fighting for himself, he says, but for us. If Donald Trump is doing something to stifle negative speech about himself illegally, he certainly does not seem very successful.  There are whole news networks and almost the entire entertainment and publishing industry dedicated to criticizing the President.  And of course, there is the whole Democratic Party, the universities, and international organizations.

And your comments were not about “policy” and were not made in Congress, related to hearings or legislation.  Your comments were about how military personnel should appropriately respond to orders, and you addressed them directly through the mass media.   You were telling members of the military how to behave.  You broke rules that you, as a decorated military officer, certainly understood and can appreciate.

Censure serves as a generic term for formal disciplinary letters—such as letters of admonition, reprimand, or caution—that are placed in a service member’s official record as non-judicial or administrative actions. These can have significant career impacts, including effects on promotions, assignments, or retirement benefits, even though they are not equivalent to a court-martial sentence. For retired officers like Kelly, who remain subject to the UCMJ under Article 2, such censures can be issued by high-level authorities, such as the Secretary of Defense, and may trigger further proceedings.  It may even cause a reduction in his pension.

You, sir, are not concerned about the public’s right to criticize the government.  You have been silent about the abuses of the COVID-19 lockdown and the persecution of President Trump by the intelligence agencies. You are retired, and having this censure in your file will not hold back your career in the military, which is over.  What you are concerned about is that you did a foolish thing that may well hurt your chances of running to be President.

All the display of medals and all the talk of defending the public’s right to free speech is simply evasion of responsibility.  You violated the UCMJ, and now you are being held accountable, a rare and marvelous thing.

The more you evade and equivocate, the worse it makes you look.