That never happened.
1 Like
What he did was participate in an action meant to undermine the good order and discipline of the active force, to encourage the troops to second guess, and then refuse to obey the orders of the Commander in Chief.
3 Likes
No, what he did was state the obvious that troops are not to obey illegal orders period.
When you first joined how did your instructors explain your obligation with regard to illegal orders
Didn’t they instruct you to not follow them?
Implying the orders they were obeying were illegal. He’s a ■■■■■■■ joke, and is being dealt with. It’s a good thing.
5 Likes
So nothing he actually said. The implication is yours.
I would though say that he implied that they “could” in the future receive illegal orders, but that has always been true. And it wouldn’t be the first time it happened.
No, it’s his. He’s the one who said it.
4 Likes
Quote it.
Context matters.
I can sit down with the kids and tell them: “you know your mom and I are human, we aren’t always right. There will be times you shouldn’t listen to us.” And that wouldn’t be undermining anything.
But if my wife tells the kids to do something and I say: “you know your mom isn’t always right and you don’t always have to listen to her” it’s technically accurate, but due to the context you’d better believe I’d be sleeping in the shed.
4 Likes
1 Like
What he did was politics. I don’t like what they did with this ad. Playing politics with the military to appeal to the base is def not a good idea
The investigation is also pure politics. He violated the blah blah and blah blah. They are going after him out of politics. Mean girls all around. Like full stop. Totally
3 Likes
They first specifically explained what type of actions constituted an illegal order. They also made it clear that those specific situations, to kill prisoners, or to kill unarmed civilians, were the orders not to be obeyed. That isn’t what happened in the case of Kelley and the other makers of that video. They gave no definition of what illegal order they were referring to, intentionally being vague, while strongly stressing to the force that they were obliged to refuse the undefined illegal orders. It was an intentional act, claiming their prior status made them authorities on the still undefined illegal orders. Their focus was on placing doubt in the force’s mind, to undermine the order and discipline of the force and encourage insubordination to the chain of command.
4 Likes
Choosing to repeat what he learned during his time of service was unwise?
Good thing he didn’t then.
Lol.
It’s funny. You guys are all interpreting and reading into and ascribing motives to this guy’s speech, but then when faced with Trump’s speech, the POTUS, you all are like ‘he didn’t mean that! You’re assuming!’
I mean, here, POTUS is calling for Kelly and 5 other Americans to be put to death. And no conservative here cares.
Those 6 americans said nothing more than ‘don’t follow illeagl orders’ and into that you read all sorts of nefarious motives and celebrate his political punishment for speech.
It’s wild.
POTUS - Kill my political enemies
Dems - Don’t follow illegal orders.
3 Likes
Trump implied 6 americans should be executed for making a political ad.
And you think that’s swell.
What about this one:
“It’s called SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL,” Trump charged in a post on Truth Social. “Each one of these traitors to our Country should be ARRESTED AND PUT ON TRIAL. Their words cannot be allowed to stand - We won’t have a Country anymore!!! An example MUST BE SET.”
The president then reposted 16 Truth Social posts, including one that advocated for hanging the Democrats, like “GEORGE WASHINGTON WOULD.”
“SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!” he later wrote
It’s worse than that, some people defending action against Kelly for what he supposedly inferred are the same people who will say you can’t infer anything from their posts that are not literal word for word translations.
He didn’t repeat what he had learned. He, and the others, made vague reference to unspecified illegal actions, with the full intent to undermine the authority of the CINC for political purposes. As a person subject to the UCMJ he deserves to reap what his actions have sown. The fact that he is an O-6 is actually an aggravating factor.
4 Likes
That’s your interpretation.
Your interpretation.
POTUS called from them to be put to death. What should happen to him for that?