By [Observer Net, Juan Jiaqi]

Last week, six Democratic Congress members publicly called on U.S. military personnel to refuse "illegal orders," which greatly angered Trump, who denounced the actions of these legislators as "inciting rebellion" and "suspected treason," even making vulgar threats of "death." Dealing with Democrats, the Trump administration has plenty of strength and methods, with Arizona Democratic Senator Mark Kelly being the first target.

According to CNN and 24 other reports, the U.S. Department of Defense announced on Monday that it is investigating retired U.S. Navy Captain Mark Kelly over "serious misconduct allegations," and may even recall him to active duty for a court-martial or administrative punishment. The report pointed out that since Kelly was a senior naval officer, he must be available at any time to be recalled by the military according to law.

Although the U.S. Department of Defense did not directly name the video in its statement, it cited legal provisions, stating that federal law prohibits "actions aimed at interfering with the loyalty, morale, or good order and discipline of the armed forces," and such violations will be "handled through appropriate legal channels," applying to both active-duty and retired personnel.

CBS interpreted that the Pentagon's referenced provision prohibits "activities that suggest, advise, encourage, or attempt to persuade any member of the U.S. Army or Navy to disobey orders, disloyalty, rebellion, or failure to perform duties."

The statement also emphasized that "all service members should remember that under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, they have a legal obligation to obey lawful orders, and orders are presumed to be lawful," while noting that "a service member's personal views cannot serve as a justification or excuse for disobeying a lawful order."

Excerpt from the Pentagon statement

Subsequently, Secretary of Defense Austin posted a statement on social media platform X, directly linking the investigation to the video, condemning the "Seditious Six" video as "despicable, reckless, and false." He criticized, "Encouraging our military personnel to ignore their commanders' orders fundamentally undermines all aspects of 'good order and discipline.' Their foolish rants spread doubts and chaos, which only puts our military personnel in danger."

Austin mentioned that Mark Kelly is still under the jurisdiction of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, "and he knows this well."

Facing the threat of investigation, Kelly quickly posted a statement on X, mentioning his decades-long military career and responding to Trump's comments about the legislators.

He stated, "If this is meant to intimidate me and other members of Congress, preventing us from performing our duties and holding this administration accountable, it will be futile. I've given too much to this country, and I won't be silenced by bullies who care more about their own power than defending the Constitution."

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer also issued a statement condemning the Pentagon's investigation, comparing Trump's actions to those of a "dictator."

"Trump is trying to use the Pentagon as his private weapon of attack," he wrote, "I support Senator Kelly, and anyone in America who doesn't want to be ruled by a king should do the same."

Mark Kelly interviewed on CBS program on Sunday. Screenshot

On November 19th, local time, six Democratic lawmakers spoke to U.S. military and intelligence personnel on the social media platform Facebook, saying, "You can refuse illegal orders," repeating the phrase multiple times.

"This administration is sowing division between the military, intelligence personnel, and American citizens," they said in the video, "the threat to our Constitution now comes not only from abroad but also from within our own country."

The report states that all these lawmakers have military backgrounds, besides Mark Kelly, there are Jason Crow (Colorado), Chris Delahunt (Pennsylvania), Maggie Goodwin (New Hampshire), Christy Holan (Pennsylvania), and Elise Stefanik (Michigan).

Since the other five include one who previously served in the Central Intelligence Agency, and four of them have military backgrounds but are not "retired officers," they are no longer subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice and are not under the jurisdiction of the Department of Defense.

In the video, the Democrats did not specifically point out which orders might be illegal, but CNN noted that bipartisan lawmakers have long expressed concerns about the legality of Trump-related orders, such as military strikes against suspicious drug-smuggling vessels in the Caribbean Sea and deploying troops to multiple cities despite opposition from governors.

Six Democratic lawmakers speaking out to U.S. military personnel. Screenshot from social media

This video completely enraged Trump. On the 20th, he posted on his self-created social media platform "Truth Social," threatening the Democratic lawmakers in the video with the death penalty, "Seditious behavior, punishable by death!" He also shared the comment "Hang them, George Washington would do the same!"

However, after causing great controversy, Trump later clarified that he "was not threatening to actually impose the death penalty, but they are in big trouble." White House Press Secretary Caroline Leavitt also urgently tried to defuse the situation, saying the president "did not really want the members of Congress to be executed."

On Sunday, when interviewed on the CBS program, Kelly further stated that he learned about the investigation through social media.

"We (did) indeed take an oath of allegiance," Kelly said, "(but) what we said in the video is just reiterating the basic principles of the rule of law, that military personnel should not and cannot obey illegal orders."

Kelly pointed out that Trump should understand that as president, his words "can lead to extremely serious consequences." "His words carry immense weight, far beyond anyone in this country. He should have realized this. Because of his statements, the threats we are facing now have increased," he said.

According to CNN, Steve Vladek, a professor of law at Georgetown University Law Center and a CNN legal analyst, analyzed that technically, the Pentagon's initiation of a court-martial against Kelly is feasible, as three appellate courts have supported the constitutionality of military trials for retirees.

However, he also believes that the Kelly case "fully demonstrates" why this should not be an option.

He said, "Since the founding of the country, we have been cautious about the military jurisdiction applying to civilians, to the extent that the Supreme Court has overturned several laws authorizing court-martials for retirees, military contractors, and military families. Retirees are theoretically subject to recall, but making someone permanently subject to military jurisdiction solely because they once served is unreasonable."

The Washington Post also cited the opinions of U.S. military experts, stating that investigating a veteran for criticizing the Trump administration is an unusual way of exercising power.

Jeffrey Corn, former head of the Office of the Judge Advocate General and current professor at Texas Tech University, pointed out that this investigation is almost unprecedented. He told the media that the Pentagon has always recalled retirees for illegal acts during their active service, never for their post-retirement speech.

"We have never dealt with such cases before," Corn said bluntly, "this is truly chilling."

Reuters reported that the prosecution of Kelly would spark a debate about the freedom of speech guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and the principle of separation of powers. Professor Brenna Bernal of Villanova University School of Law said that Kelly may face certain legal risks.

Bernal pointed out that Kelly is not protected by the Speech or Debate Clause, which is intended to protect the immunity of members of Congress when speaking in the House or Senate.

Bernal, who previously served as a defense attorney in the Guantanamo Bay military commission, added, "If the Trump administration is serious and plans to charge him with treason or inciting rebellion, then if the offense is particularly severe, they would likely try to detain him pre-trial."

According to The Washington Post, earlier this year, several senior U.S. officers about to retire had expressed concerns that the Trump administration might recall them due to past grievances and prosecute them under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Former U.S. Secretary of Defense Mark Esper wrote in his book published in 2022 that during Trump's first term, he considered recalling William McRaven, former commander of the U.S. Special Operations Command and a retired Navy admiral, and Stanley McChrystal, former commander of the Joint Special Operations Command and a retired four-star general, to active duty on grounds of "insubordination" and pursue legal action against them under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. In the end, Esper and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley convinced him to abandon the idea.

"But now, Milley remains a target for Trump's revenge," the report pointed out. Earlier this year, as soon as Austin became the Secretary of Defense, he ordered the removal of Milley's security benefits and suspended his access to classified information.

This article is an exclusive article by Observer Net, and without permission, it cannot be reprinted.

Original: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7576500558991770121/

Statement: This article represents the views of the author, and you are welcome to express your opinion by clicking the [Up/Down] buttons below.