The Pentagon and the FBI Are Investigating 6 Legislators for Exercising Their First Amendment Rights

[rangerrebew]

The Pentagon and the FBI Are Investigating 6 Legislators for Exercising Their First Amendment Rights
The Trump administration is desperately trying to criminalize a video noting that service members have no obligation to follow unlawful orders.
Jacob Sullum | 11.26.2025 2:00 PM
 
After six members of Congress posted a video reminding members of the armed forces that they are not obligated to follow unlawful orders, President Donald Trump said the legislators were "traitors to our Country" who should be prosecuted for "SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL." Whatever you think of that video, its production plainly did not qualify as treason or seditious conspiracy under federal law. Now Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is trying a different tack, suggesting that Sen. Mark Kelly (D–Ariz.), a retired U.S. Navy captain, may have violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) by participating in the video.


How so? "The only code provision that addresses mere speech," notes David Cole, former national legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, is Article 88, which prohibits "contempt toward officials."

Theoretically, Kelly could be called back into service to face a court-martial on a charge of violating Article 88. But his conduct does not fit the terms of that provision, which applies to "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."

https://reason.com/2025/11/26/the-pentagon-and-the-fbi-are-investigating-6-legislators-for-exercising-their-first-amendment-rights/

[rangerrebew]

People outside the military have no more right to tell personnel to disobey illegal orders than they do to say it is okay to yell fire in a packed movie theater.  Since the UCMJ already tells military people they don't have to obey illegal/unlawful orders, the reason for politicians to say so is redundant and unnecessary, so why did they do it?  Slotkin, a fine democrat, is former CIA and likely quite versed in creating government chaos.  I'd investigate that connection harder than Kelly's to see if she brings that "wisdom" with her to the senate.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

People outside the military have no more right to tell personnel to disobey illegal orders than they do to say it is okay to yell fire in a packed movie theater.  Since the UCMJ already tells military people they don't have to obey illegal/unlawful orders, the reason for politicians to say so is redundant and unnecessary, so why did they do it?  Slotkin, a fine democrat, is former CIA and likely quite versed in creating government chaos.  I'd investigate that connection harder than Kelly's to see if she brings that "wisdom" with her to the senate.

People outside the military have freedom of speech period. I see no problem with telling the military or their personnel to disobey illegal orders. From there though, we get into nuance of what constitutes an illegal order.

[DCPatriot]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FnO3igOkOk

[Free Vulcan]

So then the Jan 6 'insurrectionists' were just exercising their freedom of speech then?

The Rats can't even hold themselves to their own standards.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

So then the Jan 6 'insurrectionists' were just exercising their freedom of speech then?

The Rats can't even hold themselves to their own standards.

The ones that didn’t storm the capital yes.

[Hoodat]

The ones that didn’t storm the capital yes.

Yet people who never entered the Capitol were arrested, charged, imprisoned for many months awaiting trial, and who were eventually convicted and sentenced - those same people suddenly have rights¿

[rangerrebew]

Those of us who are Viet Nam Vets well remember people who were outside the military telling us what to do.  By outside the military I meant politicians who have clearly established channels for dealing with military to express their points of view.  Kelly, in particular was well aware of those channels but chose to coax military personnel to disobey orders in a public forum in a clear attempt to undermine Trump, not benefit military personnel.  One of the problems with free speech is it can be used to undermine institutions and create chaos.  Politicians who use it to do exactly that are traitors to their country.  Read Washington's Farewell Address where he warned it was UNITY which preserves the country, not division created by politicians who don't like a particular president.  Members of congress who knowingly use free speech to undermine a lawfully elected president and proscribe actions to do so, no longer deserve to be in congress.

In particular, I think of Great Britain where free speech has been used to undermine a Constitutional government and replace it with Sharia, where free speech is a danger to anyone who uses it to criticize Islam and can get a person thrown in jail. That means only British citizens.  It is sometimes a fine line between free speech intended as opinion and free speech with the intent to undermine a country.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

The ones that didn’t storm the capital yes.

Like Ray Epps then

[Free Vulcan]

Can we ask Boasberg to subpoena their phone records like Jack Smith did for Republican congresspeople?