Toto je příspěvek z Facebooku týkající se šesti zrádců z Kongresu, konkrétně Marka Kellyho, který bude s největší pravděpodobností povolán do aktivní služby a souzen vojenským soudem:
 
…only JAG determines what is legal, and in the U.S. legal system, courts, not JAG, are the ultimate arbiters of legality. While military lawyers (JAGs) are responsible for advising commanders on legal matters and ensuring military operations comply with the law, they do not have the sole authority to determine what is legal. The executive branch’s interpretation of laws for the military is also subject to judicial review and does not solely rest with the JAG.
JAG’s role in military law
Legal advice: JAGs advise commanders and troops on the law of war and other domestic and international laws affecting military operations.
Trial counsel: They may also serve as trial counsel (prosecutors) or defense counsel in courts-martial for military members.
Legal parameters: JAGs play an integral role in defining the legal parameters of military operations, and their collective advice can be a guiding principle for political leaders.
Limitations to JAG’s authority
Judicial branch: The ultimate authority to interpret the law and determine constitutionality belongs to the judicial branch, not the executive branch or JAG.
Civilian law: JAGs primarily handle military law. For civilians, the standard judicial system or specific federal courts are responsible for determining legality.
Political influence: While JAGs are expected to provide neutral legal advice, recent reports suggest that their opinions can be influenced by political considerations, and some may become hesitant to vocalize their independent legal opinions for fear of repercussions.
 
Tady je zmíněné video:
 

 
Zde je další komentář k videu, rovněž z Facebooku:
 
A Retired Officer’s Preemptive Call for Disobedience: The Imperative of Court-Martial for Captain Mark Kelly (Ret.) Under the UCMJ
By Joseph Fosco
*Independent Opinion Columnist
November 24, 2025
On November 18, 2025, United States Senator Mark Kelly, a retired Navy captain and former astronaut, appeared in a widely disseminated video alongside five other Democratic lawmakers. The stated purpose was to remind service members of their oath to the Constitution and their duty to refuse unlawful orders. What Senator Kelly actually delivered, however, was a direct, premeditated appeal to active-duty personnel to contemplate selective obedience to the Commander-in-Chief before any order had even been issued. The Pentagon’s subsequent announcement of an investigation, with the explicit possibility of recall to active duty and court-martial, is not political theater. It is the lawful and necessary response to a retired Regular officer’s violation of Articles 88, 94, and 133 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
First, the jurisdictional foundation is unambiguous. Title 10 U.S.C. § 802(a)(4) and (6) expressly subjects members of the Regular Navy who are retired in grade and entitled to retired pay to the UCMJ in the same manner as active-duty officers. Captain Mark Kelly meets both criteria. The Supreme Court has never disturbed this statutory reach, and the Department of Defense has exercised it repeatedly against retired Regular officers for post-retirement misconduct ranging from financial fraud to public contempt toward the President. Retirement, for a Regular officer, is not separation. It is a change of status, not a release from discipline.
Second, the content of Senator Kelly’s statement crosses every red line the military justice system has drawn since 1806. Article 88 criminalizes any commissioned officer’s use of “contemptuous words” against the President, whether named or clearly referenced. Article 94 punishes mutiny or sedition, defined as any attempt “with intent to usurp or override lawful military authority” to create resistance to lawful authority. Most damning is Article 133, which captures conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman. That clause is deliberately broad enough to encompass any act that seriously compromises the officer’s standing or the discipline of the armed forces.
Senator Kelly did not confine himself to the anodyne observation that unlawful orders must be disobeyed. That proposition is taught in every boot camp and affirmed by the Department of Defense Law of War Manual. He went much further. He instructed currently serving members to prepare themselves to refuse orders from the incoming administration, in advance of any order being given, on the implied premise that the incoming Commander-in-Chief is predisposed to illegality. That is not education. It is a preemptive effort to erode the presumption of lawfulness that attaches to every superior’s directive until proven otherwise in a court of law. In the military context, where instantaneous obedience is the bedrock of operational effectiveness, such anticipatory defiance is indistinguishable from sedition.
The senator’s defenders will inevitably invoke the First Amendment and the Speech or Debate Clause. Both arguments collapse under scrutiny. The Speech or Debate Clause protects only legislative acts on the floor or in committee. A social-media video released to the general public is not a proceeding in Congress. More fundamentally, no civilian free-speech right overrides the UCMJ when Congress has expressly subjected a category of citizens, retired Regular officers, to military jurisdiction. The Supreme Court reaffirmed in 1974 (Parker v. Levy) that “the military is, by necessity, a specialized society separate from civilian society” and that speech restrictions valid in that society would be intolerable in civilian life.
Nor can Senator Kelly shelter behind the fact that he is a United States Senator. The Constitution does not create a privileged class of retired officers who may violate the UCMJ with impunity simply because they later win elective office. If anything, the combination of his retained rank and his public platform magnifies the damage. A captain’s words carry weight in barracks and on ships that a private citizen’s never could.
History offers no comfort to the senator. In 1952, the Army court-martialed retired Major General Robert W. Grow for diary entries critical of U.S. policy that fell into Soviet hands. In 1961, retired Army Major General Edwin A. Walker faced investigation (ultimately relieved of command) for public political activities deemed incompatible with his status. The principle is consistent. Retirement does not license a Regular officer to use his rank as a continuing platform to undermine lawful authority.
The remedy is straightforward. The Secretary of the Navy, exercising authority delegated under 10 U.S.C. § 688 and DoD Instruction 1352.1, may recall Captain Kelly (Ret.) to active duty for the purpose of trial by general court-martial. Charges under Articles 88, 94, and 133 are fully supported by the public record. Conviction on any specification would carry penalties up to dismissal (the retired equivalent of a dishonorable discharge), forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and permanent loss of retired benefits accrued after thirty years of otherwise honorable service.
This is not retribution. It is accountability. A nation that permits retired Regular officers to exploit their retained rank in order to sow anticipatory disobedience inside the active force has already surrendered the principle of civilian control of the military. The Uniform Code of Military Justice exists precisely to prevent that surrender.
Captain Kelly took an oath in 1987 that did not expire when he accepted retired pay, and it did not dissolve when he took a seat in the United States Senate. Until the law is changed by Congress, that oath, and the jurisdiction it carries, remains in force.
The Department of Defense has no honorable choice but to recall him, charge him, and try him. Anything less would constitute a tacit announcement that the Uniform Code of Military Justice no longer binds those who have worn the cloth of the Republic at its highest levels.
The integrity of the armed forces demands nothing less.