Yeah, he's not one for hyperbole. I had a small email correspondence going with him and my last ended something like "you're such a credit to UT law school." That one he didn't reply to, which I thought odd. Shortly thereafter, he appeared at Gtown.
Was this before CEOs or world leaders? Because yesterday it was world leaders and I heard that it was met with deafening silence. Can't stand to watch more than clips of that shit funnel either way.
Why does reminding soldiers that following unlawful orders is unlawful get them killed? Especially when the unlawful orders involve military force against civilians, even if they are criminals. This isn't wartime, or even pursuant to an AUMF. That's a big part of the problem. The ONLY reason this is a problem is that the regime doesn't tolerate dissent. And sees lawful conduct as dissent that can be punished criminally and otherwise.
You can follow the actual case documents online here, if the link works. https://portal-nc.tylertech.cloud/app/RegisterOfActions/#/11CDB966583D028F3F37EB4FCEB0C5BF54AE35DEDA51765B1FA1FD68B010D885B1D485DA43A745F0B5A0DC94121BC42266128B8C69D7349F630088F962E341ACBA4B3526B4BFFD709AC24DBB1A37568B/anon/portalembed Otherwise, here, https://portal-nc.tylertech.cloud/Portal/Home/Dashboard/29
Yeah, it's bad enough that it's wealthy institutions with their composite of wealthy donors. If it starts boiling down to a single billionaire donor, as in the case of Oregon and TTU, that's going to be pretty gross.
Which specific orders? Which ones did he mention? Hmmm? Or did Whisky Pete have some in mind? This administration is fucking lawless. Military personnel swear an oath to the Constitution, not to the President. Do you think Trump knows that? Would answer correctly if unprompted? Do you think this administration has issued unlawful orders to the military? Debatable orders? In the event the administration is issuing debatable orders, is out "out of line" to remind personnel of their obligations? Is it sedition? Is it treason? Should they be executed?
The only people who would be offended by Kelly's statements are those with a guilty conscience. Those that needed a bullshit legal opinion from the Office of Legal Counsel that they won't release in order to whitewash their highly suspect orders.
Yep, a quiet, secure discussion of "hey, we need to start thinking harder about Arctic security and what we're gonna do about it. We think we need to beef up our presence in Greenland. You coming too?"
And, let me ask you something. Is Kelly's statement protected first by the First Amendment and second by the Speech and Debate Clause? If so, how is it legal for him to suffer legal repercussions from the government?
Very likely because expressing such an opinion on a talk show might expose him to actual DoD consequences. It would certainly be more colorable a violation than what he did and give Whisky Pete ammunition. And, it's probably not all that complicated to military personnel educated in the laws of conflict. The only reason his original statement is in any way controversial is the circumstances and implications. Circumstances and implications created by Whisky Pete and the regime, not by Mark Kelly. He didn't say illegal orders from this regime, or specify at all. It was just a friendly reminder not to commit war crimes.