Supporting Mark Kelly

“Secretary Hegseth’s tweet is the first I heard of this. I also saw the President’s posts saying I should be arrested, hanged, and put to death.

“If this is meant to intimidate me and other members of Congress from doing our jobs and holding this administration accountable, it won’t work. I’ve given too much to this country to be silenced by bullies who care more about their own power than protecting the Constitution.”

Charlotte Clymer, who writes Charlotte’s Web Thoughts, walked readers through Kelly’s citations. They include the Navy Pilot Astronaut Badge, earned by fewer than 200 service members, and the NASA Distinguished Service Medal. As Clymer notes, the NASA Distinguished Service Medal is “the highest award bestowed by NASA and one of the rarest awards in the federal government.” Since the medal was created in 1959, it has been awarded fewer than 400 times.

On January 5, Hegseth issued a formal censure of Kelly, saying Kelly’s call for military personnel to refuse unlawful orders “undermines the chain of command,” “counsels disobedience,” “creates confusion about duty,” “brings discredit upon the armed forces,” and “is conduct unbecoming an officer.” Hegseth said he was directing the secretary of the Navy to look into reducing Kelly’s retirement grade.

Kelly responded: “Over twenty-five years in the U.S. Navy, thirty-nine combat missions, and four missions to space, I risked my life for this country and to defend our Constitution—including the First Amendment rights of every American to speak out. I never expected that the President of the United States and the Secretary of Defense would attack me for doing exactly that.

“My rank and retirement are things that I earned through my service and sacrifice for this country. I got shot at. I missed holidays and birthdays. I commanded a space shuttle mission while my wife Gabby recovered from a gunshot wound to the head—all while proudly wearing the American flag on my shoulder. Generations of servicemembers have made these same patriotic sacrifices for this country, earning the respect, appreciation, and rank they deserve.

“Pete Hegseth wants to send the message to every single retired servicemember that if they say something he or Donald Trump doesn’t like, they will come after them the same way. It’s outrageous and it is wrong. There is nothing more un-American than that.

“If Pete Hegseth, the most unqualified Secretary of Defense in our country’s history, thinks he can intimidate me with a censure or threats to demote me or prosecute me, he still doesn’t get it. I will fight this with everything I’ve got—not for myself, but to send a message back that Pete Hegseth and Donald Trump don’t get to decide what Americans in this country get to say about their government.”

Kelly’s lawsuit notes that the First Amendment prohibits the government from retaliating against those engaging in protected speech and that the Constitution’s protection of the speech and debate of lawmakers provides additional safeguards. Indeed, the lawsuit says, “never in our nation’s history has the Executive Branch imposed military sanctions on a Member of Congress for engaging in disfavored political speech.”

If the court permits that unprecedented step, the lawsuit argues, it would allow the executive branch to punish members of Congress for engaging in their duty of congressional oversight.

Kelly asked the court “to declare the censure letter, reopening determination, retirement grade determination proceedings, and related actions unlawful and unconstitutional; to vacate those actions; to enjoin their enforcement; and to preserve the status of a coequal Congress and an apolitical military.”

The warning Kelly and the other five Democratic lawmakers offered to military personnel that they must refuse illegal orders took on renewed meaning this evening. Charlie Savage, Eric Schmitt, John Ismay, Julian E. Barnes, Riley Mellen, and Christiaan Triebert of the New York Times reported that when the U.S. military attacked a small boat apparently coming from Venezuela on September 2, 2025, the first such attack of what now number at least 35, it used a secret aircraft that had been disguised to look like a civilian plane.

The journalists report that disguising a military aircraft to look like a civilian plane is a war crime called “perfidy.” “Shielding your identity is an element of perfidy,” former deputy judge advocate general of the U.S. Air Force retired Major General Steven J. Lepper told the reporters. “If the aircraft flying above is not identifiable as a combatant aircraft, it should not be engaged in combatant activity.” The Defense Department manual concerning the law of war explains that combatants must distinguish themselves from the civilian population and may not “kill or wound the enemy by resort to perfidy.”

It explicitly prohibits “feigning civilian status and then attacking.”

This entry was posted in Government, Justice, Law, Military. Bookmark the permalink.