No worries for Mark Kelly. Eventually, he will regain his full pension (and his money back)

[Fort Fun Indiana]

USMB

When you want to watch the worst people in the country misuse simple, English words.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Wrong.
That's only if it's not clearly illegal.

semantics as the claim of knowing/not knowing is established in kelly's directive/request and can only be followed if they do know...i.e. how can they follow his directive if they do not know it is illegal as would be required to not follow the order?...not knowing requires them to follow the order

I hope you weren't in the military with your faulty knowledge of the UCMJ.

RM, top secret clearance...I found that usually those most familiar with the ucmj are the ones most in need of it and attain that knowledge out of necessity rather than education and then try to play it off as being an/a MP/SP...would you like to share your rate with us as I did?

 

[Conservative from Georgia]

so?

So Hegseth will argue in court that Mark Kelly got reduced pay because he said the same thing Hegseth said. Good luck with that.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

You do realize that conservatives in general hate Trump? He's not a conservative.

He's a limousine liberal doing what they do best.

 

[Conservative from Georgia]

He's a limousine liberal doing what they do best.

What’s up, Frank. Is Kelly getting his full pension back??

 

[Mick2]

That's only if it's not clearly illegal.

Who is making the determination of what's legal and illegal for them? Left-wing mentally illness or the deranged Mark Kelly?

 

[Frankeneinstein]

So Hegseth will argue in court that Mark Kelly got reduced pay because he said the same thing Hegseth said at's probably

First of all: BIG DEAL!, what does that prove?
Second: kelly is a good man and deserves all the honor and benefits he has earned...making him go through the courts to get them back is his "punishment", it is something the trump camp has learned well in playing politics with white liberals

Good luck with that.

it's already over, kelly just needs to run the gauntlet now

now back to the topic...who is "we"

 

[Frankeneinstein]

What’s up, Frank. Is Kelly getting his full pension back??

yes...but the question is should he have to go through the courts the way trump did just to get it? and who is "we"

 

[Company 13]

semantics as the claim of knowing/not knowing is established in kelly's directive/request and can only be followed if they do know...i.e. how can they follow his directive if they do not know it is illegal as would be required to not follow the order?...not knowing requires them to follow the order

I think they are smart enough to know not to follow obviously illegal orders. He was simply letting them know that they don't have to follow illegal orders even from anyone at all.
They know now because of current events that it's illegal for them to go into American cities and start shooting protestors.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

I think they are smart enough to know not to follow obviously illegal orders.

If you know this then why doesn't kelly? and then what was the point of saying it if not playing PR politics? and what if they do do it and claim they didn't know it was an illegal order? does that get them of the hook for not knowing? if not then what was the point of you "correcting" what the ucmj really means"?

He was simply letting them know that they don't have to follow illegal orders even from anyone at all.

because kelly felt they were not "smart enough" to know this themselves?

They know now because of current events that it's illegal for them to go into American cities and start shooting protestors.

if they didn't know before now then that negates everything you've said to this point meaning you have validated what I said already.

 

[Company 13]

If you know this then why doesn't kelly? and then what was the point of saying it if not playing PR politics? and what if they do do it and claim they didn't know it was an illegal order? does that get them of the hook for not knowing? if not then what was the point of you "correcting" what the ucmj really means"?

I should have worded that differently. I think they have been reminded that just because they are given an illegal order doesn't mean they have to obey it.
It's possible in Trump's military that they are not telling them that in training.
Kelly was doing them a favor to make sure they understood they don't have to obey illegal orders. Kelly's comments also served to alert the public about what the UCMJ says.
I think Kelly's comments will cause them to research and discus with their friends what an illegal order would look like and make a plan for how to go about disobeying it.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

What’s up, Frank.

not much, Con. man from georgia. what up wit you?

 

[Conservative from Georgia]

not much, Con. man from georgia. what up wit you?

Just wondering if you think Kelly won’t get his full pension back

 

[Robert W]

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

As Kelly said “How many members of the Trump Family have ever served in the US Military?”. The answer is NONE.

Trump has, on more than one occasion, referred to service members as “suckers” and “losers”.

Every male member of the Kelly Family, going back generations, has served in the military. Calling Mark Kelly “thin skinned” tells me just how stupid and ignorant YOU are.

But we knew that already just from reading the bilge you post.

Dragonlady, were you who told me you paid tariffs to the Federal Government?
Kelly, though currently a civilian is still retired from the Navy and being paid for his rank. For him to tell others to disobey orders means he violated his oath of service. Now he whines. He knew he was going to open a hornet's nest. What you talk about is not remotely the issue. My primary theme on this forum is freedom. Were this an issue of freedom for Kelly, I would support his actions. He chose as you admit to joining the Navy where he also chose to swear to his oath. And he knew what he said to the military was going to have a bad result. He told them orders are illegal.

 

[Robert W]

Just wondering if you think Kelly won’t get his full pension back

No announcement so far says he lost the pension.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Just wondering if you think Kelly won’t get his full pension back

a little slow off the line there Con.man, I already answered that...yes he will get it back see posts 87- 88, he will first have to run the trump route to get there and be unnecessarily dragged through the court system that has been newly introduced as a political strategy borrowed from the europeans.

 

[Conservative from Georgia]

a little slow off the line there Con.man, I already answered that...yes he will see post 88, he will first have to run the trump route to get there and be unnecessarily dragged through the court system that has been newly introduced as a political strategy borrowed from the europeans.

Good boy.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Good boy.

a phrase no doubt passed down through the family tree...i.e. "it's in the blood"

 

[WorldWatcher]

For him to tell others to disobey orders means he violated his oath of service.

Capt. Kelley didn't tell others to disobey orders, he reminded them they don't have to obey ILLEGAL orders. Why did you leave the ILLEGAL part out.

How about MAJ Hegseth (U.S. Army) telling soldiers they don't have to follow illegal orders?

WW
.
.
.

 

[Robert W]

Are you saying he wasn't censured?

Well, yes he was but has the Navy announced he was? There are processes to follow for him to actually get censured.
Reduction in retired grade
A censure letter can have significant effects on retired officers, particularly those who have already retired from active duty. The letter can lead to a reduction in retired grade, which may result in a corresponding reduction in retired pay. This is a direct consequence of the censure letter under the law, as it is tied to the officer's service in grade.
The process for reducing a retired officer's grade is under 10 U.S. Code § 1370 (f), which allows for a reduction in retirement grade under certain conditions. While the letter itself is purely symbolic and does not have actual consequences for the officer's career, it can serve as a warning to other retired service members and can have long-term effects on future career opportunities.
Retired officers, especially those who have served satisfactorily on active duty, may still be considered for retirement pay based on their service in grade, which is determined by the service secretary. However, the censure letter can still impact the officer's status and the perception of their service within the military community.

U.S. Naval Institute+5