U.S. Senator Mark Kelly of Arizona finds himself at the center of a storm of criticism following his prominent role in a controversial video titled "Disobey!"
The video, which has been condemned by many, including the New York Post Editorial Board, features Kelly alongside five other congressional members. The video suggests that President Donald Trump or his subordinates might issue illegal orders, urging military personnel to refuse such commands. This implication has sparked outrage, with accusations that Kelly is undermining military discipline and potentially encouraging insubordination within the ranks.
According to Sean Hannity, the Pentagon has initiated an investigation into Kelly's actions. As a retired Navy officer who continues to receive substantial benefits, Kelly remains subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The content of the video may be seen as a breach of his military oaths.
In defense, Kelly has highlighted his extensive military service and his personal connection as the husband of former Representative Gabby Giffords, who survived a near-fatal assassination attempt in 2011. However, critics argue that his past service does not exempt him from accountability for his current actions. The editorial board draws a parallel to Benedict Arnold, noting that even a hero can fall from grace.
The video has been criticized for potentially encouraging military personnel to disobey lawful orders, drawing comparisons to past incidents involving Chelsea Manning and Reality Winner. The editorial board emphasizes that no illegal orders have been identified, rendering the video's message misleading and dangerous. Senator Elissa Slotkin of Michigan, who also appeared in the video, attempted to justify its message by referencing Hollywood portrayals of illegal orders, such as in the film "A Few Good Men." However, this comparison was dismissed as fictional and irrelevant to the current situation.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth expressed his disapproval, stating that the video's "foolish screed sows doubt and confusion." In response, Kelly asserted that he would not be "silenced by bullies who care more about their own power than protecting the Constitution." Yet, the editorial board argues that the video's true intent was to create confusion, particularly among civilians unfamiliar with the military's rigorous education on illegal orders.
The question remains whether a Pentagon investigation is the appropriate response to Kelly and his colleagues' actions. While some view the probe as an opportunity for Kelly to portray himself as a martyr, others see it as a necessary step to address conduct unbecoming of a senator.
By invoking his military service to justify his involvement in the video, Kelly is accused of compounding the initial offense. The editorial board contends that the video represents a passive-aggressive attack on the spirit of his oath of service, regardless of whether it constitutes a legal violation.
Login