Court-martial
By Mike Bibb
"Court-martial: A court in the armed forces for the trial of persons accused of breaking military law." — Websters New World Dictionary, 2003, Wiley Publishing, Inc.
_____________________________________________________________
A couple of months ago, I submitted an article on U.S. Sen. Mark Kelly (AZ-D), and five other individuals' announcement in a video in which they stated members of the military didn't have to comply with orders they believed were not lawful. — "Is It Really Sedition or Reckless Gibberish?" — Grant Couty Beat, Nov. 27, 2025.
Of the six, only Mr. Kelly has exposed himself to the possibility of a military court-martial — even though he retired from the Navy and is now a U.S. Senator.
Or, thought he had retired.
A few of the others in the televised notice served a few years in the armed forces but hadn't retired from any branch of the services.
What's the difference?
Apparently, there's a substantial difference.
Being a USMC veteran, I previously believed once a person hadn't "reupped" for another term of employment in whatever service they were in, they were through with their military obligation.
For the most part, that's true.
However, as I now understand, any former service member retired from the military and receiving retirement pay from the military, is still considered a member of the military.
Whether they're aged 45 or above they can be recalled to active duty if the government decides their skills and experience are needed in certain emergency situations.
I don't believe such drastic measures happen very often, but the option exists if circumstances require it.
Or, in Sen. Kelly's predicament, if the Department of War and Navy believes he has violated military law by publicly announcing his opinion that service members can ignore or fail to comply with a superior's "order," he could be summoned to appear for court-martial.
Sen. Kelly "retired" with the Navy rank of Captain (O-6) — "Colonel" in other services. He is 61-years old.
The question behind all this commotion is why would Kelly suddenly proclaim he thinks members of the military do not have to comply with orders they may believe are not lawful or conflict with a service member's sense of right and wrong?
What is his motive?
Other than trying to remain a thorn in Trump's butt — Kelly is an Arizona Democrat, while his Commander-in-Chief is Republican — his motives are not well understood.
In Trump's second impeachment proceeding Kelly voted to convict Trump for insurrection in the "Jan. 6 protests" on the nation's Capital. He was later acquitted.
Nevertheless, there's no love lost between the two.
Secondly, what does Kelly hope to gain?
I can think of only one logical reason why Sen. Kelly would pull such a ridiculous stunt: Publicity.
Since Kelly has worked for the government nearly his entire adult life — Navy pilot, NASA astronaut and U.S. Senator — he has limited experience in private industry.
Many career federal and state elected office holders realize public recognition — and likeability — is, probably, the most important part of the job. Without name identity and a list of accomplishments to brag about, a politician's continued tenure can be in jeopardy by the whims of voters.
Then, there's the old adage "Bad publicity is better than no publicity."
Not certain this is what Kelly had in mind when he appeared in the video and uttered his bewildering remark.
If so, then it worked. He got the attention of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth who recently announced an investigation of Kelly would be opened by the Pentagon.
In defiance, Kelly said he wasn't afraid — he'd faced worse things.
Like, the possibility of losing a $175,000-a-year U.S. Senator salary and demotion in military rank?
Still unanswered is the fact Kelly must have known the rules and regulations regarding a retired "Lifer Officer" and their continued obligation to military service if the need ever arose.
Unfortunately, he may really believe military members can randomly disregard orders they believe are unjust, but a Judge Advocate General (JAG) prosecutor may prove otherwise in a court-martial proceeding.
The Judge Advocate General Corps is the military's legal department, consisting of lawyers and related personnel.
What happens if Kelly is court-martialed and convicted? Guess we'll find out if it goes that far.
Personally, from what I've seen and heard, I can't imagine a military tribunal being overly sympathetic to Captain Kelly's instance that orders can be ignored or disobeyed. Especially, since he intentionally appeared in a publicly released video promoting this notion.
The concept of discipline, following orders and adherence to "chain of command" formality would be adversely impacted if everyone could simply reject the edicts they didn't like.
The military is not a democracy predicated upon the varying thoughts and actions of its soldiers, sailors and airmen. It is a top-down regimented organization established with the sole purpose of defending citizens of the United States from all enemies — foreign and domestic.
Until his case is concluded, Kelly can continue his version of "A Rebel Without A Cause" — careless foolishness intended to appeal to the naive minds of those not familiar with the reasons for military discipline and obedience.
