By Christopher Moore
When I was in boot camp, the Articles of the UCMJ were drilled into my head.
And I mean drilled.
One of my jobs was “Prac Recruit.” No special perks. No extra pay. No secret handshake.
My duty was to memorize the Articles of the UCMJ, the General Orders, rank structure, and all the other questions that would be on the final written exam word for word. Then, whenever we had “down time”… which usually meant standing in line waiting for the next ass-ripping… I had to stand in front of the platoon and sound off practice questions.
In non-Marine language, that means yelling questions and answers as loud as humanly possible while 80 recruits screamed them back in unison.
So when I talk about the UCMJ, I’m not pulling this out of my ass.
I know what it is.
I can’t speak for every branch, but I’m pretty sure the government makes it very clear to everyone in uniform that, for a period of time, Uncle Sam owns your ass.
Even the Air Force.
Even Mark Kelly.
The Uniform Code of Military Justice applies to active-duty service members and reservists. It is enforced with enthusiasm.
It also technically applies to retired military personnel drawing pensions, although historically that provision has been used less often as Article 125. Which prohibits engaging in any sexual position other than missionary. Soooo, it’s enforced next to never.
All of this brings us to the curious case of Senator Mark Kelly and Whiskey Pete Hegseth.
What Actually Happened
This wasn’t just about Kelly calling him “Whiskey Pete.” People were doing that long before he was SECDEF.
Kelly posted a video criticizing Hegseth’s leadership and questioning whether the Secretary of Defense was fit for the job. He also cited the UCMJ article that covers lawful and unlawful orders.
UCMJ Article 92 covers failure to obey lawful orders and regulations. The key word is lawful.
A useful distinction:
Article 92 covers failure to obey lawful orders or regulations.
Articles 90 and 91 also deal with disobedience, but only when the order is lawful and comes from the specific superior described in those articles.
In plain English, if an order is unlawful, the issue is not which article punishes disobeying it. The issue is whether the order was lawful in the first place.
That was the jab that made headlines, but the real issue was the broader public criticism.
In other words, Kelly didn’t just toss out a nickname.
He publicly questioned the competence and judgment of the man running the Department of Defense.
Hegseth responded by suggesting Kelly should be recalled to active duty and court-martialed.
Sit with that.
The Secretary of Defense suggested using military law against a retired Navy captain and sitting U.S. Senator because he posted a video calling him unfit.
That’s not exactly a textbook example of emotional stability.
Can They Actually Do That?
Yes. But there’s a big “but.”
Technically, retired military officers remain subject to the UCMJ.
That part is real.
But in practice, this authority is used extremely rarely and typically for serious criminal misconduct.
Not for posting a spicy video on social media.
If criticizing the Secretary of Defense were enough to trigger a court-martial, every VFW hall in America would need its own legal department.
This matters because it isn’t really about a nickname or a video.
It’s about whether criticism of powerful officials should be treated like insubordination.
That should concern every veteran and every American.
The military exists to defend the Constitution, not to function as an emotional support animal for thin-skinned politicians.
Public officials are supposed to withstand criticism.
That’s part of the job description.
If your first instinct when someone questions your competence is “court-martial him,” that says more about your temperament than it does about your critic.
My Take
I’ve seen lance corporals absorb more abuse before breakfast than some politicians can handle in a single tweet.
The UCMJ is critical to maintaining operational discipline.
The men and women of the U.S. military operate under enormous pressure and are expected to keep their composure.
That standard should apply even more to the Secretary of Defense.
If a video from a retired Navy captain and astronaut rattles you this badly, the problem may not be the video.
It may be the person sitting in the chair.
Now that my opinion is out of the way, let’s look at the legal paradox.
Kelly is a legally elected Senator. His job requires him to speak on behalf of his constituents and oversee the military, including its funding and operations.
If Senators decide whether the military gets funded and how much money it receives, why on earth would we give the military authority over a sitting Senator?
That would erase the separation of powers and create a massive conflict of interest clusterfuck.
The Constitution is pretty clear about it.
Senator Kelly’s current office supersedes the reach of the UCMJ in this context.
The courts and the Constitution agree. That’s why Whiskey Pete lost the case, and is about to lose the appeal. Common fucking sense.
Kelly has every right to criticize Hegseth. In fact, it is more responsibility than right.
Hegseth has every right to disagree.
But threatening to use the UCMJ as a weapon against a political critic is a dangerous and deeply insecure move.
Sounds like something a drunk reporter would do.
That’s not leadership.
That’s ego wrapped in authority.
And if your skin is that thin, maybe the nickname fits.
-The Gun Loving Hippie Dad … Who Fixes Stuff
Keep reading
Quarter Century for The Corps
Service and the oath behind the criticism.
The Founders Never Asked Us to Stop Thinking
Why constitutional arguments require independent thought.
