Uniform Code Of Military Justice - How Does It Work?
Segment #678
Most of America has not been in the military and would, therefore, have no reason to be familiar with the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Senator Kelly and his other veterans knew for certain what they were doing and it was a purposeful attempt to undermine Trump’s authority as Commander-in-Chief. Without being a Vet the info below will explain how perverse and dangerous this video is. There apparently is no red line for what these folks will do to create chaos and put American lives in danger. Kelly is not going to be court martialed or shot or hung as our hyperbolic Dems are saying to distract Trump. The discussion is important.
What Is The Uniform Code Of Military Justice (UCMJ)? In this informative video, we’ll break down the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and its importance in maintaining order within the United States Armed Forces. We’ll cover the key components of the UCMJ, including its structure, which consists of one hundred forty-six articles organized into twelve chapters. Each chapter addresses various aspects of military law, from general provisions to procedures for apprehension and restraint. We’ll also discuss the concept of nonjudicial punishment, which allows commanding officers to address minor offenses swiftly, as well as the different types of military courts known as courts-martial. Understanding the distinctions between summary, special, and general courts-martial is essential for grasping how military justice operates. Additionally, we’ll highlight the punitive articles that define a range of offenses under military law, ensuring that service members are aware of their rights and responsibilities. This video aims to provide a clear overview of the UCMJ and its role in upholding military discipline while protecting the rights of individuals in the service. Join us for this essential discussion about military justice and subscribe to our channel for more informative content on politics and law.
How the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) WorksThe Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) is the foundation of military law in the United States, enacted by Congress in 1950 and effective from 1951. It applies to all active-duty members of the U.S. armed forces, certain reservists, and retirees receiving military pay (like pensions). Its primary purpose is to promote discipline, good order, and readiness by establishing a framework for offenses, punishments, and due process tailored to the unique demands of military service—where split-second obedience can mean life or death, but blind obedience to illegal acts is never excused.Key Principles and Structure
Jurisdiction: The UCMJ covers conduct that prejudices good order and discipline, even if it occurs off-duty or off-base. Active-duty personnel are always subject to it, while retirees like Capt. Mark Kelly (a retired Navy captain) remain under its purview for actions that could be seen as undermining the military (e.g., via Article 2(a)(4), which extends authority over retirees drawing pay). Violations can lead to recall to active duty for trial.
Presumption of Lawfulness: Orders from superiors are presumed legal. Service members must obey promptly unless the order is patently illegal (e.g., "Shoot unarmed civilians for sport"). Doubting an order's legality doesn't justify immediate refusal; personnel should obey first and challenge later through the chain of command or legal channels. This prevents chaos in combat or crises.
Core Articles Relevant to Obedience and Discipline:
Article
Description
Potential Punishments
Article 90
Willfully disobeying a superior commissioned officer.
Dishonorable discharge, confinement up to 5 years, forfeiture of pay.
Article 92
Failure to obey a general order or regulation.
Bad-conduct discharge, confinement up to 2 years.
Article 88
Contempt toward officials (e.g., using rank to criticize the President in a way that incites disrespect).
Dismissal, forfeiture of pay, confinement up to 1 year.
Article 94
Mutiny or sedition (e.g., creating discontent or refusal of duty to override authority).
Death or life imprisonment (rarely imposed; often reduced).
Article 133
Conduct unbecoming an officer (e.g., actions that discredit the service).
Dismissal, forfeiture of pay.
Article 134
General article for disorders/prejudicial conduct (catch-all for undermining morale).
Varies widely.
Enforcement Process:
Investigation: Commanders or military police (e.g., NCIS for Navy) probe allegations.
Preferral of Charges: If probable cause exists, charges are sworn under oath.
Article 32 Hearing: A preliminary review (like a civilian grand jury) assesses evidence.
Court-Martial: Trial by military judge and panel (jury). Types include Summary (minor offenses), Special (mid-level), and General (felony-equivalent). Rights include counsel, witnesses, and appeals.
Non-Judicial Punishment (NJP): For lesser issues, under Article 15—quick administrative sanctions like rank reduction or extra duty, waivable for trial.
The UCMJ balances accountability with protections: It rejects the "Nuremberg defense" (just following orders isn't a shield for crimes) but demands evidence of clear illegality for refusal. Supreme Court cases like United States v. Calley (1973, My Lai massacre) affirm that subordinates must disobey patently unlawful orders, but the bar is high to avoid paralyzing command structures.In practice, the UCMJ fosters a culture where loyalty to the Constitution trumps any individual leader, but it strictly polices actions that erode trust in the chain of command. Violations by high-profile figures, especially retirees, can trigger swift reviews, as seen in recent cases like investigations into post-retirement social media posts.The Video by Capt. Mark Kelly and ColleaguesThe video in question, released on November 18, 2025, features Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ, retired Navy Capt.) and five other Democratic lawmakers with military/intelligence backgrounds: Sens. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI, ex-CIA) and Reps. Jason Crow (D-CO, ex-Army Ranger), Chrissy Houlahan (D-PA, ex-Air Force), Chris Deluzio (D-PA, ex-Navy JAG), and Maggie Goodlander (D-NH, ex-Navy Reserve). Titled something along the lines of a reminder to "uphold the Constitution," it directly addresses active-duty troops and intelligence personnel amid fears of potential "illegal orders" from the incoming Trump administration (e.g., mass deportations, purges, or actions targeting political opponents).Key excerpts from the video (based on reports):
Kelly: "Our laws are clear: You can refuse illegal orders."
Others emphasize oaths to the Constitution over any president, urging personnel to "report up the chain" if faced with unlawful directives.
The group framed it as a public service announcement reinforcing UCMJ duties, especially post-Trump's campaign rhetoric about using the military for domestic enforcement. It went viral, amassing millions of views, but ignited backlash from Trump allies, who dubbed them the "Seditious Six."Why the Video Was Seen as DishonestThe dishonesty stems from a selective, alarmist presentation of UCMJ principles that distorts the code's nuances for partisan gain, potentially misleading viewers on their legal risks:
Oversimplification of "Illegal Orders": While true that the UCMJ (via Articles 90-92 and precedents like U.S. v. Rodgers, 1966) requires disobeying patently illegal orders, the video implies a low bar for refusal—framing it as a blanket "right" without stressing the presumption of lawfulness or the need for clear evidence of criminality. Kelly, as a retired captain with decades of service, knows troops aren't lawyers; this could encourage premature second-guessing, which appellate courts (e.g., U.S. v. Dinger, 2018) have ruled doesn't excuse disobedience. Critics, including Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, called it "despicable, reckless, and false" for preemptively casting doubt on lawful orders from a commander-in-chief without specifics.
reuters.com
Partisan Timing and Motive: Released days before Trump's inauguration, it targets one administration's "potential" actions while ignoring similar risks under any leader. Slotkin defended it as "quoting the UCMJ," but Kelly himself admitted in interviews they weren't citing specific orders—making it speculative fearmongering rather than neutral guidance. X users and veterans (e.g., posts calling it a "partisan stunt") argue it hides behind "free speech" while leveraging military credentials for political leverage, violating the spirit of Article 88's ban on officers using rank for contemptuous speech.
Kelly's Unique Vulnerability: As the only participant still under UCMJ jurisdiction (others are separated, not retired), his lead role amplifies the deceit—he invoked his captain's rank and uniform elements (later criticized by Hegseth for improper display), knowing retirees can face recall for such conduct. This isn't "just speech"; it's an officer modeling potential insubordination, eroding the apolitical ethos officers swear to uphold.
Dan Turrentine, a political talk show co-host, and author Buzz Patterson join “On Balance” to debate the aftermath of the video from several Democrats last week encouraging military members to disobey any illegal orders from the Trump administration.
In short, it's dishonest because it weaponizes a true legal tenet (disobey illegal orders) into a vague call to preemptively distrust leadership, without the caveats that prevent anarchy. As one X post noted, "Kelly knew that [UCMJ education on lawful orders]... There was no good reason for that video."
@RobH02050318
Why It Was Destructive to Military Discipline and the MissionMilitary discipline hinges on instantaneous obedience to maintain cohesion; the mission—defending the nation—demands it. This video undermines both:
Eroding Chain of Command: By urging troops to "refuse" orders from Day 1 of a new administration, it fosters doubt and division. UCMJ Article 94 explicitly punishes actions causing "disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty." In high-stakes ops (e.g., counterterrorism or disaster response), hesitation could cost lives. Hegseth warned it "undermines every aspect of 'good order and discipline,'" echoing Trump's sedition charges (punishable by death under Article 94, though unlikely).
politico.com +1
Veterans on X decried it as "sowing confusion" and "putting military members in the crosshairs."
Politicizing the Apolitical Military: The armed forces must serve civilian leadership impartially, per the Constitution. This video drags service members into partisan battles, risking morale dips (already low amid recruitment woes) and perceptions of a "deep state" resistance. Trump floated arrests; the Pentagon's probe into Kelly (announced Nov. 24, 2025) signals zero tolerance, potentially chilling lawful dissent while amplifying rifts.
nbcnews.com +1
Broader Mission Impact: It distracts from readiness—imagine troops scanning orders for "illegality" instead of executing them. Historical parallels (e.g., post-Vietnam distrust) show such erosion prolongs conflicts and hampers reforms. As a Gulf War vet and astronaut, Kelly's credibility made the damage worse: It normalizes using service for politics, deterring enlistment and fueling narratives of elite hypocrisy.
The Pentagon's response—a "thorough review" of Kelly under UCMJ—highlights the stakes: Possible court-martial for sedition or unbecoming conduct, setting precedent to deter future meddling.
abcnews.go.com
Kelly dismissed it as "intimidation," but as he knows from his oath, the military isn't a democracy—it's a meritocracy bound by law, not vibes.
newsweek.com
This episode, while politically charged, underscores why the UCMJ exists: to protect the mission from exactly this kind of well-intentioned but corrosive interference.
Procedures for Disobeying what is Considered an Illegal Order
How the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) WorksThe Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) is the foundation of military law in the United States, enacted by Congress in 1950 and effective from 1951. It applies to all active-duty members of the U.S. armed forces, certain reservists, and retirees receiving military pay (like pensions). Its primary purpose is to promote discipline, good order, and readiness by establishing a framework for offenses, punishments, and due process tailored to the unique demands of military service—where split-second obedience can mean life or death, but blind obedience to illegal acts is never excused.Key Principles and Structure
Jurisdiction: The UCMJ covers conduct that prejudices good order and discipline, even if it occurs off-duty or off-base. Active-duty personnel are always subject to it, while retirees like Capt. Mark Kelly (a retired Navy captain) remain under its purview for actions that could be seen as undermining the military (e.g., via Article 2(a)(4), which extends authority over retirees drawing pay). Violations can lead to recall to active duty for trial.
Presumption of Lawfulness: Orders from superiors are presumed legal. Service members must obey promptly unless the order is patently illegal (e.g., "Shoot unarmed civilians for sport"). Doubting an order's legality doesn't justify immediate refusal; personnel should obey first and challenge later through the chain of command or legal channels. This prevents chaos in combat or crises.
Core Articles Relevant to Obedience and Discipline:
Article 90
Willfully disobeying a superior commissioned officer.
Dishonorable discharge, confinement up to 5 years, forfeiture of pay.
Article 92
Failure to obey a general order or regulation.
Bad-conduct discharge, confinement up to 2 years.
Article 88
Contempt toward officials (e.g., using rank to criticize the President in a way that incites disrespect).
Dismissal, forfeiture of pay, confinement up to 1 year.
Article 94
Mutiny or sedition (e.g., creating discontent or refusal of duty to override authority).
Death or life imprisonment (rarely imposed; often reduced).
Article 133
Conduct unbecoming an officer (e.g., actions that discredit the service).
Dismissal, forfeiture of pay.
Article 134
General article for disorders/prejudicial conduct (catch-all for undermining morale).
Varies widely.
Enforcement Process:
Investigation: Commanders or military police (e.g., NCIS for Navy) probe allegations.
Preferral of Charges: If probable cause exists, charges are sworn under oath.
Article 32 Hearing: A preliminary review (like a civilian grand jury) assesses evidence.
Court-Martial: Trial by military judge and panel (jury). Types include Summary (minor offenses), Special (mid-level), and General (felony-equivalent). Rights include counsel, witnesses, and appeals.
Non-Judicial Punishment (NJP): For lesser issues, under Article 15—quick administrative sanctions like rank reduction or extra duty, waivable for trial.
The UCMJ balances accountability with protections: It rejects the "Nuremberg defense" (just following orders isn't a shield for crimes) but demands evidence of clear illegality for refusal. Supreme Court cases like United States v. Calley (1973, My Lai massacre) affirm that subordinates must disobey patently unlawful orders, but the bar is high to avoid paralyzing command structures.In practice, the UCMJ fosters a culture where loyalty to the Constitution trumps any individual leader, but it strictly polices actions that erode trust in the chain of command. Violations by high-profile figures, especially retirees, can trigger swift reviews, as seen in recent cases like investigations into post-retirement social media posts.
The Video by Capt. Mark Kelly and Colleagues
The video in question, released on November 18, 2025, features Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ, retired Navy Capt.) and five other Democratic lawmakers with military/intelligence backgrounds: Sens. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI, ex-CIA) and Reps. Jason Crow (D-CO, ex-Army Ranger), Chrissy Houlahan (D-PA, ex-Air Force), Chris Deluzio (D-PA, ex-Navy JAG), and Maggie Goodlander (D-NH, ex-Navy Reserve). Titled something along the lines of a reminder to "uphold the Constitution," it directly addresses active-duty troops and intelligence personnel amid fears of potential "illegal orders" from the incoming Trump administration (e.g., mass deportations, purges, or actions targeting political opponents).Key excerpts from the video (based on reports):
Kelly: "Our laws are clear: You can refuse illegal orders."
Others emphasize oaths to the Constitution over any president, urging personnel to "report up the chain" if faced with unlawful directives.
The group framed it as a public service announcement reinforcing UCMJ duties, especially post-Trump's campaign rhetoric about using the military for domestic enforcement. It went viral, amassing millions of views, but ignited backlash from Trump allies, who dubbed them the "Seditious Six.
"Why the Video Was Seen as Dishonest
The dishonesty stems from a selective, alarmist presentation of UCMJ principles that distorts the code's nuances for partisan gain, potentially misleading viewers on their legal risks:
Oversimplification of "Illegal Orders": While true that the UCMJ (via Articles 90-92 and precedents like U.S. v. Rodgers, 1966) requires disobeying patently illegal orders, the video implies a low bar for refusal—framing it as a blanket "right" without stressing the presumption of lawfulness or the need for clear evidence of criminality. Kelly, as a retired captain with decades of service, knows troops aren't lawyers; this could encourage premature second-guessing, which appellate courts (e.g., U.S. v. Dinger, 2018) have ruled doesn't excuse disobedience. Critics, including Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, called it "despicable, reckless, and false" for preemptively casting doubt on lawful orders from a commander-in-chief without specifics.
reuters.com
Partisan Timing and Motive: Released days before Trump's inauguration, it targets one administration's "potential" actions while ignoring similar risks under any leader. Slotkin defended it as "quoting the UCMJ," but Kelly himself admitted in interviews they weren't citing specific orders—making it speculative fearmongering rather than neutral guidance. X users and veterans (e.g., posts calling it a "partisan stunt") argue it hides behind "free speech" while leveraging military credentials for political leverage, violating the spirit of Article 88's ban on officers using rank for contemptuous speech.
Kelly's Unique Vulnerability: As the only participant still under UCMJ jurisdiction (others are separated, not retired), his lead role amplifies the deceit—he invoked his captain's rank and uniform elements (later criticized by Hegseth for improper display), knowing retirees can face recall for such conduct. This isn't "just speech"; it's an officer modeling potential insubordination, eroding the apolitical ethos officers swear to uphold.
In short, it's dishonest because it weaponizes a true legal tenet (disobey illegal orders) into a vague call to preemptively distrust leadership, without the caveats that prevent anarchy. As one X post noted, "Kelly knew that [UCMJ education on lawful orders]... There was no good reason for that video."
@RobH02050318
Why It Was Destructive to Military Discipline and the MissionMilitary discipline hinges on instantaneous obedience to maintain cohesion; the mission—defending the nation—demands it. This video undermines both:
Eroding Chain of Command: By urging troops to "refuse" orders from Day 1 of a new administration, it fosters doubt and division. UCMJ Article 94 explicitly punishes actions causing "disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty." In high-stakes ops (e.g., counterterrorism or disaster response), hesitation could cost lives. Hegseth warned it "undermines every aspect of 'good order and discipline,'" echoing Trump's sedition charges (punishable by death under Article 94, though unlikely).
politico.com +1
Veterans on X decried it as "sowing confusion" and "putting military members in the crosshairs."
Politicizing the Apolitical Military: The armed forces must serve civilian leadership impartially, per the Constitution. This video drags service members into partisan battles, risking morale dips (already low amid recruitment woes) and perceptions of a "deep state" resistance. Trump floated arrests; the Pentagon's probe into Kelly (announced Nov. 24, 2025) signals zero tolerance, potentially chilling lawful dissent while amplifying rifts.
nbcnews.com +1
Broader Mission Impact: It distracts from readiness—imagine troops scanning orders for "illegality" instead of executing them. Historical parallels (e.g., post-Vietnam distrust) show such erosion prolongs conflicts and hampers reforms. As a Gulf War vet and astronaut, Kelly's credibility made the damage worse: It normalizes using service for politics, deterring enlistment and fueling narratives of elite hypocrisy.
The Pentagon's response—a "thorough review" of Kelly under UCMJ—highlights the stakes: Possible court-martial for sedition or unbecoming conduct, setting precedent to deter future meddling.
abcnews.go.com
Kelly dismissed it as "intimidation," but as he knows from his oath, the military isn't a democracy—it's a meritocracy bound by law, not vibes.
newsweek.com
This episode, while politically charged, underscores why the UCMJ exists: to protect the mission from exactly this kind of well-intentioned but corrosive interference.