Imagine, if you will, that you’re working as vice-president of a large pharmaceutical company that is under federal investigation for violation of some obscure trade regulation. It’s nothing earth-shattering; no bad medications have reached the market, no lives have been endangered, no competitors driven out of business, no foreign trade sanctions violated.

But your boss is nervous about possible financial losses and damage to his company’s reputation. You have access to the type of information that would likely result in your being called as a witness, and he orders you to give false testimony at the upcoming hearing.

You owe a great deal to this boss, who has mentored you and brought you up through the ranks, paid you well and provided generous benefits and an outstanding retirement plan. You feel tremendous loyalty to him. And, as required for all employees of the company, you have signed a non-disclosure agreement to protect their proprietary information.

But you know that what you are being ordered to do is illegal: it’s perjury, punishable by imprisonment. And even aside from the legal issue, you know that it is morally wrong and in opposition to your own principles.

What do you do?

Well, if you’re me, you start with a few sleepless nights. Then you march yourself into the boss’ office, express your gratitude for the years you’ve been with the company . . .

. . . and tender your resignation.

It won’t get you out of testifying; you will probably still be subpoenaed. But you will be able to give truthful, accurate, objective testimony, and walk away with a clear conscience.

*. *. *

So what is this about? No, I am not working for a less-than-scrupulous pharmaceutical executive, and I am not about to be called to testify before a Congressional committee, grand jury, or court of law (nor have I ever been).

What I am talking about is the Pentagon — headquarters of the United States Department of Defense (DoD) — undertaking an investigation and considering the possibility of recalling Democratic Senator Mark Kelly to active duty for the sole purpose of having him face a court-martial for “serious allegations of misconduct.”

From what I have learned, Kelly, as a retired naval officer, is technically subject to possible recall by the DoD. And there is appellate court precedent stating that it is constitutional to court-martial retired service members. But for what purpose? Surely, not to punish them for speaking out against Donald Trump’s policies?

But that is precisely what is happening in this case. Because Kelly is one of the six members of Congress — two Senators and four Representatives — who posted a video on X reminding members of the armed forces that they have a duty to disobey illegal orders from their superior officers. And Trump — along with his “Secretary of War,” former Fox pretty-boy Pete Hegseth — blew a pair of fuses when they heard that.

Because no one — but no one — has the right, in Trump’s parallel universe, to criticize his lethal bombardment of suspected drug runners in international waters, or his illegal deployment of military troops to establish de facto martial law in our own peaceful cities.

In a statement issued by the DoD, it was pointed out that:

“A servicemember’s personal philosophy does not justify or excuse the disobedience of an otherwise lawful order.” [Natasha Bertrand, CNN, November 24, 2025.]

Fair enough. But what Kelly and the others were referencing were not “lawful” orders, nor were they talking about a service member’s “personal philosophy.” The orders to which they referred are already matters of concern to members of Congress in both houses and from both parties, to the American public at large, and — particularly in the case of the suspected drug smugglers — to the international community as well.

Georgetown University law professor Steve Vladeck has warned:

“Going all the way back to the Founding, we’ve been wary of the exercise of military jurisdiction over civilians — so much so that the Supreme Court has struck down statutes authorizing courts-martial of, e.g., former servicemembers; military contractors; and the dependents of servicemembers. Retired servicemembers differ in that they remain at least theoretically subject to recall, but it still makes no sense to subject individuals to military jurisdiction in perpetuity just because, at some point in the past, they were on active duty.” [Id.]

Senator Adam Schiff has written on X:

“Senator Mark Kelly put his life on the line to serve and defend our nation, always putting the Constitution and his country first. Donald Trump and Pete Hegseth could learn a lot about putting duty before self from Mark and the other brave veterans speaking out.” [Maya Yang, The Guardian, November 24, 2025.]

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer had this to say:

Trump is attempting to use the Pentagon as his personal attack dog. Just days after calling for violence against members of Congress. This is what dictators do. I stand with Sen. Kelly, as should any American who doesn’t want to be ruled by a King.” [Id.]

And Senator Patty Murray added:

“America needs more patriots like Senator Mark Kelly and fewer miserable cowards like Donald Trump and Pete Hegseth.” [Id.]

As for Senator Kelly himself, he is bravely standing his ground. Writing on X, he said:

“If this is meant to intimidate me and other members of Congress from doing our jobs and holding this administration accountable, it won’t work. I’ve given too much to this country to be silenced by bullies who care more about their own power than protecting the Constitution.” [Id.]

Hear! Hear!

Just sayin’ . . .

Brendochka
11/25/25