We're training warriors, not defenders. We fight wars to win, not to defend. We also don't fight with stupid rules of engagement.We untie the hands of our war fighters to intimidate, demoralize, hunt, and kill the enemies of our country. No more politically correct and overbearing rules of engagement. Just common sense, maximum lethality, and authority for war fighters.>> I want to bring into our coverage, Democratic Senator Gary Peters of Michigan. and he's a member of the Armed Services Committee. Senator ...

Investigation & Legal Aspects - FBI is scheduling interviews with six senators through the Capitol Police, though it doesn't necessarily indicate an ongoing investigation [1][2] - Speech and debate clause protects members of Congress from prosecution for actions connected to their legislative duties [3] - A review is being launched to determine if the video falls under the articles of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), potentially restricting service member speech [6] - The UCMJ applies to retirees, raising questions about threatening a sitting senator with court martial under UCMJ provisions [6][7] - The Pentagon's statement refers to federal laws prohibiting actions interfering with the loyalty, morale, or good order of the armed forces [8] - A 1948 Cold War era statute, 18USC 2387, attempts to criminalize actions intended to interfere with the loyalty of those in service, potentially conflicting with the 1969 Brandenburgg case [9] Military Duty & Orders - Military members have a legal duty to follow all lawful orders, presumed to be lawful, but also a legal duty to disobey unlawful orders [12][13] - Disobeying an order carries the peril of court martial for disobedience, a military-unique crime [13] - Unlawful orders are those known to be unlawful or manifestly illegal, such as ordering a crime [14] - The senator's video failed to provide nuance regarding military members' catch-22 situation when facing potentially unlawful orders [15] - Illegality of an order is a complete defense, but the process involves facing potential court martial or adverse administrative action [16]

Military Justice and Political Implications - The discussion revolves around whether Senator Kelly can be court-martialed for posting a video referencing military law [1][2] - The core issue is whether Senator Kelly's actions, and those of other lawmakers, interfered with military loyalty or good order and discipline [2][3] - The legality of orders is central, with some arguing that defying illegal orders is permissible or even required [3] Administration's Response and Potential Abuse of Power - Concerns are raised about the administration using investigations to punish perceived adversaries [4] - The power to recall retirees to active duty for court-martial is highlighted as a significant threat, regardless of the merit of allegations [5][6] - The administration's willingness to use this power is seen as a potential abuse [6] Political Context and Reactions - Senator Kelly's reaction to the president's criticism is noted, emphasizing the increased threats resulting from his words [7][8] - The heightened threat environment in politics, especially when the president directs anger towards individuals, is acknowledged [9] - The situation is compared to a dictator's playbook, targeting perceived enemies [10] - The actions of Senator Kelly and others are defended as simply quoting the code of military justice to protect military personnel [11] - The discussion suggests the president's actions are an attempt to bully and intimidate, similar to his treatment of reporters [12][13] - The importance of upholding the Constitution, to which all officials and military personnel swear loyalty, is emphasized [14]