The Fascism Is Happening Live On TV

from the not-how-any-of-this-is-supposed-to-work dept

Mark Kelly—former Navy combat pilot, astronaut, sitting United States Senator—stated a simple legal fact on video: members of the US military can refuse illegal orders. Not as opinion. Not as political positioning. As established law codified in the Uniform Code of Military Justice and affirmed at Nuremberg when “I was following orders” was rejected as defense for war crimes.

The Trump Administration opened a federal investigation into him for saying this.

Jesse Watters praised the investigation on Fox News: “You have to make examples out of people.”

Slow down. Read that again. One more time. Let it register fully.

A sitting senator stated constitutional law. The executive branch opened an investigation into him for stating it. State propaganda praised this as making an example.

This isn’t approaching fascism. This isn’t fascism-adjacent. This is fascism—the actual thing, not the metaphor, happening in real time on national television while we debate whether calling it fascism is too divisive.

Let’s be precise about the mechanics. The Trump Administration isn’t investigating Kelly for corruption or lawbreaking. It’s investigating him for defending the principle that law constrains executive power. The investigation isn’t meant to find wrongdoing—it’s meant to intimidate through spectacle of state punishment. The message isn’t “we enforce laws” but “invoke constitutional constraints and we come for you.”

And Watters—state propagandist on the regime’s preferred network—praises this openly: “You have to make examples out of people.” That’s Goebbels. Not as hyperbole. As accurate historical parallel. Making examples means using state violence visibly enough that others learn to submit without needing to be targeted. The cruelty is the point. The intimidation is the goal. The investigation is the punishment.

Kelly defended the constitutional framework distinguishing American military forces from authoritarian ones—the framework saying law constrains power, that orders can be illegal, that service members have the duty to refuse commands violating constitutional or international law. This is why Admiral Holsey resigned over Caribbean boat strikes. He understood that following illegal orders doesn’t protect you—it implicates you.

And now the Trump Administration investigates Kelly for defending this principle while Fox News calls for him to be made an example.

Think about what this means. If you can be investigated by federal authorities for stating that military personnel can refuse illegal orders, then there are no illegal orders. If defending constitutional constraints on executive power becomes grounds for federal investigation, then constitutional constraints no longer exist. If senators can be “made examples of” for invoking established law, then law has been replaced by will.

This is the mechanism. This is how constitutional republics die. Not through formal coup or dramatic collapse but through making it dangerous to invoke constitutional protections. You don’t repeal the law protecting refusal of illegal orders—you just investigate anyone who mentions it until no one dares. You don’t ban opposition—you make examples until opposition becomes unthinkable. You don’t eliminate the Constitution—you prosecute people who cite it until citing it becomes sedition.

Eventually no one invokes it. Eventually no one remembers it protected anything. Eventually “the president ordered it” becomes sufficient justification for any action, any violation, any atrocity. That’s the world this investigation is building. That’s the world Watters is praising. That’s the world taking shape while we watch.

Kelly is doing what constitutional officers do: defending that law constrains power, that orders can be illegal, that military serves Constitution rather than personal loyalty to whoever holds office. This isn’t radical. This isn’t partisan. This is baseline constitutional governance—the floor beneath which lies only authoritarianism.

The Trump Administration is doing what authoritarian regimes do: weaponizing state power against those defending constitutional constraints, using federal investigation as punishment for opposition, making examples to terrorize others into silence.

Watters is doing what fascist propagandists do: praising political persecution on state television, normalizing investigation-as-intimidation, celebrating the “examples” that teach everyone else to submit.

This is it. This is the thing. Not the prologue, not the warning sign, but the actual consolidation of authoritarian power happening on Fox News while many Americans legislate on whether noticing this is “Trump Derangement Syndrome.”

A senator stated constitutional law. The regime opened an investigation. State media praised making an example of him. And we’re supposed to worry that calling this “fascist” is too inflammatory?

The scandal isn’t the word. The scandal is that it’s accurate. They’re doing it. Openly. On television. While scolding anyone who names it as divisive.

Kelly is correct. The law is clear. Military personnel can and must refuse illegal orders. Stating this is not sedition—it’s constitutional duty.

Investigating him for stating it is not governance—it’s fascism.

Call it what it is. Without apology. Without hedge. Without the cowardice that mistakes silence for civility.

Because the alternative—the world where constitutional law becomes grounds for investigation, where “making examples” is normal, where all orders are legal because the leader gave them—that world is being built right now.

Not in some dystopian future. Today. On Fox News. By the Trump Administration.

With federal investigations and propaganda praise and audiences nodding along as if political persecution were patriotism rather than the exact thing the Founders built constitutional protections to prevent.

This is fascism.

And it’s happening.

Mike Brock is a former tech exec who was on the leadership team at Block. Originally published at his Notes From the Circus.

Filed Under: , , , , , , , ,
Companies: fox news

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “The Fascism Is Happening Live On TV”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
30 Comments
Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

No, not “can”, ARE LEGALLY AND CONSTITUTIONALLY OBLIGATED TO.

But, as has been pointed out, the leadership don’t have to help them determine that. And as Harold Hering learned, one can be fired just for asking how one might do so. Should’ve been given a medal or something, and maybe been asked to participate in solving that problem—à la “safety culture”, for similar reasons—but the status quo persisted for the 50 years it took us to actually get an insane president.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2

if an officer wants to take a stand when faced with illegal orders they can and should just refuse the order.

I agree; but if one can be fired for merely asking how one could judge the legality, I can’t imagine actually refusing an order would end any differently. At which point the person will be replaced.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3

Possibly so, but it still leaves the door open for them to keep their job if the other side decides it’s a fight they’re not going to win or will take too much work, as well as encouraging others to also fight back rather than immediately fold, and even if they do eventually lose their job they still kept it and acted as an obstacle longer than if they’d immediately quit and gotten out of the way.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
MrWilson (profile) says:

Trump’s supporters, like Trump himself, if being honest (ha!) will reply, “I don’t care, I want this to happen.”

They’ve never cared about the Constitution except as a weapon to be used against others and as a get-out-of-responsibility free card to use when someone calls them out. Hence the hypocrisy that they defend their harassing and threatening language as “free speech” but call for the persecution and prosecution of the free speech with which they disagree.

They think of the Constitution the same way they do the bible and America itself. Their uneducated, unnuanced gut feeling about what it is and what it contains is more truthy to them than actually being aware of what’s in it and what its nature actually is.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
KeillRandor (profile) says:

Fascism...

The US became a fascist dictatorship the moment Trump got elected again. That they’re incompetent and therefore do not have the total power they want or use what they have effectively, doesn’t change this.

That this was always obviously going to happen (due to the knowledge of Project 2025) is why Trump’s re-election remains as much of a black mark on the US as its support and use of slavery.

Thad (profile) says:

Re:

The US became a fascist dictatorship the moment Trump got elected again. That they’re incompetent and therefore do not have the total power they want or use what they have effectively, doesn’t change this.

Of course it does. If they don’t have total power then by definition it’s not a dictatorship.

Fascist, though? Yeah, they’re definitely that.

Ethin Probst (profile) says:

Mark Kelly—former Navy combat pilot, astronaut, sitting United States Senator—stated a simple legal fact on video: members of the US military can refuse illegal orders. Not as opinion. Not as political positioning. As established law codified in the Uniform Code of Military Justice and affirmed at Nuremberg when “I was following orders” was rejected as defense for war crimes.

I don’t mean to be that pedant guy, but this isn’t actually codified anywhere in the UCMJ. All the UCMJ says (in art. 92) is “Any person subject to this chapter who violates or fails to obey any lawful general order or regulation; having knowledge of any other lawful order issued by a member of the armed forces, which it is his duty to obey, fails to obey the order; or is derelict in the performance of his duties; shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.” Legal Eagle has quite a long video describing just how nuanced this is. Even (say) murder is nuanced, because you might reasonably say that an officer being ordered to assassinate a civilian is manifestly unlawful, but the text of Art. 118 leaves a lot of wiggle room: “Any person subject to this chapter who, without justification or excuse, unlawfully kills a human being, when such person has a premeditated design to kill; intends to kill or inflict great bodily harm; is engaged in an act which is inherently dangerous to another and evinces a wanton disregard of human life; or is engaged in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of burglary, rape, rape of a child, sexual assault, sexual assault of a child, aggravated sexual contact, sexual abuse of a child, robbery, or aggravated arson; is guilty of murder, and shall suffer such punishment as a court-martial may direct, except that if found guilty under clause (1) or (4), such person shall suffer death or imprisonment for life as a court-martial may direct, unless such person is otherwise sentenced in accordance with a plea agreement entered into between the parties under section 853a of this title (article 53a).”

All of this said, there is precedent for disobeying manifestly unlawful orders. But most officers in the military, from my understanding, are not intended to know what and what is not “manifestly unlawful,” and the default is to assume that if you are given an order, it is lawful (because it is presumed that your superiors would not give you an order if it were unlawful).

Rocky (profile) says:

Re:

The statement “members of the US military can refuse illegal orders” is 100% accurate, the problem is in determining if an order is illegal because most members of the military don’t possess the legal acumen to make that call unless it’s something blatantly obvious – like “kill the prisoners”.

TL;DR: Article 92 only pertains to lawful orders and has no bearing on illegal orders but the devil is in details.

Ethin Probst (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Articles 90, 91 and 92 mention the terms “lawful”, because orders are presumed to be lawful by default. A servicemember has no time to debate the lawfulness of orders handed down by their superiors. That’s the job of the courts. Sure, a servicemember can refuse unlawful orders. But to simplify it down to “it’s codified in the law itself” is stretching things, I would think. If a servicemember refuses to execute an order, they risk a 50-50 that the court finds that the order was, in fact, lawful. So I raised this because things are a lot more nuanced/complicated than just “they have a duty to refuse unlawful orders”.

Rocky (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

If the orders are presumed to be “lawful” there is no need to re-iterate that in the articles mentioned. By explicitly stating that military personnel must follow lawful orders they are implicitly stating there can be unlawful orders that can be refused, ie orders that breaks other articles or laws. That means if we remove the word “lawful” from the mentioned articles, all orders are always valid even if they break other articles in the USMCJ.

TL;DR: It’s every soldiers duty to adhere to the articles laid out in the USMCJ which also means that they have a duty not to follow orders that are unlawful according to the USMCJ.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2

they have a duty not to follow orders that are unlawful according to the USMCJ.

Sure, easy to say. It’s already been mentioned that someone (Hering) was fired for asking how to tell whether an order is legal. Has any American service member ever gotten into serious trouble for obeying an illegal one? We know the U.S. won’t let them end up at the International Criminal Court. Do we have any high-profile stories of U.S. military refusing illegal orders, with good outcomes?

The torture by American military members at Guantanamo Bay was well documented. I don’t recall anyone ever being prosecuted for giving or following those orders. Apparently 25% of respondents to a recent poll of service members said they’d refuse “obviously illegal” orders, such as torture, although I can’t recall learning of anyone doing so back then; plus, that’s quite a small number, and who knows how many people didn’t respond because they were concerned about retaliation.

JMT (profile) says:

Re:

But most officers in the military, from my understanding, are not intended to know what and what is not “manifestly unlawful,” and the default is to assume that if you are given an order, it is lawful…

Officers in particular absolutely should have a sense of what is and isn’t lawful. There may be a significant grey area between clearly legal and clearly illegal (something that may not be resolved until after the fact and once lawyers have weighed in), but we’re talking abut a president that had to be talked down from the suggestion that the military shoot peaceful protesters in the legs. Anybody who doesn’t think that order would be “manifestly unlawful” shouldn’t be in command or even in a position to follow it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Anybody who doesn’t think that order would be “manifestly unlawful” shouldn’t be in command or even in a position to follow it.

Okay. I agree. But people did follow those orders, and how many are in prison—or in court with a possibility of prison or even just dismissal—for it?

Human Rights Watch claims (in relation to law enforcement brutality in June):

Journalists, protesters, and legal observers have filed several lawsuits against the City and County of Los Angeles and the DHS regarding the harm caused during these protests. Past lawsuits regarding law enforcement misconduct during protests in Los Angeles have cost taxpayers millions of dollars in settlements, but secured little to no accountability for the agencies and senior officials responsible for the abuse nor changes in law enforcement practice.

Anonymous Coward says:

This is fascism.

Um, technically, this is not fascism.

The shortest definition of fascism is palingenetic ultranationalism: an extreme form of nationalism that refers to an imagined past in which the country was Great, and should now be made Great Again.

There’s no ultranationalism in this affair. But it’s full-blown authoritarianism, which is bad enough.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Saying the quiet part VERY loud

The more the regime and it’s supporters push this the more they give away that even if you buy the claim that none of Trump’s orders so far have been illegal even they know that he very much intends to give illegal orders in the future, otherwise the reminder to the military that soldiers not only can refuse illegal order but have an obligation to do so wouldn’t have bothered them in the slightest.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a BestNetTech Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

BestNetTech community members with BestNetTech Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the BestNetTech Insider Shop »

Follow BestNetTech

BestNetTech Daily Newsletter

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Get all our posts in your inbox with the BestNetTech Daily Newsletter!

We don’t spam. Read our privacy policy for more info.

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
BestNetTech Deals
BestNetTech Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the BestNetTech Insider Discord channel...
Loading...