The "Oathkeepers" Need to Be Put in Check - Now
Who are the "Oathkeepers?" Groups of law enforcement and military personnel who swear a new oath of allegiance to ideals put forth by the group, not by consent of the governed or as proscribed by the Constitution these "patriots" claim to be defending. Need convincing that they aren't just paramilitary malcontents who happen to be wearing uniforms? Look at their website.
On www.oathkeepers.org they list ten "Orders we will not obey" which include some admirable ideals. That some of what they espouse is admirable isn't in question. Of course every soldier has the obligation to fight orders which, for example, might constitute a war crime. Where the problems lie are with the motivations and perceptions of their place.
Look around the Oathkeepers site more and some troubling things show themselves. They say "We are not advocating violence" yet that is exactly the subtext of what is on the site. References aren't made to some possible threat to the Constitution in the future, but to the sitting government and their Commander in Chief, President Barack Obama.
The Oathkeepers are nothing more than an anti-Obama paramilitary group. And what they are doing should be reprimanded by their chain of command. To pledge to willfully obey orders is in direct conflict with the Uniform Code of Military Justice, or UCMJ. Some of what they suggest sounds like conspiracy to commit sedition.
Just one example: Oathkeepers pledge "We will NOT obey orders to invade or subjugate any state that asserts it's sovereignty." Well, if Union troops would have acted that way, we might have a slave-legal confederacy in the South now.
They further invalidate themselves by aligning with Glenn Beck's 9/12 movement. By doing that they cement the perception that they are nothing but a political movement.
But on to their veiled threats against the current leadership. There is a photo posted here that shows a soldier in Iraq wearing what appear to be uniform patches saying "OATHKEEPER" AND "THREE PERCENT" as though they were military issue. Of course, they are not. Read some of the comments and understand what some of these "Oathkeepers" are really about.
The person who sent the photo references the so-called "Sipsey Street Irregulars" which boasts to be "the gathering place for a merry band of Three Percenters" Apparently, "Three Percenters" are people who pledge to take up arms against any attempt at gun control.
Read about the Sipsey Street Irregulars here and learn what right wing paramilitary activity looks like when it in formative stages. One quote on the page says "All politics in this country now is just dress rehearsal for civil war." - Billy Beck, August 2009.
My point is this - whenever any military under civilian control decides it doesn't want to be under that civilian control, the results are rarely good. It doesn't matter how worthy the intentions of some of the Oathkeepers are. Some of them plainly aren't. It's incumbent upon military commanders and police chiefs to root out this menace before it metastasizes and spreads.
Already, the group plans on mass mailing kits to active duty military outlining what they are about and seeking recruits. It's not a violation of free speech to suggest military commanders do not allow that. Just because a person is in the military or on a police force doesn't give them the right to arbitrarily interpret laws and act according to what they perceive as threat.
Published by Jeff Musall - Featured Contributor in Sports
Jeff Musall has a passion for writing, a knack for frank and informed expression, and a desire to engage the minds of readers. His work has been featured in newspapers, magazines, and various online venues... View profile
-
Law Enforcement Articles: The Need for Interview and Interrogation Training
At no time in our modern history have more demands been placed upon the law enforcement officer.
Communities are extremely concerned about crime and they are demanding that...
- Urban Warfare Presents a Challenge to Modern Day Military Commanders Due to modern advancements in technology and urban growth military commanders find themselves fighting battles in civilian sectors.
-
FTC and Postal Investigations Service: The Latest Scams and Fraud
What the latest scam and fraud are and how to recognize them.
- Controversial Co-Dependents: Data Mining and Information Sharing The phrase "data mining" remains politically inflammatory. But how is it really being used in most of the government today and can it facilitate better information sharing?
-
911, 9/11: Why Terrorism Will Always Be a Law Enforcement Problem
Investigating why the US military is intrinsically unsuited for addressing terrorists, murderers, evildoers, or any other criminal you can imagine.
- Military Watchdog Criticizes New York Congressman for "Flippant" Attitude Toward C...
- Law Enforcement Careers
- Why Private Security and Law Enforcement Should Work Together
- The Development of Non-Lethal Weapons for Law Enforcement
- Did the Feminist Movement Go Too Far and Are We All Suffering as a Result?
- Mexico and the Drug War
- Law Enforcement Careers Available in the United States Army
|
|
16 Comments
Post a CommentJeff, I am not a member of Oath Keepers, however am a Vietnam era vet. You have a right to speak your opinion on the backs of people that sacrificed for you. Now that you have skewed the facts of the intentions of Oath Keepers to maintain your right to liberty I would like to thank you for intriguing further my interest in this honorable rabble that you persistently abuse. May they continue to disarm the domestic enemies within so that you can further display your hatred of America.Long life to those that would sacrifice for the noble cause of Liberty and may God bless you Jeff.
I have a nephew who is roughly 34 years old who seems to be enchanted with this group "oath Keepers" and others similar twisted "American" freedom fighters.
It scares the hell out of me that he actually believes the crap these "organizations" preach. I'm at a loss as to turnhow to him away from these whacked out followers of the likes of Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh, etc.
Your argument is very similar to when, in the movie Braveheart, William Wallace was brought before the King's judge. He stated that at no point had he ever sworn an oath to the king and the judge replied it matters not, he is your king. You advocate that "consent of the governed is implied as being a citizen or not and that we have no say. Were an illegal order given that wasn't a "war crime" they have a duty to follow and obey even if it is in conflict with the law, constitution, and the conscience of the service member. Your position seems to be, that no one can question any order by POTUS except it being a war crime. That is in direct conflict with the oath taken. It also implies that no one may challenge the establishment simply because it IS the establishment. If that were the history of what we as Americans were about and believe then we wouldn't be a free and independent nation today. I wonder what your position on the Kent State Shooting was?
There is only one clear and complete problem with your position on whether or not these people do or don't follow orders. They swore an oath to "support and defend the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic." They also swore to " obey the orders of the President of the United States and the officers appointed over them." That would all be fine and well but other orders that can be considered as illegal would be orders that are in direct conflict with the US Constitution itself and therefore every man of good conscience must make these determinations for himself. Were POTUS to use the Active US military on US soil the legality to do so couldn't violate "posse comitatus". Also, Bush and Lincoln suspended "habeas corpus". It was ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS and Lincoln and the Military ignored an order to produce a prisoner under habeas corpus. It wasn't until after the Civil War in 1866 that SCOTUS was able to restore habeas corpus to the whole of the nation. Your arg
Further more, the 9/12 and Tea Party Movement are nothing more than the people finally finding their voice. Over half the Tea Party Protestors I know are totally disallusioned Democrats that feel as if they've been hung out to dry. Any time those in Congress feel free to go on national TV and proclaim they know what their constituents want, but will be voting against them anyway we have a problem. Wouldn't you agree?
No, it's not a problem at all. When a person becomes a member of the Oath Keeper organization, he is saying that he took the original oath to defend the Consitiution, and that oath was one that did not expire. At a meeting, if requested, the exact same oath, not another one, is administered so the the members can reaffirm their original oath. 20 years ago a constitutional, nonpartisan, organization would have been swamped with members. Now it's an act of treason to care about and honor the Consitiution of the united states. (As a side note, we're not really concerned about any individual administration. Any administration that issues unconstitutional orders is fundemamentally wrong and those types of orders are not upheld in teh UCMJ.)
Jeff, this is frightening. They set themselves up as judge and jury deciding what the US Constitution means and enforcing it as they see it not as the courts decide it. While I share some of their beliefs (such as that warrantless wiretaps are anathema), these issues have to be decided by the judiciary and not by vigilantes which is what the Oathkeepers will become if they start picking and choosing the laws they wish to enforce and imposing their will on the public.
Jeff, clear thinking article, very succinctly written. Do you get tired of arguing with these guys? It's all rant, rant, rant. No reason in them.
Mike, I agree with you, some really did protest Bush - but not very many. And to those who hold this stuff necessary, remember most of these people already took an oath, the same one those before them took and upheld. It's a slap to them to say their oath wasn't good enough...and Maria, it's hype about what is being assaulted that feeds the paranoia..
Oh, and the "Ten Orders We Will Not Obey" sound reasonable to me, sir. All of them basically say we will not assist our government in subjecting our citizens to unconstitutional actions. America is the land of the never-ending crisis, and its funny how these little emergancies always result in the loss of freedom and/or property.