Oathkeepers.org for US military/police/etc

I think this organisation about following the constitution and bill of rights is very important… (but feel free to disagree)

More details about orders they won’t obey.

Great. They will not obey some orders that THEY say are unconstitutional but neither will they obey orders to participate in a science fiction political fantasy. Bravo for credibility, dudes.

And exactly WHO tells them if order X or Y comes under the umbrella of these acts? The folks at JAG are gonna have a good laugh at them.

Lemme add a few more they may have missed…

11 - I will not obey orders to round up American virgins for sacrifice to the volcano gods.
12 - I will not obey orders by heralds of the Persian Empire to lay down my weapons and make an offering of Earth and Water; I shall demand they come take them.
13 - I will not obey orders to assist any extraterrestrial alien expedition.
14 - I will not obey orders to deliver American children to homosexual-evolution indoctrination camps.
15 - I will not obey orders to round up American brides so that government officials may have the Right Of First Night.
16 - I will not obey orders to unleash the alien technology held at Area 51.
17 - I will not obey orders to organize a Satanic child-rape cult at the Officer’s Club; that’s the Chaplain’s job.
18 - I will not obey orders that involve the possible waking up of Cthulhu.
19 - I will not obey orders to let the President hop on an F18 himself to dogfight the aliens.
20 - I will not obey orders to abstain from performing any personal service requested by a nude Gabrielle Union.
21. - I will not obey orders from the Joker. Unless he’s orderign me to hurt only non-Americans.

But seriously, um, they DO realize there IS constitutional authority to impose states of emergency and quarantines, right?

They are traitors (or potential ones anyway) and need to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law if they take any action to “uphold their oath.”

I don’t know. The rest of the site seems normal enough. I read some of the testimonials and some of the comments on articles. There’s some weird people and some not-so-weird people. It reminds me of some lodge or club or something, where they swear or reswear some general, vague oath. I don’t really see the problem.

If you feel there’s a need to take an oath against turning American cities into concentration camps, you’re a freak. Not just weird, a freak.

They appear to like high-sounding terms like the “American people”. Except the “American people” are composed of individuals. So does this mean that they will not take guns away from a person who is caught robbing a convenience store? He’s part of the “American people”. And that warrantless search thing? No more pulling cars over and searching them, or doing pat-downs on individual Americans arrested for criminal offences - because those are warrantless searches. And the result of the US Civil War is that that the federal government, and states supporting the federal government, have the authority to use force against states “asserting their sovereignty”.

Really? If they refuse to violate the constitution they are traitors?

I’ve been thinking about how the authorities have been using state transit monopolies to completely toss out the 4th amendment showed the Constitution to be essentially meaningless in this day and age, but damn. I guess it doesn’t mean anything at all now.


Off to Great Debates.



[shamelessly stolen from another thread]THIS…IS…CLEVELAND!

Ho ho ho, it seems that there’s dissension in the ranks of Oathkeepers:

A blog, obviously.

My first reaction to this list is this is what happens when they start smoking mushrooms at an NRA convention. Let’s take the list one by one:

  1. We will NOT obey any order to disarm the American people. In other words, they really really like that Second Half of the Second Amendment. Ours is a nation of constitutional law, and the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what the Constitution actually says. I think they got it wrong in Heller, and I note that one of the majority votes was from a justice who thought separate but equal schools were just peachy. Right now, the Supreme Court says there is a constitutional right to own firearms but does not exclude reasonable local controls (you cannot and should not have machine guns, for example). Future Courts may rule the other way. If they do, then refusal to obey the laws as determined by the Court would be criminal acts and any Oathkeepers in law enforcement should be fired for such refusal.

  2. We will NOT obey any order to conduct warrantless searches of the American people, their homes, vehicles, papers, or effects – such as warrantless house-to house searches for weapons or persons. In fact, warrantless searches occur all the time. If a policeman asks if it’s okay if he looks through your car and you let him, that’s a warrantless search. If you let TSA pat you down or go through your luggage at the airport, that’s a warrantless search. If they mean that police shouldn’t break in your house without a warrant, I’m all for that restriction, and that’s exactly the case as it’s always been. If you read their site, their discussion of this point includes “We expect that sweeping warrantless searches of homes and vehicles, under some pretext, will be the means used to attempt to disarm the people.” So there you have it. The first two points of their oath are to protect their version of gun rights, which they feel trump anything any court or legislature might come up with.

  3. We will NOT obey any order to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to trial by military tribunal. Okay, what’s going on here? Reading their site, they state that “international laws of war do not trump our Bill of Rights”. Well, actually, treaties have precedence over everything else. But they appear to be upset over the idea that someone like David Koresch might have been tried by a military tribunal. I’m not aware of any plans for the government to try such groups as the Waco Whackos as domestic terrorists in military courts, and presumably if such a thing were tried then the aggrieved party would get a quick victory in federal court.

  4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state, or to enter with force into a state, without the express consent and invitation of that state’s legislature and governor. The Insurrection Act of 1807 does give the federal government the power to suppress rebellion and insurrection. I agree that the Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2006 gave the president too much leeway to take over local control. But the Insurrection Act has been around a long time with little damage to the republic.

  5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty and declares the national government to be in violation of the compact by which that state entered the Union. In other words, they retain the power to secede. They even state “Upon the declaration by a state that such a breach has occurred, we will not obey orders to force that state to submit to the national government.” We’ve been through this before. It was called the Civil War. They state “In response to the obscene growth of federal power and to the absurdly totalitarian claimed powers of the Executive, upwards of 20 states are considering, have considered, or have passed courageous resolutions affirming states rights and sovereignty.” Funny how this never came up when a white guy was president.

  6. We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps. And they will not obey orders to feed infants to giant pink flesh-eating canaries, either. Seriously, what were they on when they wrote that?

  7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext. Actually a valid point and they quite rightly express indignation over the Japanese-American internment of WW II.

  8. We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to “keep the peace” or to “maintain control” during any emergency, or under any other pretext. We will consider such use of foreign troops against our people to be an invasion and an act of war. I suppose it’s theoretically possible that in extreme emergency, the US might ask the UN for troops to maintain order. This is about as farfetched as #6. But say if the Confederacy were to reappear, I wouldn’t have a problem with British or Canadian forces helping us put down the traitors again.

  9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies, under any emergency pretext whatsoever. I don’t know of any scenario under which the government would confiscate your food. The language sounds a lot like your boilerplate anti-tax mantra when they mention the word “confiscate”. Or they could be worried again about keeping their precious guns. In any event, the proper response to such a statement is “what the Dickens are you talking about?”

  10. We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances. Again, they act as if that is in the works. I would be quite pleased if they were upset about the way that Bush’s campaign rallies would throw out people if they wore the wrong t shirt, but I’m afraid that isn’t their bone of contention. Come to think about it, it’s really hard to see what this little nugget is in reaction to. Maybe they had to come up with 10 before the keg was empty. Or after the keg was empty.

The whole thing reminds me of the movie Dirty Harry where some of the police officers banded together to murder people that they didn’t approve of. The last thing the nation needs is a bunch of armed goons running around with their own oaths and own agenda for how the government should act. There are court systems in place for resolving such differences. When we let armed thugs with an attitude decide what laws they think are valid, then we have chaos. The Oathkeepers are a dangerous breed, indeed.

“I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.” (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

“I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God.” (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)

Seems to me that a number of the items in the Oathkeepers pledge contradict the oath they already took. Therefore they are honor-bound (ha! Like they know the meaning of the word) to resign from their present positions, lest they violate the previous oath. They won’t, of course, because they are a bunch of ignorant, paranoid morons.

I said it in the other thread a week or so ago about Pat Buchanan and I’ll say it again:
These people are dumber than shit. The day the “Oathkeepers” have anything of value to contribute to the national political discourse, I’ll go over to Pat Buchanan’s house and personally fellate him while humming Dixie.
If these assclowns cared half as much about the country as the claim to, they would have taken to the street with pitchforks years ago.
I highly doubt that any law enforcement officer with a level of professionalism above that of Barney Fife takes these assholes seriously.

The military already has the responsibility not to obey illegal orders.

You ain’t just whistlin’ Dixie.

Haven’t there been analogous groups in the Israeli military, that refused to take part in Israel’s military action in Gaza?

The Uniform Code of Military Justice outlines certain circumstances under which a civilian could be tried by a military court. For example, if a civilian contractor accompanies a military unit during a “time of war”, and then goes on some My Lai type shooting spree, he could face penalties under the UCMJ. Seeing as how the Department of Justice may lack jurisdiction in a foreign war zone, I think using a military tribunal in these limited circumstances is well justified.

The OP is Australian. I’m not certain why he considers this organization so important.

Anyway, the Oathkeepers are a classic right-wing militia group, plain and simple. The only unusual thing is that they’re most currently serving military and law enforcement personnel, rather than retired/discharged ones.

There probably is a contingent which just thinks the oath sounds sensible, but most of them are your regular crazies- worried that the New World Order is coming to soften their brains by putting flouride in the water and broadcasting secret brainwashing messages through their TVs.

The militias shows up every time there’s a progressive government in place. The names change (Ku Klux Klan, Posse Comitatus, Aryan Brotherhood, Michigan Militia and so on) but the song remains more or less the same.

They have added a verse recently, though - there’s a growing group of wackos who are declaring themselves sovereign entities and refusing to pay federal taxes.

The only point of interest with the Oathkeepers is the focus on recruitment of law enforcement officials, who are often targets of militia violence (symbol of encroaching government, etc.)

Sounds reasonable to me. But I think the accused will have every opportunity to challenge the authority of the military court and if he is correct the case will be sent to civilian court.

The UCMJ has jurisdiction to try any person for violations of the laws of war in a courts martial. That means civilian, American or otherwise. We just don’t do that very often. It’s not kosher.

As for the oathkeepers. Meh. Like #7, “any form of detention camps under any pretext.” Not even a criminal awaiting his trial in jail? Surely that’s not what they intend, but the whole thing is so poorly worded.