You are missing the point. Those comments are posted by members or people who are otherwise sympathetic to the Oathkeepers.
It’s an organization based on voluntary membership. The views and comments of the members are the views of the organization, regardless of the official line.
Read the comments sections for yourself. I didn’t even have to cherry pick - those eightish quotes are from the first 20 or 30 comments appended to the first article I looked at.
If that isn’t enough for you, then you aren’t going to be convinced by anything short of a photograph of the board in hoods and robes.
Who asking these morons to do a single one of the things they’re swearing not to do?
The comments page is overwhelmed with white supremacist nonsense. There appears to be one or two people objecting the racism, but the majority seem fine with it.
Even putting the racist stuff aside, these people are ultra-right, paranoid, mental defectives. Someone should take their guns away from them before they hurt themselves.
Not much of a trick when they’re being backed up by American money and weapons. It’s not like those Arab armies were military powerhouses. Whoever has the planes and the missiles is going to win. Technology wins wars. The people have nothing to do with it.
Not in a fair fight, though. Israel destroyed Egypt’s air force on the ground in an unprovoked sneak attack, and after that it was cake. Israel had the air power.
I object to the whole idea that the personal character or cause of the fighters on the ground has anything to do with who wins a war. It’s almost always just numbers and technology.
Weren’t the Arab forces backed up by Soviet weapons and money?
And yes, JohnClay and others, no matter what your personal beliefs might be about that bunch, you can bet at the core is a rich melange of racist paranoid delusion.
And I’m not a knee jerk liberal. I’ve read the Turner Diaries, I grew up in Montana and used to troll the Stormfront board. I am well aquainted with the lingo and the code words. All of them are present there.
To continue citing them as some sort of “good” organization makes you look foolish, and makes it look like you support the ideas that the membership espouses.
As for saying that the comments are unmoderated and are not a reflection of the group, you are fooling yourself. They know EXACTLY what sort of comments they are going to get, and have that “unmoderated” clause so that they can wave the “plausible deniability” flag.
Especially considering the last quote in my post on the previous page, in which a commentator takes another to task for openly posting racist comments - not because racism is wrong, but because it might make the group look bad. He then tells him to “educate his brothers” using private messages instead.
ETA: Can we leave the Israel stuff out of it? There are plenty of threads in which discussion of the Arab-Israeli wars is appropriate, but this is not one of them.
More to the point, you’ll notice that they make no mention of defending the rights of noncitizens, and I suspect they’d have no problem at all with no-fly lists in general.
It’s just velcro. So basically he just put the shit on and said “quick take a picture so we can post it on the internet and show how cool we are”. None of those two tabs or patch are authorized for wear. Soldiers are not allowed to just wear that shit.
But buying funny little tabs and patches is kind of a novelty overseas. There are little shops on just about every base that will custom make stuff like that for you–of varying quality. They’re good for a laugh, but you can’t actually wear any of it.
I can tell a couple things from that picture:
The soldier is on base, not out patrolling. The AC unit, gravel, and wooden ladder are all obvious indicators. He is probably standing right outside of his room.
His uniform and Kit are way too clean. It’s either brand new or he just never leaves the FOB.
So it was all just a quick photo op. “Lets go put on our kit and our club patches and take a picture!” Lame…
'I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids."
Thank goodness the OathKeepers are there to keep a watchful eye on things. :smack:
That’s not quite what the UCMJ says. Under Article 2 of Sub-Chapter I, it’s pretty clear that the persons subject to the UCMJ are those who are/were U.S. military, serving in some capacity with or employed by the U.S. military, or prisoners of war.
Otherwise, Slobodan Milosevic, after he was arrested by Yugoslav police, might’ve been subject to a U.S. court-martial under your scenario had he been extradited.
I share the reaction of some folks who say, “Where were these guys during the Bush administration?” However, I see that the organization’s founder, Stewart Rhodes, published a paper as long ago as 2005 vigorously denouncing the holding of “enemy combatants” without trial. So at least in his case, this is not merely opportunistic outrage directed against Obama. I’m willing to grant him the benefit of the doubt, but I fear he will be unable to keep his organization from being swamped by racist paranoid yahoos.
I am disturbed by the authoritarian tone of the response to this organization, along the lines that “the Courts decide what the Constitution says, and you have to go along with whatever they say!” Sure, it’s preferable to do things by due process of law, and “suffer while evils are sufferable,” like the Declaration of Independence says. But are we going to say that we should have told Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks, “Shut up and go to the back of the bus: Plessy decided what’s constitutional, and you mere American citizens have no voice.” Beyond some point, you have to say that the courts and the Congress have dropped the ball, and the ordinary people have to take some kind of action. Preferably nonviolent action, like King and Parks did, but remember that their actions, though peaceful, were illegal. Rhodes here is making an effort, maybe not a very good effort, to define what that point is. I could wish to see his efforts improved, rather than consigned to the hands of the white supremacist lunatics who doubtless wish to wrest control of his group.
A fair point, but remember, King and Parks were not civil servants, nor military. When police officers and soldiers are encouraged to take an “oath” of the Oathkeepers’ kind, that’s just a step beyond civil disobedience; it skirts the line of fomenting insubordination and mutiny. If there is political conflict within the police forces, effective command structure might break down and effective policing become impossible. If soldiers are defying their officers’ orders today they might be shooting them tomorrow, as on Russia’s western front in 1917.
Of course, it is very highly unlikely any of the orders the Oathkeepers are swearing not to follow will ever be given, or that giving them will even be seriously considered.
Well, consider the U.S. Army being turned loose on the Bonus Marchers back in 1932, or the occasions in the 1960s where the police attacked peaceful protesters, some of whom I believe even had permits for their protests. Would it really have been an intolerable risk for those police or soldiers to have disobeyed their orders to assault people who were merely exercising their First Amendment rights? Worse than the risk to the Constitution from following their orders?
I don’t mean that as a merely rhetorical question. After all, the First Amendment has survived the suppression of the Bonus Marchers and the 1960s protesters in reasonably good shape; who knows if it would have survived police or army disobedience? But again, there’s got to be some limiting point. We need every American general to be relatively certain that, if he orders his men to arrest the president and the Congress and install himself as dictator, that the order will not be followed.
I agree. So, given that we already have, and can tolerate, at least some right of the soldiers and police to disobey unconstitutional orders, the question is, do the Oathkeepers draw the line in the right place?
I would say they don’t, on the state secession issue. I think that the Constitution clearly envisaged calling out the militia and armed forces to suppress rebellions and insurrections, which would include secession.
On the other issues, I think they have the right general idea, although the other posters are right that they’re carelessly worded. And while several of their orders they won’t obey are far-fetched, I would say that trying American citizens in front of military tribunals came scary close during the Bush administration, with guys like Padilla; the administration pretty clearly said that they could have tried Padilla in front of a tribunal if Bush had ordered it. Obama’s improved things a bit, but our constitutional protections still aren’t as strong as they were before Bush.