Oath Keepers

[JMS]

That would depend on the order,they are not robots(nor should they be)

Its one thing to recieve an order and decline that order on the grounds you think it unlawful. That military officers should do, the are trained and councelled to do.

It's entirely another thing to sign an oath counter to your military oath declairing that traditional powers given to the President; important powers; Powers which have perserved the union, are not going to be followed by you.

That's not patriotism. That's something else entirely. And yes people got shot for things like that in our history. Rightfully so.

[SnyderShrugged]

Its one thing to recieve an order and decline that order on the grounds you think it unlawful. That military officers should do, the are trained and councelled to do.

It's entirely another thing to sign an oath counter to your military oath declairing that traditional powers given to the President; important powers; Powers which have perserved the union, are not going to be followed by you.

That's not patriotism. That's something else entirely. And yes people got shot for things like that in our history. Rightfully so.

They signed an oath that reaffirms their military oath, not contrary to it.

[JMS]

They signed an oath that reaffirms their military oath, not contrary to it.

The first line in the Oath of Enlistment for the US Armed forces..

I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;

How does that "blend" with Oaths 1-5?

1. We will NOT obey orders to disarm the American people.

2. We will NOT obey orders to conduct warrantless searches of the American people

3. We will NOT obey orders to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to military tribunal.

4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state.

5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty.

So they will defend the Constitution as long as you don't have to invade, blockade, disarm or detain domestic enemies?

Here is the entire enlistment pledge. It's pretty much the same pledge the President takes.

I, (NAME), 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.

[Koolblue13]

If people attacked the government, that's one thing.

If the government used the military to take peoples guns, that's different.

[JMS]

If people attacked the government, that's one thing.

If the government used the military to take peoples guns, that's different.

The oath keepers statements are pretty clear. If the south suceeded today, the oath keepers would all and should all be shot. They are expressly saying they would not obey the President if he moved to save the Union.

The enlistment oath is sufficient. It gives Officers the right, the responsiblity to not follow unlawful orders. THAT'S NOT BY ACCIDENT.

This "oath keepers" is like a pocket guide to sow domestic insurection in the armed services. It's disgraceful.. The fact these idiots are selling this as "patriotism" is doubly offensive.

[Koolblue13]

JMS, are being thick intentionally, because you just don't like this?

[twa]

It is simply a public affirmation of their beliefs

There is no conflict unless they are ordered to do something counter to those beliefs.

If they feel a order is counter to the constitution they should certainly refuse to obey it...and deal with the consequences of a trial by their peers.(if they are lucky)

You libs ought to be celebrating them

Fascists like me on the other hand,might carefully consider what orders I issue.:evilg:

[Prosperity]

I think they are attention whores

[twa]

I think they are attention whores

Probably a lot of truth in that

JMS it is comforting to know you would execute my kids if they so chose.

[JMS]

It is simply a public affirmation of their beliefs

There is no conflict unless they are ordered to do something counter to those beliefs.

Like defend the constitution from domestic enemies.

If they feel a order is counter to the constitution they should certainly refuse to obey it...and deal with the consequences of a trial by their peers.(if they are lucky)

You libs ought to be celebrating them

Fascists like me on the other hand,might carefully consider what orders I issue.:evilg:

It's nothing short of sowing rebellion in the ranks. It's swearing to what the whackadoodles think the constitution should say if they were writing it.

By the way as a military officer you don't get to object to orders because they are unconstitutional. You have the right to object only to orders which are outside the uniform code of military justice. Two different things.

Hell if they objected to violating the constitution they could object the first time they were asked to disrupt domestic tranquility. What kind of military would that lead too.

[Koolblue13]

I think they are attention whores

I would imagine if you think you have been ordered to do something, you find to be unconstitutional and don't feel right about it, you would be comforted to know others are out there.

[skinfan133]

So, you disagree with him?

You are preparing for a military career. I'm curious what you think about these Oathkeeper guys, and their motivations.

I like the idea, I'm suspicious of the leaders. This isn't a purely military movement either, its all public oath takers. Like others have said, I think the motivation is out of distrust of the Presedent. Frankly, if such a caucus existed all of the time during all administrations, I would join it. As it stands right now, I am suspicious. All I need is the actual oath for me to refuse orders contrary to the constitution. It would take a lot for me to refuse orders though.

[Predicto]

I would imagine if you think you have been ordered to do something, you find to be unconstitutional and don't feel right about it, you would be comforted to know others are out there.

Again I ask you.

Why, in your view, has this organization suddenly appeared now?

What legitimate concerns are they expressing?

Who do you think is likely to be a member?

[JMS]

JMS it is comforting to know you would execute my kids if they so chose.

America has a long history of executing fifth columnists and teasonist citizens; both civilian and military.

That pledge does not suport the enlistment pledge. It directly contridicts it. That's nothing a patriot would sign. Presenting it as such is offensive and treasonable.

[skinfan133]

Yeah I'm something else for calling these yahoos out? What would have happenned to the union in any of our wars if we had a fifth column in the military who held these treasonable views?

here's my problem with what you're saying: you are attacking the ideas instead of the "yahoos" as you call them. like I said above, I support the ideas they state, I do not trust their motives. You do not trust them and you are attacking the ideas as traitorous. I'm guessing you're more a student of Machiavelli than Locke.

[JMS]

I would imagine if you think you have been ordered to do something, you find to be unconstitutional and don't feel right about it, you would be comforted to know others are out there.

Yeah, It's not like the enlistment oath doesn't proclaim defense of the constitution as it's first thought.... Not like every American officers not taken that oath... Why isn't that "comforting"?

Also it's not like the "Oath Keepers" statements are even paraphrasing what the constitution says.

[Koolblue13]

Again I ask you.

Why, in your view, has this organization suddenly appeared now?

What legitimate concerns are they expressing?

Who do you think is likely to be a member?

Because of the past election.

That America is continuing down a road opposite of a free nation.

Paul supporters, Tea party folks, conspiracy theorists, gun right enthusiasts, people who don't like wire tapping, anybody who knows the power of the patriot act, people who sees the governments power creeping into their homes, etc.

[Koolblue13]

Yeah, It's not like the enlistment oath doesn't proclaim defense of the constitution as it's first thought.... Not like every American officers not taken that oath... Why isn't that "comforting"?

http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2009/11/01/police-officer-honored-at-ok-conference-for-upholding-the-law/

I was talking about somebody like this.

[TheGoodBits]

Obama is going to take away everyones guns, then probably turn the country into a military state. Makes sense given his actions so far. I'm glad this group is here to protect us.

[JMS]

here's my problem with what you're saying: you are attacking the ideas instead of the "yahoos" as you call them. like I said above, I support the ideas they state, I do not trust their motives. You do not trust them and you are attacking the ideas as traitorous. I'm guessing you're more a student of Machiavelli than Locke.

Then you have no business in the Military.

If you can not follow the orders of the President and your superiors in defense of the constitution for both foreign and DOMESTIC enemies why the hell would you want to be in the military. Why would you ever take the enlistment oath?

[Koolblue13]

Then you have no business in the Military.

If you can not follow the orders of the President and your superiors in defense of the constitution for both foreign and DOMESTIC enemies why the hell would you want to be in the military. Why would you ever take the enlistment oath?

I wish there were people like the oath takers at Waco Texas and that never happened.

[Predicto]

I like the idea, I'm suspicious of the leaders. This isn't a purely military movement either, its all public oath takers. Like others have said, I think the motivation is out of distrust of the Presedent. Frankly, if such a caucus existed all of the time during all administrations, I would join it. As it stands right now, I am suspicious. All I need is the actual oath for me to refuse orders contrary to the constitution. It would take a lot for me to refuse orders though.

Why do you think their ten part Oath specifically references "disarming the people," declaring a "state of emergency," or putting people into "camps?"

What small segment of our population is is currently concerned that gun rights are about to be abolished, that a state of emergency is about to be declared, that people are going to be herded into camps?

Here's a hint - go to resistnet or listen to Alex Jones.

[JMS]

Obama is going to take away everyones guns, then probably turn the country into a military state. Makes sense given his actions so far. I'm glad this group is here to protect us.

Because he's passed or even proposed so much anti gun legislation today?

Fact is when the democrats tried to pass gun control legislation under Bill Clinton they learned their lesson. That issue more than anything else was responsible for the GOP taking the house and many senate seats. They've learned their lesson on gun issues.

It wasn't a campagne issue other than for Dems to posse with their riffles.

[Koolblue13]

Why do you think their ten part Oath specifically references "disarming the people," declaring a "state of emergency," or putting people into "camps?"

What small segment of our population is is currently concerned that gun rights are about to be abolished, that a state of emergency is about to be declared, that people are going to be herded into camps?

Here's a hint - go to resistnet or listen to Alex Jones.

That may have been true a few years ago, but I think the people who are growing more concerned are not just CTs.

[Predicto]

I wish there were people like the oath takers at Waco Texas and that never happened.

I wish it never happened either, but I bet you and I have a very different understanding of what actually happened there.