Oath Keepers

[twa]

It's fun listening to all the calls for the military to obey any order.

Learn from history or repeat it.

[JMS]

It's fun listening to all the calls for the military to obey any order.

Learn from history or repeat it.

So that's an interesting thought.

So which Orders given to the US military would you have thoght should have been disobeyed?

• The order by Andrew Jackson to invade South Carolina (they didn't actually do that).
  
• Lincolns order to defend the Union?
  
• The order to invade Mexico in the Meican American war?
  
• The order to attack Spanish interests?
  
• WWI
  
• WWII
  
• Certainly Korea..
  
• Vietnam?
  
• Desert Storm/Sheild?
  
• Iraq?
  
• Afghanistan.
  

[boofMcboof]

I agree with Predicto on a possible hidden agenda of this oath but I'm shocked to hear that there are proponents for the use of the military on U.S. soil. It's one thing if a rebellion is formed that threatens the stability of government but it's another to use the military to police it's own citizens.

How many stories have been documented about soldiers coming back with mental health issues or depression? The federal government estimates that up to half of all veterans experience some psychological problem after returning from combat service. Policemen with power trips are bad enough.

The use of the National Guard for support in the event of hurricanes, floods, and earthquakes is one thing but to intervene where a conflict might arise with it's civilians? That's insane. No scratch that, that's fascism. Just because past use of the military has been used doesn't make it right.

[ZoEd]

Many Americans lost their lives in fighting the civil war because of the oposition to slavery.

Really? Is that why the Civil War was fought. I love the way people say the Civil War was fought because of slavery, amazing.

http://www.factasy.com/civil_war/2008/02/25/was_war_fought_over_slavery

But you go ahead and rewrite the history books to support your opinion, hell everyone seems to think the bloody rednecks were fighting to keep them slaves. More dramatic that way.

[ZoEd]

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.

What about when a President starts abusing those powers and starts forcing things down the American citizens throats that they don't want. But then again, we're just afraid of change and don't know what's good for us, so the beating will continue until morale improves.

Preserved the Union or preserved the POTUS' agenda?

[Prosperity]

this thread is going off the deep end, the country's not about to break up, and the President is not about throw us into concentration camps... sheesh.

[Koolblue13]

this thread is going off the deep end, the country's not about to break up, and the President is not about throw us into concentration camps... sheesh.

Nobody has said it would. I don't think the issues requires the drama some are putting into it, but it's par around here.

[ZoEd]

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

That's his M.O.

I'm going to tell you right now, if I was told tomorrow that the US gov't wanted to control guns starting with military members I'd tell them to go pound some mother ****ing sand and they'd have to court martial me. I'll be damn if I give up one of my 27 guns.

I know that's a bit dramatic but when I read the oath that's what I get from that line, as I think you do to Koolblue. However JMS loves to over dramatize some **** to demonize anything and everything that doesn't support the left.

[The 12th Commandment]

this thread is going off the deep end, the country's not about to break up, and the President is not about throw us into concentration camps... sheesh.

No doubt. It's really weird how a small group of people can get so agitated and people want to believe it's a revolution. There's always a small group of people highly agitated by one thing or another.

[ZoEd]

Like defend the constitution from domestic enemies.

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.

But wait a minute JMS, wasn't the constitution written by a bunch of crusty old dudes in pointy hats? Shouldn't it be a living document that's chopped up to support ones agenda?

http://www.usnews.com/articles/opinion/2008/11/03/barack-obamas-poor-understanding-of-the-constitution.html

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=79225

So which constitution do we defend JMS? The one written by our founding fathers or the one Obama thinks we should have? Just wondering.

[Koolblue13]

That's his M.O.

I'm going to tell you right now, if I was told tomorrow that the US gov't wanted to control guns starting with military members I'd tell them to go pound some mother ****ing sand and they'd have to court martial me. I'll be damn if I give up one of my 27 guns.

I know that's a bit dramatic but when I read the oath that's what I get from that line, as I think you do to Koolblue. However JMS loves to over dramatize some **** to demonize anything and everything that doesn't support the left.

I know he does and I agree with you.

[The 12th Commandment]

I'm going to tell you right now, if I was told tomorrow that the US gov't wanted to control guns starting with military members I'd tell them to go pound some mother ****ing sand and they'd have to court martial me. I'll be damn if I give up one of my 27 guns.

I know that's a bit dramatic but when I read the oath that's what I get from that line, as I think you do to Koolblue. However JMS loves to over dramatize some **** to demonize anything and everything that doesn't support the left.

I'm right there with you on that and I think the majority are, but it's not come to that. Thinking it has is demonizing the left. Not saying that you have taken it that far but the folks behind this seem to have.

[boofMcboof]

this thread is going off the deep end, the country's not about to break up, and the President is not about throw us into concentration camps... sheesh.

Yet you would advocate the use of the military for pandemic reasons? I don't want to single you out, but there are probably a lot of folks that share your opinion without thinking about the ramifications. We've already seen with the Patriot Act the lengths the government will go to maintain "security" at the expense of our liberty.

[Koolblue13]

I'm right there with you on that and I think the majority are, but it's not come to that. Thinking it has is demonizing the left. Not saying that you have taken it that far but the folks behind this seem to have.

What these people are doing, is putting their footdown and letting others know that it won't come to that on their watch. Not that they think it has.

[Prosperity]

Yet you would advocate the use of the military for pandemic reasons? I don't want to single you out, but there are probably a lot of folks that share your opinion without thinking about the ramifications. We've already seen with the Patriot Act the lengths the government will go to maintain "security" at the expense of our liberty.

I don't see the tension between those two ideas

what would the ramifications be? People get vaccines and avoid a sickness? woopdidoo

[skinfan133]

wow, I missed these tidbits.

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.

I am going to argue this solely based on the text itself

ok, so you're saying that disarming the American people is a power of the President. You're saying that conducting warrantless searches is a Presidential power. never mind that the 4th amendment protects us from such things and that such a power is a direct violation, not a support of, the Constitution. You're saying that detaining American citizens and subjecting them to military tribunals is a power of the President. hmm, once again, does the 5th amendment ring a bell? I believe that is part of the constitution. According to the Constitution, only a state's governor or legislature can declare Marshall law. the 5th point I could see someone having a legitimate problem with if they did not understand what that means (like Montana recently in relation to Federal gun laws). turning American cities into concentration camps is a Presidential power? Jesus Christ have mercy. "Will not force Americans into detention centers under any pretext" how can you possibly not agree with this sentence on principle? how is point number 8 about foreign armies contrary to the Constitution or could be construed as a Presidential power? point 9 goes along with the 3rd amendment and 5th amendment, how is confiscating property a Presidential power? and last but not least, why the **** would the suspention of the 1st amendment be considered a Presidential power???????

you have got to be kidding me JMS. for all your intellectual posturing you constantly do, it is quite clear to me that you are nothing more than the same thing the ditto-heads are: you're just on the left. I just can't, nor do I wish to, argue with someone who has such a flawed perception of the world. No matter what I say, cite or do, you will misinterpret it and continue to be disingenuous.

Many Americans lost their lives in fighting the civil war because of the oposition to slavery. Let's not forget that sacrifice. If left to your own devises do you think the south would have written their own emancipation proclamation in 1860? Ever done any research on Alabama in 1950?

I'm not going to even touch this can of worms, but you are fundamentally wrong if you think the civil war was such a black and white subject of poetic justice. that goes for southern apologists too: it is incredibly simplistic to see that war as "good vs. evil" it's more like "dumb vs. dumber" if you ask me.

[boofMcboof]

I don't see the tension between those two ideas

what would the ramifications be? People get vaccines and avoid a sickness? woopdidoo

Joining the Army you have to undergo an intensive training regime over the course of months that breaks down your usual civilian response-sets and instinctive aversion to killing, and instils in its place a conditioned response to obey orders along with the lack of human empathy necessary to instinctively, intentionally kill another human being. That's what goes into military training.

It's like all of a sudden everyone has forgotten that we have SWAT teams, the FBI and ATF, people who are actually trained to handle domestic issues.

[Koolblue13]

It amusing how when a topic other than main stream news is brought up and the routine partisan arguments aren't available, folks quickly get overly dramatic and go straight to extremes, so they can reduce it to insults and dismiss the topic almost immediately.

[The 12th Commandment]

It amusing how when a topic other than main stream news is brought up and the routine partisan arguments aren't available, folks quickly get overly dramatic and go straight to extremes, so they can reduce it to insults and dismiss the topic almost immediately.

I'm not sure who your referring to, I don't think I've done that. My take on this is that I agree with the premise, I think most other people do too. I also think most people aren't particularly concerned that we're in immediate danger of any of the issues being manifested, at least on a national scale. The issues are pretty much a given to me and when you feel the need to publicly put your foot down, as you said, then it's a dramatic over-reaction to the mere potential of a threat.

[Burgold]

Honestly, not sure where I stand on this, but I can see a number of scenarios where these would be good or bad. I am a little confused with how it jibes with defending the Constitution. against enemies DOMESTIC and foreign though.

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

Would it be wrong to bring in the army to deal with a cultish militia engaging in raids and terrorist acts within America. Does the fact that they are American cultists make it wrong to disarm them (especially if they are engaging in violent and destructive behaviors?)

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

Again, what if they are terrorist militia cultists... do we treat them only as criminals?

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

So, if there is a major disaster and we need to declare a "state of emergency" or martial law to deal with the looters, rioters, etc. that would always be a bad thing?

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

Not sure where I stand on this. I am not a fan of the idea of succession, but I suppose it is a state's right.

6. We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.

The science fiction reader in me imagines plagues that require citywide quarantines to prevent the death of the entire nation. Generally though, I would imagine myself agreeing with #6.

7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.

I think I'm for # 7, but what we do with those terrorist cultists when we've coralled 500 or 1,000 of them?

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."

Probably okay with it, but I wonder if this means that we can't work together with Mexican forces on the border if it comes to American drug runners or other illegal activities?

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.

I think I'm fine with this one. I could imagine a situation in which an assembly of people needs to be controlled or broken up. Then again, for decades we have asked people who want to march or gather to get permits. Are we saying that any gathering, anytime, creating any type of disruption is cool?

[Burgold]

I think for me it comes down to... if you are going to swear an oath you better make sure that you can't imagine a reason why it would ever be necessary to break it. I think there are some possibilities in which these generally laudable ideas could become the greater evil.

[IHOPSkins]

......

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

Would it be wrong to bring in the army to deal with a cultish militia engaging in raids and terrorist acts within America. ......

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

Again, what if they are terrorist militia cultists... do we treat them only as criminals?........

Question

Do you support KSMs terrorist trial in NY?

[Burgold]

Yes, I do. Although, had they decided to go with a military tribunal I would have been okay with it as well. I do believe everyone (no matter how scummy or monstrous) deserves their day in court.

[ZoEd]

Yes, I do. Although, had they decided to go with a military tribunal I would have been okay with it as well. I do believe everyone (no matter how scummy or monstrous) deserves their day in court.

I believe they deserve a day in court but I don't believe they should be afforded the same rights granted to a US citizen. They're not Americans, if during the trial it is found that the douchebag wasn't read his rights it shouldn't matter. If he was mistreated in the process of being interegated I could careless, IMO he deserves every moment of pain and suffering he endured. I mean, we know the guy is guilty as hell, he already admitted it. This is a silly public display, nothing else.

Before I'm crucified let me go ahead and say that my opinion is a slippery slope. I mean all the "what if's" involved could prove to be extremely disturbing if he were in fact innocent. But he's not, so kick him in the nuts.

[twa]

I think for me it comes down to... if you are going to swear an oath you better make sure that you can't imagine a reason why it would ever be necessary to break it. I think there are some possibilities in which these generally laudable ideas could become the greater evil.

And how likely is it to ever occur?...they worded it loosely enough to allow individual judgment and I would bet most would fudge the line for compelling reasons;)

Tis hyperbole and a political statement for the most part.

Just obeying orders should never be the default position of a American though.(and I think most know how I feel about discipline and rules:evilg:)

We ain't Krauts;)