Wednesday, October 21, 2009

Oath Keepers

There's a group of people called Oath Keepers. They've started to come onto the mainstream media's radar. Most recently, the founder, Stewart Rhodes appeared on MSNBC's Harball with Chris Matthews. David Codrea talks about it in his Gun Rights column.

The Southern Poverty Law Center has them listed as an organization that bears watching.
Oath Keepers, the military and police organization that was formed earlier this year and held its April muster on Lexington Green, may be a particularly worrisome example of the Patriot revival. Members vow to fulfill the oaths to the Constitution that they swore while in the military or law enforcement. "Our oath is to the Constitution, not to the politicians, and we will not obey unconstitutional (and thus illegal) and immoral orders," the group says. Oath Keepers lists 10 orders its members won't obey, including two that reference U.S. concentration camps.
If you do a Google search, you'll find lots of folks concerned about the Oath Keepers.

I've taken oaths, both in the military and as a cop. They require me to protect and defend the Constitution. I really don't see anything right-wing or reactionary about taking such an oath. In fact, my oaths are to the Constitution, not the government. Governments change quite regularly and it's my job to go about my duties without worrying about the government.

As I read the Oath Keepers list of orders they won't obey, I myself have been guilty of raising hell when some overzealous bureaucrat tried to order something that would have gotten him in trouble. I once risked my career by offering to arrest a Chief Deputy if he insisted on giving an order that was plainly unlawful. He came to his senses and backed down, and we remained friendly associates.

The Oath Keepers isn't about taking up arms against the government. If you look at the oath, it's about peaceful non-violence in the face of unlawful orders. When you consider that the oath is about "standing down", it is fairly remarkable that a group of armed citizens is willing to do nothing when faced with orders that might violate the Constitution. That's what the oath is all about.

The "just following orders" defense died at Nuremberg. As an armed officer of the law and a retired military officer, I see no conflict. I followed lawful orders under Carter, Reagan, Bush(1), Clinton and Bush(2). I'm still following orders under Obama, but I refuse to follow any orders that violate the laws of the State of Louisiana or the Constitution of the United States.

This isn't about armed resistance. It's about standing down, something that a few of us have done over the years against plainly illegal orders. That's the beauty of the whole concept. Peaceful non-compliance. Ghandi would be proud.

I'm having trouble understanding why they're considered a right-wing hate group. I guess dissent isn't patriotic, after all.

6 comments:

J said...

From the Oath Keepers web site: “We say if the American people decide it’s time for a revolution, we’ll fight with you.”

The Oath Keepers are nothing more than people who want to overthrow a duly elected government. They can't do it with ballots, so they want to do it with bullets.

Termite said...

J said...
From the Oath Keepers web site: “We say if the American people decide it’s time for a revolution, we’ll fight with you.”

The Oath Keepers are nothing more than people who want to overthrow a duly elected government. They can't do it with ballots, so they want to do it with bullets.


After reading the Oath Keeper's "About" page, I'm wondering where you get that statement, J.

What Oath Keepers do say is: "We are Not advocating or promoting the overthrow of any government whether local, state or national. We want our governments to return to the Constitutional Republic which the Declaration of Independence and the
Constitution defined and instituted.

We are Not advocating or promoting violence towards any organization, group or person. We are determined to Keep our Oath to support and defend the Constitution.

We are not advocating or promoting the removal of any person from his or her elected office. We want all elected persons to live up to their Oath to “support and defend the Constitution” as it is written or to leave of their own volition.

We are not advocating or promoting that anyone in the Judicial Branch be removed or replaced. We want the Justices in the Judicial Branch to follow the Constitution as written without interpretation.

We are not advocating or promoting any particular form of government other than the Constitutional Republic which the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution defined and instituted.

We are not advocating or promoting the rewriting of the Constitution nor are we asking for an Amendment thereto. We are insisting on the Constitution being Enforced as it is written.

We are Not advocating or promoting any act or acts of aggression against any organization or person for any
reason including, but not limited to; race, religion, national origin, political affiliation, gender or sexual orientation.

We hope for a return to a Constitutional Republic, free from fear and hatred. We hate only tyranny."


J,
The U.S. Constitution is in place for very good reasons, and if you, POTUS, or anyone else doesn't agree with something it says, then amend it by the proper process, don't try to legislate around it or ignore it.

J said...

It's there on the web site. I support the Constitution 100%. What I don't support is treason cloaked in patriotism.

Termite said...

Please explain to me how refusing to follow an unlawful/unConstitutional order is treason.

Pawpaw said...

Oh, J. I see you read Pat Buchanan's article on the site. The Oath Keepers are much more than that. They're people who believe that oaths mean something and that an oath to the Constitution over-rides political concerns.

I don't want to start a revolution with bullets, but I would like to start a revolution of ideas. For example, a return to the letter of the Constitution. It's a simple document, written so that nearly everyone can understand it. It spells out what the Congress can do and plainly says that everything else is reserved to the states, or the people. Congress is (and has been for several decades under both parties) strangely convinced that they can do anything they can get a majority to agree on. I'm convinced that they should limit themselves to the base document and that any Congress-member who doesn't do that has abrogated their oath of office and should be summarily removed.

I don't vote for incumbents, because none of them believe in the basic document. I'm convinced that they're all corrupt and depraved and that there are no statesmen left. None. We have a ruling political class who believes in consolidating power and over-riding their authority.

And that's a damned shame, because I believe that most Americans are good, honest people who want nothing more than to be left alone.

For me, at least, this isn't even about our current government. I was pissed off when they enacted the Patriot act, I was pissed off when they slaughtered the innocents at Waco, I've been distressed at the way our government handles practically everything.

Nobody sane wants a shooting revolution.

carbonblack said...

Some of us consider the SPLC an organization worth watching...