Oath Keepers

[Wagonman]

I came across this group while surfing and am intrigued with their stance. The leader seems to be a BTDT guy who writes for our sponsoring magazine.

This group highlights some of the recurring issues that we kick around here on a consistent basis. Are there any members on the forum that can share their experiences?

I am considering becoming a member.

http://www.oathkeepers.org/

 

[Erik]

"Oath Keepers is a non-partisan association of currently serving military, reserves, National Guard, veterans, Peace Officers, and Fire Fighters who will fulfill the Oath we swore, with the support of like minded citizens..."

It the "like minded citizens" folks should pay more attention to. The group's a militia recruitment tool playing on the sentiments of those who serve and have served.

Got a clearance or think you'll need one? Work for an entity that might not appreciate their personnel being co opted by such a group? Like say, I don't know... the entities listed? Not exactly a militia type? Not too sure about the legality of deciding which orders to follow when, such as during war(s)? Cloudy on the Constitution, or at least the parts militias typically ignore, like who decides legality? I'd stear well clear of them.

Or perhaps I'm wrong.

 

[greensteelforge]

Any militia that bases it's doctrine completely outside the local population's control would seem to be less a civilian militia, and more a para-military organization. Civilian militias are small, organized units based on communities, not groups that recruit from a wide pool and follow command structures that answer to a founder, or individual not under the authority of the electorate. The sentiments expressed are for the most part admirable, but the formation of private armies and militias is a pretty weird take on the purpose of the constitution and the second amendment.

 

[csmsss]

Not too sure about the legality of deciding which orders to follow when, such as during war(s)? Cloudy on the Constitution, or at least the parts militias typically ignore, like who decides legality?

In these cases, you have a big problem regardless of any associations with groups like this. If you don't know that an order you've been given is lawful, you had best do your damnedest to find out one way or another and not just go with the path of least resistance of following an order that violates an American citizen's rights.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Just read some of their site. Some kooky stuff indeed, they appear to be another "militia" group which is in reality a unauthorized paramilitary group. I would not join them and would urge others not to either. As to following orders, all soldiers are taught Standards of Conduct regarding the Law of War and they are taught when an order is illegal or not.

 

[wpcexpert]

Being military, I've often thought long and hard on the subject of "lawful" orders. There are some that are clear and others that are not. Now I haven't delved into the depths of the UCMJ. But before the "obey the orders of the President and officers appointed over me", it says to support and defend the constitution. So wherein does that line cross? And at what point does it become unlawful, if the president and the officers are being unlawful according to my perception of the constitution?

When/if the time comes to make that choice, I'll just have to deal with the fallout of my decision. It's a tough thing. I hope it never comes to that. I'd say it will be tough for a lot of folks.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

But before the "obey the orders of the President and officers appointed over me", it says to support and defend the constitution. So wherein does that line cross? And at what point does it become unlawful, if the president and the officers are being unlawful according to my perception of the constitution?

This is something that the militia/insurrection types fail to comprehend. The COTUS tells us that we elect those in authority over us. For instance COTUS tells us that the POTUS is the CINC of our military and that sounds pretty clear to me as a former military man. How these "oath keepers" square that with those 10 orders they will not obey as members of the military is beyond me.

However, what I read on here a lot is "Well yes he/she is elected and a constitutional leader but if I don't like what he/she does then I will take out my FA from the closet and revolt!" Rather than take political action to remove/pressure them.

When people tell me "I only have allegiance to the COTUS" I tell them, "Well obey the government that was elected and the COTUS ordains!" Of course, saying I answer only to a document is like saying I answer only to God which really means I answer to no one on earth. I think many are really saying that.

Your last sentence I quoted is why we must always be a nation of laws and not men even if we don't like the laws. Otherwise, we will be lawless and each man will do what is right in his own eyes.

 

[Wagonman]

Reading the 10 things they would refuse to do it would seem to a no brainer.

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.

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

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

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."

9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies.

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

It seems to be restating your oath of office.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Reading the 10 things they would refuse to do it would seem to a no brainer.

Aside from restating the obvious like "I will not shoot innocent unarmed people" what purpose do they serve? The most troubling part is who decides when these "orders" are illegal. Seems like they are borrowing trouble. No military we serve in will ever give those orders and if a state tries to secede? Well we took care of that in 1865.

It seems to be restating your oath of office.

Why do you need to do that? Didn't you understand and mean it the first time?

 

[azredhawk44]

TG: Oathkeepers, nowhere on their website, encourage violence or revolt.

They say they will not cross "these 10 lines."

Just passive resistance to orders that they as police/military/etc view as inappropriate behavior. They may face termination from the jobs, courts martial or other repercussions from their decisions, but nowhere do they say they're gonna storm Congress or the Oval Office and liberate us from tyranny.

 

[ilbob]

These are mostly things that police and the military have already done, in most cases many times over. They have never shown any inkling of a conscience about it before. Why would it be any different now? They will do what the people writing their paychecks tell them to do. At least most will.

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.

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

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

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."

9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies.

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

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Just passive resistance to orders that they as police/military/etc view as inappropriate behavior.

From their web site:

If you, the American people, are forced to once again fight for your liberty in another American Revolution, you will not be alone. We will stand with you.

Pretty thinly veiled threat there.

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

So we are right now under a tyrannical unconstitutional government?

We are Oath Sworn Americans who want the Constitution returned to its legal and rightful place, intact, as the ultimate Law of the Land.

And the COTUS is not intact now? And how do you think they wish to return to the Constitution? By passive resistance? I think not.

This looks like a front group for right wing militias. K-O-O-K-Y

 

[Wagonman]

I think it is ironic that the last two posts were critical from both ends of the spectrum.

Joining a militia is not my purpose. I would liken it to joining any other group of people with common concerns.

I still am leaning against joining until I get feedback from other Coppers

 

[Tom Servo]

And the COTUS is not intact now?

It is. The courts and the legislature (despite what some pundits claim) still work. It'll take a great deal more to bring this country to the point where armed resistance may be necessary or justified.

In the meantime, this is just posturing and pontificating about Rex84 and such. Despite the best intentions of this group, it will attract a dangerous fringe element who think it's their time.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

I would liken it to joining any other group of people with common concerns.

Join the NRA. They will do a better job of watch dogging our rights.

In the meantime, this is just posturing and pontificating about Rex84 and such. Despite the best intentions of this group, it will attract a dangerous fringe element who think it's their time.

Like Tim McVeigh thought. N-U-T-T-Y!

 

[Tom Servo]

Like Tim McVeigh thought. N-U-T-T-Y!

It doesn't make me very popular to point it out, but we've seen a resurgence of a certain hard-line, "what part of my cold dead hands don't you understand" fanatacism the last few years. The election only served to exacerbate that.

The next Timothy McVeigh will have ties to at least one of these groups.

I'm not saying that this'll happen to the Oath Keepers, nor am I saying that it'll be the fault of whatever group counts him among its members. But I worry that when something does happen, the repercussions will affect the whole gun rights movement by association.

Look at Chris Broughton and his cheery religious beliefs. That's not someone I want associated with the cause of the 2nd Amendment, but the media will be more than happy to spin it that way.

 

[OuTcAsT]

Join the NRA. They will do a better job of watch dogging our rights.

BWAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAsnortgigglesniffsnerk. Nice one TG !

Like Tim McVeigh thought. N-U-T-T-Y!

Yeah, him and Lee Harvey Oswald, these "lone nuts" are really incredible aren't they? !

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

BWAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAsnortgigglesniffsnerk. Nice one TG !

You will get a lot more done with the NRA than you will with some kookey militia group. Although you can wear more cammies with the militia kooks.

Yeah, him and Lee Harvey Oswald, these "lone nuts" are really incredible aren't they?

McVeigh didn't act alone, Terry Nichols helped him. Also, read some of McVeigh's writings and they sound very much like the militia/insurrectionist bilge you hear often on the internet. The militias/insurrectionists may not have helped him but they sure fed his hatred and he was in harmony with their beliefs if not a formal member.

 

[Tom Servo]

Yeah, him and Lee Harvey Oswald, these "lone nuts" are really incredible aren't they?

There are folks who still think Oswald was part of a larger conspiracy. Not sure whether or not I believe it, but you raise a good point. Kaczynski and McVeigh did act largely alone, but that doesn't mean the next overt act will be the product of a solitary individual.

There's a few of them in every town, but the difference between now and 1995 is the internet. Now these guys can collaborate securely and anonymously over long distances. It certainly makes planning less risky and prone to discovery.

Remember how big of a deal the media made of McVeigh's NRA membership? Imagine finding out that someone blowing something up made posts on a forum we frequent, or who'd been to our local get-togethers. It has the potential to wash back on us.

Two cups of coffee and I'm feeling paranoid tonight, aren't I?

 

[ADB]

I'm not saying that this'll happen to the Oath Keepers, nor am I saying that it'll be the fault of whatever group counts him among its members. But I worry that when something does happen, the repercussions will affect the whole gun rights movement by association.

Exactly. And the kind of tin-foil hat nonsense that this group seems to be putting forward only serves to encourage those unstable types. Cities as giant concentration camps? I know some people on the left who believed this sort of stuff about Bush, and they were justifiably laughed at by people on the right. Do people on the right flip and now start believing in this tripe just because they voted for the other guy?