Posted by
Catmman on Thursday, July 09, 2009 5:21:52 PM
At the July 4th Tea Party here in San Antonio last weekend, a spokesman for the group "
Oathkeepers" gave a speech. The gist of the speech is that the group wants active duty military, police as well as retired military and veterans to keep their oath to the Constitution.
For anyone who doesn't know: Military folks take an "Oath of Enlistment" upon entering military service and at every point of re-enlistment thereafter. I personally took the Oath for my last time back in January of 2007 when I re-enlisted for the last time.
The Oath is as follows:
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.
Pretty straight forward. There are some different iterations of the Oath for public officials and police departmetns depending on jurisdiction. The Oath taken by the active-duty military forces however is uniform throughout the service. First, before I continue, a word on my personal feelings on the Oath.
I took the Oath for the first time on May 16, 1987 when I first entered the delayed enlistment program. That was over twenty-two years ago and I still remember the date. Everytime I have taken the Oath, even as an 18 year old kid, I have understood the gravity of what I was saying. Oaths anymore are more a mere formality (think politicians - how many pols ever really internalize their oaths?) Maybe I'm just old fashioned (how can I be old-fashioned at 40?), but I am the kind of man who considers such an Oath a bond. I know the importance and signifcance and this Oath in particular. I have taken it to heart everyday of my military career. With that said, I don't understand the premise the Oathkeepers are operating from.
From the Oathkeepers website: Oath Keepers is an association of currently serving military, veterans, and peace officers who will fulfill the oath we swore to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, so help us God.
Our oath is to the Constitution, not to the politicians, and we will not obey unconstitutional (and thus illegal) and immoral orders, such as orders to disarm the American people or to place them under martial law and deprive them of their ancient right to jury trial.
Why do active duty military personnel and police officers see the need to apparently re-affrim their Oath? Let me say I have no problem with this fundamentally. As Mywife said when I mentioned this to her, married couples re-affirm their vows all the time. But more on that in a minute.
If the person hasn't already internalized the Oath, then what good is re-affirming it? If the Oath means to others as it does to me, then why the need to re-affirm it? Of course I know not eveyone is like me, unfortunately for them!
There seems to be cherry-picking of what section of the Oath the Oathkeepers are publicizing. The Oath we take is indeed to the Constitution, but we are also obligated to obey the orders of the President of the United States and the officer appointed over us and to follow the "regulations" (or "Instructions" if you're in the Air Force) and Unifrom Code of Millitary Justice. The Oath is not simply, strictly to the Constitution as the Oathkeepers publicize. If you browse the site, you will not see any mention of the complete ilitary oath anywhere (at least as of this writing.)
This bothers me. It seems as if the Oath is being cherry-picked for partisan issues. The assumption is that the military is ONLY obligated to the Constitution and this is simply not the case. We are primarily obligated to the Consitution of course, but the presence of a semi-colon in the Oath has no less effect on our obligation to the President and our officers (or the "regulations" and UCMJ) as it does to relegating the right to keep and bare arms to the "militia" and not the people in the 2nd Amendment.
I know why this is there, because there is a fear the powers that be in Washington may at some point begin to really overstep their bounds. If you go to the website, there is a video which I encourage you to go watch. I did and it just struck me as a bit over the top. It is rife with patriotic imagery and inspiring music. The problem for me is the images of two of Fox new's resident overreactors, Shephard Smith and Geraldo Rivera responding to events at the height of Hurricane Katrina. Events they are reporting about
were later debunked. Also shown is the old lady who got roughed up by an over-zealous cop for not wanting to give up her handgun.
The NRA sued (on behalf of Louisiana citizens) and won. Another small segment shows a National Guardsman on patrol and the imagery cuts away after the Guardsman says he would shoot an American citizen. If you watch the whole clip, it's obvious the Guardsman is saying what he would do based on what's going on in New Orleans at the time. The implication is the Guardsman would just be patrolling the neighborhood waiting to murder innocent citizens - that's how I took it. At best the video is disengenuous in it's representation of events. I have been very critical of what happened during Katrina, but my criticism is mostly directed at the moronic and greedy citizenry than the mistakes made by the Federal government. Particular scorn is reserved for the media which reported on events which simply did not happen, like the reports of hundreds of murders and rapes at the Superdome. I say all of this not to take any reponsibility away from the inaction and screw-ups of the government. The video at the site though portrays the events from one side, with much bias and out of context in my opinion. Why?
Another impression one might get from the site is that military folks
aren't already obligated NOT to obey unlawful or immoral orders. This is a big sticking point with me. I have never had a problem with standing up to leadership when they are wrong. I can never recall refusing an order, since I've never been given an unlawful one. At all levels of leadership, a military person is obligated to speak out when their leadership is pursuing the wrong course of action. If a senior person to me orders me to write a ticket for a vehicle just because, with no justification, then Iam obligated to refuse, as I have done many times in the past. If I am in a senior position and am pursuing a weird course of action, then my subordinates are obligated to stand up to me and tell me no. Military personnel are protected by law in not obeying unlawful orders. A person can even erfuse orders based on other principles (religious for example). In these cases, they better be prepared to suffer consequences and justify those types of decisions to superior authority, but the opportunity to refuse orders is there. The website and material makes it appear that these safeguards are not already in place and that the military and police are one bad leader away from installing full scale military rule. I find this disturbing.
Perhaps there is a need to educate those entering the military more on history and the Consitution. People do have legitimate concerns of an overreaching government. I have concerns about the intent or core rationale behind implementing this project. I e-mailed the founder of the site, Stewart Rhodes and left a contact message on the website on Monday, 6 July. As of yet I haven't reeived any reply either on the website or to my e-mail. I fully identified myself by name, rank and service branch. I would like to have my concerns answered. Frankly, I'm a bit shocked the site has received so much support from officers who are on active duty without these concerns being addressed anywhere on the site. It also bothers me this group has infiltrated the tea parties seemingly without these issues being addressed. Perhaps I am picking fly poop out of pepper?
The hackles on my neck rise when any group uses the credibility of the Armed Forces to do this kind of stuff. It just gives me a feeling as when the lefties were all ga-ga with conspiracy theories about Bush and the NWO and all that drivel and implementing martial law and not holding elections and "seizing control", blah, blah, blah.
I don't feel the need to re-affrim an Oath which I've already spent twenty-two years upholding.