Oath Keepers Yah or Nah?

SPC Elijah J. Henry, MBA, that would be strange. Thankfully, that isn't what I said.

What purpose does the "Oathkeepers' Oath" serve? Is it redundant, simply reaffirming something that was already affirmed? It only makes sense with one of two interpretations. Either it is meant to expand on the Oath (of Enlistment or Office), or it is meant to constrain it. So which is it?

I think the language of the Oath of Enlistment is clear. It says "obey," but it obviously isn't talking about illegal orders; it is, after all, qualified by "according to regulations and the UCMJ." I think the Oath of Office is not such much about obeying or not obeying, but about having the freedom to challenge a senior (not defy) without being considered insubordinate.

As for the "support and defend" clause preceding the other parts of either Oath, I don't see how it has any relevance. I don't discharge my duties a little less faithfully just because I swore to defend the Constitution a few seconds earlier.

So, all I need to do to prove my point is show that refusing an order according to the "Orders We Will Not Obey" would violate the Oath of Enlistment; that is, one of the "Orders We Will Not Obey" could be a lawful order. Thank you for placing them so conveniently for me.

I think the easiest one is number 5: "We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty and declares the national government to be in violation of the compact by which that state entered the Union." I think the Civil War essentially settled this issue.

Numbers 2 and 3 are pretty ill-conceived too. For instance, number 2 says no warrantless searches. That is preposterous. Police conduct warrantless searches all the time; all they need is probable cause and an exigency...like a car. That's right, all the police need is a fair probability that searching a car will turn up narcotics and they can search without a warrant. They do it every day, in every State. Moreover, would you seriously demand to see a warrant before obeying an order to search for a dirty bomb or a nuclear weapon if you happened to be conducting disaster relief or martial law domestically?

Then there is number 3. Would you have disobeyed an order to detain Anwar al-Awlaki? Note that number 3 does not say "We will not kill an American citizen," it says "We will not ... detain...." Furthermore, "unlawful enemy combatants" includes spies and saboteurs. Interestingly, the founder of Oathkeepers is a lawyer, but he relies on Ex Parte Milligan to support this "Order We Will Not Obey." That case was decided in 1866, and stands for the proposition that military tribunals cannot be used to try American citizens *when the regular courts are working.* It does not say that the international laws of war do not apply to American citizens over the Bill of Rights. The founder would have done better to cite Ex Parte Quirin, in which a U.S. citizen was sentenced to death, and later executed, for bringing Nazis to the U.S. by submarine with the intent of sabotaging the war effort. Would you have refused an order to detain him?

My point is that the Oath of Enlistment needs no supplementary oath. Moreover, following the "Orders We Will Not Obey" can land you in serious trouble, like a life sentence or even a capital sentence.

LTC (Join to see), thank you for your thoughtful response.

You could say that the Oath Keepers' Declaration is redundant, since it is intended to be an application -- neither an expansion nor a constraint -- of the oath of enlistment or office.

Regarding number 5, I respectfully disagree that war can settle a legal question. An excellent scholarly and gentlemanly debate on the lawfulness of secession under the American system may be found here: http://newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin205.htm , here: http://newswithviews.com/Timothy/baldwin126.htm , and here: http://newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin221.htm , but legal arguments should not be assumed to be true because of the outcome of a war.

Regarding number 2, the context suggests that the objection and refusal is to violating the Constitution to oppress the American people, rather than an approach that would exclude 4th Amendment- and SCOTUS-approved reasonable searches during traffic stops, as when the cop actually sees evidence of a crime in the usual execution of his duties. It seems to me that you are construing number 2 in a way that few members of Oath Keepers would be likely to construe it. Regarding martial law, I wonder what you mean by that. If you mean, "outright military control of some area in which military personnel simply suppress the local civilian authorities and dictate to civilians under the threat of main force," and not "the direct control of civilians by military personnel operating in those territories where civilians are present, but no effective (or even any) civilian government exists. For example, during a war, in the front lines and rear echelons, as well as in places in the immediate vicinity where no actual fighting with the enemy may be going on, but the civilian authorities have been destroyed or driven out as a consequence of previous fighting," it is itself unconstitutional. I recommend the esteemed scholarship of Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., on this matter: http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin198.htm Regarding a search for a nuclear weapon during disaster relief or some constitutionally acceptable scenario, that would likely qualify as a 4th Amendment-approved reasonable search, under the "exigent circumstances" application carved out by the judicial system.

Regarding number 3, I am no lawyer -- as you seem to be -- having only a B.A. in Political Science, but it seems that the issue is with the legal designation of the detainee. I doubt that any member of Oath Keepers would disagree with the detention of Awlaki or of this Nazi fellow you mention. Simply, they should be detained and brought to trial as suspected traitors, not simply unilaterally designated as unlawful enemy combatants and terminated, or tried by a military court.

Again, I thank you for your time, your consideration, and your thoughts.

SPC Elijah J. Henry, MBA, I can explain why the Oathkeepers' oath is flawed (in reference to the Enlistment Oath). I cannot convince an avowed Oathkeeper of its flaws. I won't play tit for tat citation battles with you. There are other views than those of Dr. Vieira, Esq. out there.

Your responses above have me a bit confused. For instance, you said, in reference to martial law, "during a war . . . [martial law] is itself unconstitutional." That is the best sense I can make of that the point of that sentence, and it is dubious. If martial law were imposed, the military would be the ones enforcing it; is this always unconstitutional? Otherwise, the "context" of a statement means little when the plain language is so clear, and the "legal designation" of a terrorist as a U.S. citizen means nothing if that same terrorist is an unlawful enemy combatant. See Ex Parte Quirin. Simply, number 3 says Oathkeepers will not "detain American citizens as 'unlawful enemy combatants,'" but you say "they should be detained."

You are thinking, and vehemently defending the Oathkeepers. I am not trying to convince you, because I don't think you are amenable to it. I think you, and I, could be lawfully ordered to "conduct warrantless searches of the American people," "detain American citizens as 'unlawful enemy combatants,'" or "invade and subjugate [a] state that asserts its sovereignty. Those possibilities are extreme!!! circumstances, but it is possible, and I'm confident that, were I to disobey, the Oathkeepers would be powerless to help me.

LTC (Join to see), thank you again for your consideration. Certainly, there are other views than that of Dr. Vieira.

Regarding the confusion, I do apologize. From "If you mean . . ." to ". . . is itself unconstitutional," is intended to be a single sentence, but I quote a selection that includes a sentence break. I hope that clarifies the intended meaning. Both quoted selections come from the recommended work by Dr. Vieira.

With the utmost of respect SGM, do you base that off of what the media portrays us to be, or from first hand knowledge?