How do we define an "enemy"?

According to 50 USCS § 2204 [Title 50. War and National Defense; Chapter 39. Spoils of War], enemy of the United States means any country, government, group, or person that has been engaged in hostilities, whether or not lawfully authorized, with the United States;

(3) the term "person" means

(A) any natural person;

(B) any corporation, partnership, or other legal entity; and

(C) any organization, association, or group.

He is the guy with the RPG aimed at you!

CPT Zachary Brooks

First, not sure what oath you are speaking of but our oath of enlistment is:

"I, (State your 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."

It is not important what I define enemy as because we, members of the military, do not get to define who are enemies are, and is some ways, everyone not in our service could be considered our opponent...even other unit within our own service could be considered opponent/enemies?

As to your examples, are any of them an actual attack on the Constitution? Really? I don't thinks so, but IF any are, they are addressed as criminal violations compared to actual assault on our Nation...in my opinion...as a worse case.

Example 1: Is a search of your car an actual violation of the Fourth Amendment? Sure the current legal opinion is yes, but that is only an opinion, and would still have a great deal of legal argument ahead of it.

Example 2: Congress has pass laws amending the Constitution? The Constitution does not, and cannot, protect us from harm but attempts to define what is role of our government...which has over stepped its mandate and needs some pretty serious pruning, but that is a discussion for another day, but the Congressional attacks on our liberties should be properly fought in the poll booth and in the courts...until such times that they cannot.

Example 3: While hacking of the Federal government could reach the level of military attack if done by another nation or non-nation power, the attacks on social group on another is not a military question but a law enforcement...if that?

Should we oppose wrong if we see it? Yes, of course but that is your duty as a citizen, not as a soldier. One problem in our Nation is that too many have forgotten their duty and responsibilities as citizens. We the people are the government in this Republic. I think it can be very dangerous to forget your duty as a citizen and confuse that with your duty as a soldier. You are both, but they are not the same.

Mother-in-law.

We all swore an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. Thus, it is important that we decide who are the "enemies". However, if we're not careful, this discussion could begin to sound like Clinton's defense in which he questioned terms: "It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is."

The truth is that words have many meanings and shadings of meanings that depend upon the context in which they are used.

"Enemy" can be used to describe individuals, groups, and nations. There are accepted definitions under international law that have no relation to the people we may consider our political, social, business, or personal enemies.

Yes, it is tempting to categorize those who pervert the Constitution as enemies inasmuch as they have done far more damage to our Republic and our individual rights than any enemy combatant in history including the Axis of WWII, the Soviets or the Cold War, and the terrorists. However, it is not the job of the military to protect the Constitution from them. It is rather the job of We the People.

Or, at least, that's my opinion...

Using military symbology as an example, we used to use Blue to designate "Ally" and Red for "Enemy" however we shifted away from those designations because they were too simplistic. We now use Blue for "Friendly" and Red for "Hostile."

Relationships among countries are like relationships among family.

Just because someone is Hostile, doesn't mean they are your Enemy. Just because they are Friendly, doesn't mean they are your Ally. Just because they are Neutral, doesn't mean they fall under any other category.

Using the 1990 Middle East as an example.

We had open relations with Iraq. They were "Neutral" or even "Friendly" with us. They were "Hostile" to Kuwait. Because of their position between Iran and Saudi Arabia, they were "Neutral" (ish) to Saudi Arabia.

When we liberated Kuwait, Iraqi forces were a "Threat" (Hostile), but were not an Enemy. I know this seems counter-intuitive, however so are family relationships.

Using the above examples:

"Example 1: When police officers perform illegal searches that are against the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution we vowed to protect, are these officers by definition enemies that we must protect the country against?"

Possibly. They are definitely a Threat, and possibly Hostile, but are they truly the Enemy, or is the Enemy the government in charge? Calling someone an Enemy dehumanizes them, which in turn opens up the ability to abuse them. Whereas identifying them as Hostile or a Threat turns it into a Risk Management Scenario.

"Example 2: When Congress passes a law that counters the Constitution or that law ultimately means citizens are being harmed or having their rights taken away, are they considered an enemy that we must defend against?"

Much like above, however this is a matter or perspective. We have already said that Rights may be infringed for the "greater good" and accepted the concept of "collective Rights" which can be weighed against (individual) Rights. As such, are they acting within their stated Power, or outside it? That's why we have Checks & Balances like the Supreme Courts to overturn laws that violate the Intent of the Constitution.

"Example 3: When groups such as “Anonymous” hack known hate groups such as the KKK to shut down their websites, are the hacking groups an enemy?"

To each other? Possibly. But in reality they are two opposing Hostile groups, as opposed to two Enemies in the strictest sense.

"While this line is easy to draw with enemy combatants" - I actually have to disagree that it is easy with * combatants. When we are operating on someone else's Sovereign Land, do they not have the Right to Defend their ways, like we do? Is an insurgent an Enemy, or just Hostile? Are people who support them Enemies or "Threats?"

Taking this as an opportunity to practice applied philosophy, I will say that the first two examples are enemies of the Constitution, but the mere fact of being a threat to the Constitution of the United States does *not* give you license to declare a free-fire zone. As a soldier, you are still obliged to abide by rules of engagement, and one of those rules is a mandate that you are not allowed to either advocate or undertake the violent overthrow of the government of the United States, nor are you authorized to foment a violent insurrection.

In other words, your oath obliges you to take action against those police officers, but your means of attack are limited to political and legal campaigns to remove them from the positions they abused, and to force them to face whatever legal punishment is appopriate.

In the case of Congress, you are restricted to political action against the offending Congressional members, because the Constitution grants Congress the authority to police itself (DoJ prosecution of members of Congress on charges of bribery are arguably an unconstitutional delegation of that power), and legal campaigns to have unconstitutional laws voided.

As to the third example, the act of shutting down a web site is no more an attack on the Constitution than heckling a speaker you find offensive. However, it is an act of vandalism, and the appropriate response is law enforcement. Again, a moderate and measured response is appropriate -- no free-fire zone, no midnight raids.

That... got really hard after the wall came down. The enemy can be who we face on the battlefield, or all of our potential threats and adversaries. You can't address this, until you know who and what the threats are. Easier said then done these days.

I'm not trying to evade the question. I'm trying to put these particular examples into context with the idea of military action against "enemies".

One phrase in the oath says it all, to me...

"...that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law..."

In none of the three scenarios would the LAW direct the use of military force against these perpetrators. In none of these scenarios - because of the phrase I quoted - would any member of the military be authorized to use military equipment, personnel or tactics.

Now, if Congress authorized the Commander In Chief to track down and destroy ... um ... itself (?), then I guess that'd be quite an event.

Regardless, right now the law prevents ANYONE from using the military (not including the USCG) to enforce the law. See "Posse Comitatus Act".

CPT Zachary Brooks, SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL, Gentlemen, as promised, here is my philosophical answer.

The real question is not simply how we define an enemy, based on the follow-up commentary in the OP. Nor is it even how we define an enemy of the constitution given the implied simplicity of defining a foreign enemy as indicated in the OP (I take issue with that, but will let it slide for now).

The first real question being asked here is:"What about the domestic enemies?"

The answer is very complex, as indicated by the debate we already see. I would say any person intentionally acting in a way clearly and observably contrary to the guidelines of the Constitution is an enemy of the Constitution.

Therefore examples 1 and 2 appear to indicate enemies of the constitution, if the actors have been educated and have chosen to violate it nonetheless. (Example 3 involves crime-the Constitution is intended to restrict the action of Government, not private citizens.)

This leads to the next question: "While this line is easy to draw with enemy combatants [I also disagree with this], where does this extend to non-violent actors that may be operating outside the parameters of the oath we took?"

My answer follows a basic tenet: violence is only acceptable in answer to violence or imminent violence. It is not acceptable to initiate violence against a peaceful adversary. We must seek to educate and persuade the peaceful enemies of our constitution in accordance with our oaths, while remaining prepared to defend violently our unalienable rights: life liberty and the pursuit of happiness against violent attempts to remove them.

I think our founding fathers layed out an excellent example of when violence against a tyrannical opponent to freedom is acceptable: when they embark on a long term operational campaign to forcibly disarm the populace.

I'm interested in the thoughts of some of my favorite debate opponents: CPT Michael Barden Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS TSgt Joshua Copeland SSG(P) (Join to see) CSM (Join to see) SGM Erik Marquez.

This is where I start getting nervous. We are soldiers, not arbiters and executioners of our particular brand of "America." I personally know some "patriots" that are domestic enemies in every real sense of the word.

CPT Zachary B, any human being who attempts to destroy our way of life based off the concepts and ideas the Constitution represents and is entrusted with authority of our Constitution.

CPT Zachary Brooks OUTSTANDING topic. I wish I could give you more thumbs up!

And today the mix is getting worse. Now there are so many militia groups who we fought against in Iraq, now we are fighting with them against ISIS. I'm wondering if it is who is the threat at the time?

There is many variations in how the term enemy can be used. But there are so many contexts that it is different to apply it generally. In the military however we use it as enemy combatants. I think we can pretty much figure that out. If you attack the soldiers or the interests of the US you are an enemy.

Where the actions are taken by someone who professes radically different beliefs and deliberately designed to cause harm to those who don't hold the same beliefs, the definition is easy.

Where the person initiating the actions professes to hold the same beliefs and honestly believes that the actions are beneficial to those holding the same beliefs, then the definition is one hell of a lot more difficult.

Of course, it has always been difficult to come up with a rational reason for defining the world solely in terms of "them" and "me (and those I feel are OK)"

Now there is a philosophical topic! I have two ex's that qualify under the domestic enemy.
Fortunately there are laws to protect us against all the examples you listed, however, the one that concerns me the most is those that are entrusted to uphold the constitution and try to pervert it. This is where the citizens have a responsibility to hold the politicians feet to the fire. I know, easier said than done in the age of entitlement.

The officer entrusted with the public trust should get the equivalent of a dishonorable discharge (emphasis on dishonorable) There should be a registry for bad cops just like there is for sex offenders. As for anonymous, I understand there intentions may be noble, however, they are still breaking the law by breaking into anothers network or computer. God knows anyone that phisically broke in would be prosecuted. These guys are no different.

It is the responsibility of soldiers to follow lawful orders, however if the order is not lawful, it is the responsibility of the soldier to point out that the order is not lawful and disobey that order. I forget the name of the law, but there was a law passed after the "Civil War" that was intended to prevent US troops from being used on US soil and the intent was to prevent another civil war ever happening. Even in disaster relief efforts, the troops must be requested by the governor or the state and most of the time it is the National Guard that responds, not regulars. Troops should not be employed to correct any problem of our government and never to fight against the citizens if the citizens rise up against the government. It is in the founding documents of our Republic that it is the duty of the citizens to throw out a corrupt government, so that would be legal and use of troops to resist it would be illegal. Makes sense if you look at it the right way.
The first step, if you are not satisfied with the way the country is being run, work to get in a position to fix the problem. Run for office. Get a job with the FBI or CIA. Don't just complain, take action, but do it within the bounds of law. If you just sit back and complain, you are not doing anything useful.

Any one person or group of people, who go against the building blocks of our Constitution, are by default enemies to that Constitution and the people who are the 'protectors' of our Freedoms. Non violent actors are the most violent, disturbed enemy combatants of our Constitution. For they organize and instigate the idea to destabilize our republic & dismantle our Freedoms, one right at a time. Non violent actors are far more dangerous than violent enemies, because they plan ahead, design 200 year ideological agenda's, sign their John Hancock to invade other people's nation's while millions of innocent men, women and yes children are slaughtered for natural resourced, opinions and idea's. Apply these types of agenda's which are executed in other nation's, in order to steal, seperate, kill, abuse and control by military and media brute force and look at our own country. For these same 'Law Makers', 'Foreign Policy' creators, Mass Media Hypnosis mediator's/Liars, 'Congress', 'Lobbyists(Bribery)', Military Commanders and the President(just a sheep who speak for all who have spent millions of dollars, and mutual friends/interests in U.S. politics, a President hasn't any actual Powers at all. For if the sheep stopped following and listening to his/her herder... They would assassinate him/her). If I was President, I would fire every politician. I would fire every law maker. I would fire every high ranking military official. I would fire every foreign policy maker. I would stop allowing media to kie and I would throw them into Prisons when they told lies. I would fire the entire corrupt political system. I would tell the private reserve, who aren't actually a part of our Federal government, to pack their shit, leave their press and plates and get the fuck out of the United Stated Of America or they'd face life sentences for espionage and theft of the American people and thd people's elected Official's. I would make it so Lobbying is a Felony, punishable by a minimum of twenty years inside a State's Correctional Institution. I would put a cap on the amount of wealth a corporation and/or an individual may accumulate(20 million per year Max) & anything made ove the maximum amount, would circulate into social and economic organisation's in order to aid in making the United States Of America Great Again. The homeless issue would slowly be resolved. I would make it a Felony to hide any money made within the U.S.A. in Off-Shore Bank Accounts, because every person MUST pay their Fair share and Must be taxed on what they have earned regardless of Wealth. I would make it a Law that if your Company or Corporation was created in the U.S.A., you cannot leave or move that business to go to another country(Slave Labor) & I would make Slave Laboring a Felony, punishable by a Maximum of 20 years. I would allow Business to dump, but they must clean up safely at their own expenses. Failjre to provide a clean environment will result in a 20 billion dollar fine, enough to almost put you out of business, but that would be the point. Police Reform would occur and police would need to undergo Psychological Evaluation's every 6 months. I would create a Psychological Test in order to weed out the Sociopath's who do join the Police Force. Currently Police have no Test to test Sociopath's. The test does not exist. I would take away guns from the police every time a department's individual officer or more were involved in civilian shootings that resulted in the termination of that civilian's life. They'd be taken from the entire Department for three months and they can try to police with less lethal weapons instead. I would get rid of Police Unions. I would take away all of the military vehicles and military weapons that we have donated to them(their 'Warrior Mentality' is a direct cause of receiving military equipment). Police are not warriors and the United States Of America is NOT a "battlefield" nor is it a "warzone". Police are nothing more than Civilian Servants i.e. Civil Servants, which means they literally are employed to Serve Civilian's and not violate their Sovereign Master's protected Rights. If you do not like the idea of being a Servant, than do not become a Police Officer. If you became a Police Officer to fulfil a Rambo Fantasy, than being a Police Officer is not the correct line of work for you. Police Officer's are nothing more than Social Workers with some State Powers and Guns. Servants. They do not serve nor represent a Mayor, a Court System. They are to serve and represent the People, who's local taxes help pay their wages. This entire country needs a reformation and fast. There is too much Corruption and everyone must be terminated/fired for they have failed in running this Country under thd United States Constitution. The Constitution is the upmost Highest law of the Land. It wields more power than a King and more Power than the Wealthiest person on planet Earth. The people who didn't elect, as in Congress and others, have become so corrupt, that our Constitution recognizes thesd Actors as: Tyrants. By default. These Tyrants are thee public enemy # 1 and if they're Tyrants, than surely the rest of the political spectrum are also Tyrants.