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".