14
14
0
When considering the enlistment oath all of us took (or something similar) is as follows:
“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.”
How does one define the term “enemy?”
Dictionary.com defines this term as such:
- a person who feels hatred for, fosters harmful designs against, or engages in antagonistic activities against another; an adversary or opponent.
- an armed foe; an opposing military force:
- a hostile nation or state.
- a citizen of such a state.
- enemies, persons, nations, etc., that are hostile to one another:
- something harmful or prejudicial
When following this basic definition, how do we specifically define the enemies that we have sworn to fight against? This is easily defined in such groups as ISIL and the Nazis, but what about the more subtle enemies? What about the domestic enemies?
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?
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?
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?
While this line is easy to draw with enemy combatants, where does this extend to non-violent actors that may be operating outside the parameters of the oath we took?
“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.”
How does one define the term “enemy?”
Dictionary.com defines this term as such:
- a person who feels hatred for, fosters harmful designs against, or engages in antagonistic activities against another; an adversary or opponent.
- an armed foe; an opposing military force:
- a hostile nation or state.
- a citizen of such a state.
- enemies, persons, nations, etc., that are hostile to one another:
- something harmful or prejudicial
When following this basic definition, how do we specifically define the enemies that we have sworn to fight against? This is easily defined in such groups as ISIL and the Nazis, but what about the more subtle enemies? What about the domestic enemies?
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?
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?
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?
While this line is easy to draw with enemy combatants, where does this extend to non-violent actors that may be operating outside the parameters of the oath we took?
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 30
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.
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.
(2)
(0)
TSgt Joshua Copeland
Capt Richard I P., it is hard to be an opponent when I agree with your analysis.
(1)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
CSM (Join to see) Don't sell yourself short. Philosophy is war by another name. Instead of changing people's landscape, you change their mindscape.
Philosophy can be far more brutal a battlefield. For in war, you escape when you die. In philosophy, there is no escape.
Philosophy can be far more brutal a battlefield. For in war, you escape when you die. In philosophy, there is no escape.
(4)
(0)
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.
(2)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
This is a question that history will answer best . Who we define as Enemy .
We follow orders we do not make that choice of who we call as Enemy .
We follow orders we do not make that choice of who we call as Enemy .
(1)
(0)
SGT Mary G.
However as MSG Brad Sand pointed out we also have the responsibility of being private citizens. Admittedly it is more demanding to wear the two hats when one is active duty or Reserve. As private citizens the issue of domestic enemies can not be taken lightly. The Patriot Act seems to define "enemy" as "terrorist" but also reserves the right to target anyone as a terrorist without being required to tell them why. Having to trust the patriot act will not be abused should make everyone nervous! Since private citizens are not entrusted to decide individuals are domestic enemies and do anything about it . . . except report suspicions if warranted, I happen to think that "domestic enemies" might have been included as a way for we, the people, to be confident about the need to protect ourselves (individually and collectively) should it ever become clear government is evolving into a dictatorship. Considering that is the burden of being a private citizen.
(0)
(0)
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.
(3)
(1)
SSG Dwight Amey MSA, MSL, BS, AS
TSgt Hunter Logan, thanks for your response. I would be glad to explain my statement. I think it might be my use of any human. American citizens can be anyone from any ethnic or racial group. I mean no disrespect. We are fighting a war where our enemy hides in plain sight, they look like us, talk like us, and at any moment takes advantage of our vulnerability because of our willingness to trust our public places are safe to occupy.
(0)
(0)
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?
(1)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
SGM Mikel Dawson Sergeant Major; If you aren't particular about whom you pick as a "friend" you end up with some pretty disreputable "friends".
If you don't have any strategic vision then you tend to make things up as you go along and stand a really good chance of running afoul of Szygny's Law ("Once you open a can of worms you can only re-close it by using a bigger can.").
If you don't have any strategic vision then you tend to make things up as you go along and stand a really good chance of running afoul of Szygny's Law ("Once you open a can of worms you can only re-close it by using a bigger can.").

Mikel Dawson at Self- employed, Farrier | Former SGM - 11B: Infantryman | RallyPoint
SGM Mikel Dawson, Army Reserve | RallyPoint professional military profile.
(0)
(0)
SGM Mikel Dawson
COL Ted MC, well said. I'm just glad I'm not opening those cans. The problem is, we know who pays for those bigger cans!
(0)
(0)
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.
(1)
(0)
2LT Scott Armstrong
If the whistle of the bullet is louder than the repeat of the rifle from which it came, you have found your enemy.
(1)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
2LT Scott Armstrong I remember my first gun fight. I stopped for a minute I thought "Wow, it is just like the movies" then I threw some of my own.
(1)
(0)
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)"
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)"
(1)
(0)
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.
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.
(1)
(0)
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.
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.
(0)
(0)
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.
(0)
(0)
Defend.
It doesn't say take arms against or destroy.
In the first two examples apathy is the true enemy, both can be defended against by turning off the television, deleting "Candy Crush" off the cell phone and getting involved in the political process. Educate yourself on the issues beyond what the extreme left or extreme right pundants' are saying and try to educate the people around you... and for the love of God, show up to the polls on voting day!
Example #3 is a little trickier:
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
~ Evelyn Beatrice Hall
The tricky part is when you balance "Freedom of Speech" vs. legality. Racism and Pedophilia are both illegal, and there's no doubt in my mind that they should be, but what about marijuana use, abortion, or gay marriage?
To say that people can't talk about their beliefs (legal or illegal) is an insult to liberty.
The Constitution does NOT however say that I have to *listen* to the diarrhea that comes out of every pie hole that stands on a soap box and spews it.
It doesn't say take arms against or destroy.
In the first two examples apathy is the true enemy, both can be defended against by turning off the television, deleting "Candy Crush" off the cell phone and getting involved in the political process. Educate yourself on the issues beyond what the extreme left or extreme right pundants' are saying and try to educate the people around you... and for the love of God, show up to the polls on voting day!
Example #3 is a little trickier:
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
~ Evelyn Beatrice Hall
The tricky part is when you balance "Freedom of Speech" vs. legality. Racism and Pedophilia are both illegal, and there's no doubt in my mind that they should be, but what about marijuana use, abortion, or gay marriage?
To say that people can't talk about their beliefs (legal or illegal) is an insult to liberty.
The Constitution does NOT however say that I have to *listen* to the diarrhea that comes out of every pie hole that stands on a soap box and spews it.
(0)
(0)
According to the Army Dictionary online, enemy is defined as "a party identified as hostile against which the use of force is authorized" and can be found in ADRP 3-0. The DOD Dictionary online only had a definition for enemy combatant and source DODD 2310.01E.
(0)
(0)
Thor Tron61
Constitution: Most Powerful Law/ Rights to protect civilian's against government tyranny. Period. An enemy is ANYONE who infringes on our Constitution. Our Constitution is more powerful than any King/Queen, Corporation and/or the weathiest person on Planet Earth. Anyone who participate's in the erosion of both the Constitution and it's sovereign citizen's, is by default an enemy. A tyrant.
(0)
(0)
The enemy is, in my mind, any person or persons who try to cause conflict, pain and or war on my country, state or family.
(0)
(0)
I guess I will receive a lot of flack over my opinion, but you can't please everyone. If I am forced to pull the trigger on someone, then that is my enemy. I in all truthfulness can not and will not say I haven't made terrible disicisions, but I am the one who has to live with those and the lose to others concerned.
(0)
(0)
The NEWS Media on the battle field is the enemy leaking out your location and what you are doing no regards for your safety.
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
MSG Floyd Williams Master Sergeant; Haven't you ever heard about "The American People's Right To Know"?
Remember, the media is there to make money and no other reason. If no one would buy advertising on news programs - there wouldn't be any news programs (although replacing some of the talking heads on those programs with re-runs of "My Mother the Car" might actually improve the average intelligence level of the broadcasts).
Remember, the media is there to make money and no other reason. If no one would buy advertising on news programs - there wouldn't be any news programs (although replacing some of the talking heads on those programs with re-runs of "My Mother the Car" might actually improve the average intelligence level of the broadcasts).
Floyd Williams, Army | MSG - 88N: Transportation Management Coordinator | RallyPoint
MSG Floyd Williams, Army | RallyPoint professional military profile.
(1)
(0)
good job with kids American sniper herd your pop um off at st judes forced down the reylced cow dung water of calif o well
my guess whole lot money from trafficked wounded kid busness back home in states
my guess whole lot money from trafficked wounded kid busness back home in states
(0)
(0)
The oath you quote is the oath of allegiance taken by those being naturalized as US citizens.
(0)
(0)
Example 1: The search may be ruled unconstitutional by a court. That is how that scenario is handled on a very frequent basis.
Example 2: The Constitution lays out the separation of powers. In this scenario the Supreme Court would rule on the constitutionality of the law that was passed.
Example 3: Now this is interesting. First the ethical question, is doing the wrong thing for the right reasons ethical? In this case stopping hate speech is a right thing, however is shutting down a website, an illegal act, appropriate? I do not believe that doing the wrong thing for the right reason is ethical. It leads to a situation where as long as we feel something is wrong then we can do whatever we want to stop it and that is not good for humankind. There's a right way of handling things, it's usually not easy or expedient, but it exists and if we are to be better then those we seek to correct then we have to hold ourselves to a higher standard. Are they an enemy though? I think that in the broadest definition of the term, yes they are. But are they an enemy that needs to be dealt with via the Military or should we use the civilian law enforcement of our Nation to deal with it? I think the latter is the better choice.
Example 2: The Constitution lays out the separation of powers. In this scenario the Supreme Court would rule on the constitutionality of the law that was passed.
Example 3: Now this is interesting. First the ethical question, is doing the wrong thing for the right reasons ethical? In this case stopping hate speech is a right thing, however is shutting down a website, an illegal act, appropriate? I do not believe that doing the wrong thing for the right reason is ethical. It leads to a situation where as long as we feel something is wrong then we can do whatever we want to stop it and that is not good for humankind. There's a right way of handling things, it's usually not easy or expedient, but it exists and if we are to be better then those we seek to correct then we have to hold ourselves to a higher standard. Are they an enemy though? I think that in the broadest definition of the term, yes they are. But are they an enemy that needs to be dealt with via the Military or should we use the civilian law enforcement of our Nation to deal with it? I think the latter is the better choice.
(0)
(0)
I used to have a real simple definition of the "enemy" as they were the people shooting at me.
However .. to address you examples
#1 - Fruit of the Poisonous Tree - results of the search will be tossed and the perp walks. The behavior has been punished and the country protected.
#2 - Review of the Supreme Court and Presidential Veto - two defenses against this enemy threat.
#3 - Illegal actions are prosecuted by duly constituted law-enforcement agencies. At least 3 layers of protection against these enemies exist.
However .. to address you examples
#1 - Fruit of the Poisonous Tree - results of the search will be tossed and the perp walks. The behavior has been punished and the country protected.
#2 - Review of the Supreme Court and Presidential Veto - two defenses against this enemy threat.
#3 - Illegal actions are prosecuted by duly constituted law-enforcement agencies. At least 3 layers of protection against these enemies exist.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next