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?
Oath
Mission
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 30
0
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)
0
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)
0
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)
0
0
0
0
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)
0
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)
0
0
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)
0
0
0
The oath you quote is the oath of allegiance taken by those being naturalized as US citizens.
(0)
(0)
0
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)
0
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
-
Ask questionGet expert advice and
tips for your questions. -
Post updatePost pictures, personal updates, plans, or anything you like!
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google