Oath Keepers in Iraq

[Chris Fleming]

Ok but can we separate the issue of Iraq for a moment? I happen to really agree with you guys who bring up the point of the irony there is with saying that they will keep their oath WHILE invading Iraq for oil. But what about the soldiers who, regardless of that, are saying they will not carry out illegal orders against the people of the US?

The Oath Keeper movement isn't just soldiers either, as it includes the police (whom I think we have more to be worried about) and basically anyone who has taken the oath to defend the US against all enemies, foreign AND domestic.

It is a scary thought to remember the Katrina incident where the men carried out their (illegal) orders to forcibly disarm residents in their own homes. Things like that should show you that the constitution IS just a piece of paper (as quoted from Dubya) and its real power comes from the people who are in a position to carry out what it says on that piece of paper or not.

[Steve James]

FWIW, all members of the armed forces of the U.S. take approximately the same Oath. Note the wording.

In the Armed Forces EXCEPT the National Guard (Army or Air)

I, (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.

The only time a person would need to proclaim being an "oath keeper" is when he feels that what he has been ordered to do is illegal according to the uniform code of military justice, Geneva convention or his own conscience. In all cases, he can resign or be reassigned or conscientiously object. That can be mission specific, as well. I think the noblest thing to do would be to resign. And, I don't think that soldiers can engage in a constitutional debate in the field. So, personally, I see it as just another patch. You can't take an oath to break an oath.

[meeks]

when I was in the US Military they always pushed the point that you had a choice to say 'no' to orders, but that it was still considered disobeying an order and that in times of war was punishable by death. During the first Iraq War (early 90s) they showed Marines signing 'volunteer' forms to go to war - absolute bunk. My girlfriend's brother was sent there and it was the same thing - sign this 'voluntarily' or be arrested.

[Steve James]

Well, that's right: there's always the brig or stockade. And, disobeying orders can be punishable by death. But, right now, everybody who's signed up is a volunteer --which means that he's signed his butt away. Otoh, if there were a draft, it'd be the same thing. My point is that servicemen and women already take an oath to defend the Constitution when they enlist. No need to wear a separate patch, imo.

[Michael]

Ten orders that Oath Keepers will not obey:

1. We will NOT obey orders to disarm the American people.
2. We will NOT obey orders to conduct warrantless searches of the American people
3. We will NOT obey orders to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to military tribunal.
4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state.
5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty.
6. We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.
7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.
8. We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to “keep the peace” or to “maintain control."
9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies.
10.We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.

The oath to the Constitution of the US taken by Oath Keepers does not include any mention of President's orders or the Uniformed Code of Military Justice.

[Steve James]

What will they "DO"? Imo, if they're in the service, they'll go to jail if they don't. No problem, they have as much right to follow their conscience as any other serviceman. If the patch means that they won't do in the US what they may be ordered to do in Iraq, ok. Actually, I just thought of the National Guard troops sent to Little Rock. Yeah, does have a Civil War flavor, too. Anyway, there have been several servicemen who've been charged with and imprisoned for refusing to follow orders in Iraq, don't know about Afghanistan. I don't think any of them were "Oath Takers" tm.

[Michael]

One reason why someone would follow orders to do things, or just do them because others are doing them, is being in the minority. If peer pressure isn't enough to make you follow the status quo, then you are meant to feel isolated by the higher ups, who give you the impression they can make your life hell or send you to jail any time they want, which is not usually the case. I refused orders a few times in the Marines because of safety problems in my work place and all the normal things happened: peer pressure; one-on-one meetings with commanders who threatened violence and legal action; my CO even tried to provoke me into hitting him during the meeting, and other dirty tricks from commanders. Eventually I was charged with two violations of the UCMJ, but I knew my rights, held firm and was never actually prosecuted, never actually beaten up, never actually arrested, etc.

I think the Oath Keepers are trying to let people in the military and police know, whether active duty or retired, that they are not alone, and if they refuse unlawful orders they will not be left twisting in the wind all by themselves. They're taking away the ability of commanders threatening them. It's kind of like a labor union for civil rights protectors, which is certainly what the police should be, IMO.

[Steve James]

I don't think that's why they're doing it. But, I can't get into anyone's head. I read the other sites and thoughts associated with them and judge from the total. Did you wear an oath keeper patch? Anyway, I don't think they're any more noble than the guys who don't wear them.

[Michael]

I was in the Marines over 20 years ago and the Oath Keepers started in April, so nope. I was just a kid in Hawaii trying to stay both out of the brig for disobeying orders and out of the hospital for working under unnecessarily dangerous conditions.

Why do you think they're doing what they're doing? Or what have you read about them? I'm just curious to know.