Oath Keepers: Absurdist Political Theater

The organization known as Oath Keepers is not a militia. There is, I believe, a parallelism that one affects the other. Some explanations behind the ten points of the Oath Keepers’ Oath speak directly to concerns expressed on militia and conspiracy Web sites, for instance, and I think I address these below. For now, let’s see what the organization says it, and its members, are about:

What Are the Oathkeepers About?

Oath Keepers is a non-partisan association of currently serving military, veterans, peace officers, and firefighters who will fulfill the oath we swore to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, so help us God.

Our oath is to the Constitution, not to the politicians, and we will not obey unconstitutional (and thus illegal) and immoral orders, such as orders to disarm the American people or to place them under martial law and deprive them of their ancient right to jury trial.

We Oath Keepers have drawn a line in the sand. We will not “just follow orders.”

Finally, the statement declares that members: “…are Oath Sworn Americans who want the Constitution returned to its legal and rightful place, intact, as the ultimate Law of the Land.”

Is our Constitution not now the ultimate Law of the Land?

Otherwise, no one would need to restore it to that position.

Of course, the members of the US Supreme Court disagree, and most of the incumbents are conservative or appointed by conservative Presidents.

I don’t believe that citizens should be restricted—prevented—from joining the Oath Keepers. I don’t believe that the organization is dangerous or a threat to our nation and our civil liberties.

No, not in any way.

I believe, however, that the historical and theoretical basis of the organization is flawed. In some cases, seriously flawed. More about that below.

Points of Disobedience

1. We will NOT obey any order to disarm the American people.

In 1775, British General Thomas Gage sent troops to confiscate militia stores in Concord, Massachusetts to lower the threat of armed insurrection against the government. That plan failed and was the spark of the armed conflict that we know as our American Revolution.

Someone should note that, while General Gage’s plan was probably misguided and poorly executed, it was not “vile.” And, the 700 British troops sent out were not ordered to disarm the population by breaking into their homes and confiscating weapons and ammunition. The object were the militia stores in Concord.

This is the history cited to support this point of the Oath Keeper’s Oath. Significantly, however, and to apply it to our political environment today, the author also writes:

“In particular we oppose a renewal of the misnamed ‘assault-weapons’ ban or the enactment of H.R. 45 (which would register and track gun owners like convicted pedophiles).”

Do legislators at the state or federal level have the ability to write law restricting the availability of any weapon to anyone? These women and men are, after all, elected by their constituents and respond to their constituents’ intents, at least to some degree.

Does the Second Amendment guarantee the right of a private citizen to own a nuclear or chemical weapon? Absurd question? Of course. Can government prevent people from arming themselves with Browning machine guns (either .50 or .30 caliber)? Artillery? Anti-tank weapons? Missiles? Our courts are, and will continue to be, engaged in defining and redefining the limits on both government and individuals regarding the kind and number of weapons that can be, or cannot be, “controlled.”

Is there a serious movement or plan by government, either state or federal, to disarm individuals who lawfully own weapons?

2. We will NOT obey any order to conduct warrantless searches of the American people, their homes, vehicles, papers, or effects—such as warrantless house-to house searches for weapons or persons.

I won’t argue against this principle. In fact, most cases of warrantless searches are conducted by state and local police authorities. The major exception to this is the inferred power of the President to authorize a warrantless search for foreign intelligence purposes. This, of course, brings up the question of the role of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the court set up under the provisions of that Act, and the National Security Agency and its call database. Of course, there are valid concerns over the ability of government to intercept and record phone conversations of private citizens.

Still, I have to ask:

Is there any hint that our federal government intends to conduct warrantless searches of citizens and their property on a massive scale?

3. We will NOT obey any order to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to trial by military tribunal.

What is an “unlawful enemy combatant?” According to the Military Commissions Act of 2006, the US citizen who attempted to destroy an airliner with explosives hidden in his underwear is, or could be, an unlawful enemy combatant. People who are not members of an organized army fighting against a belligerent, such as Taliban or al-Qaeda members, are, or could be, unlawful enemy combatants because, as the International Committee of the Red Cross framed it:

“If civilians directly engage in hostilities, they are considered ‘unlawful’ or ‘unprivileged’ combatants or belligerents (the treaties of humanitarian law do not expressly contain these terms). They may be prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action.”

The whole issue behind this point of the Oath Keeper’s Oath deals with how the federal government might treat members of unauthorized militias. Unauthorized? The Constitution for which the organization so professes fealty establishes states as the governing and authorizing body for a militia.

The militias to which the Oath Keeper site refers are, instead, “domestic ‘militia’ groups the government brands ‘domestic terrorists.’”

To date, those who have been prosecuted by the federal government for violation of federal law have not been classified as “unlawful enemy combatants,” regardless of any affiliation with a local, unauthorized militia group.

Are there any indications that our federal government intends to identify US citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” and prosecute them in military tribunals?

4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state, or to enter with force into a state, without the express consent and invitation of that state’s legislature and governor.

Dwight D. Eisenhower, not known for radical politics on any side of a political fence, ordered the 101st Airborne Division to enforce federal law in 1957 in Little Rock, Arkansas. Was he wrong to do so? The governor refused to obey federal law and the US Supreme Court, a direct violation of his oath. (Oath?) In 1962 and 1963, local units of the National Guard of the United States were ordered to enforce federal court orders and protect students as they integrated universities in Mississippi and Alabama.

Can governors and state legislatures decide on their whim which federal law to obey? Can citizens decide to disobey traffic law or tax law at their whim? Is that the nature of freedom, as written into the US Constitution and defended by men such as Madison, Hamilton, and Washington?

One of the earliest and strongest complaints against the federal government following Hurricane Katrina was about the delay that occurred before federal authorities stepped in to aid New Orleans. Why did they wait? Because the mayor and the governor did not quickly ask for their help, as they had to do.

Is there any hint that our federal government intends to impose martial law or forcefully enter into a state without the consent or invitation of the governor?

5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty and declares the national government to be in violation of the compact by which that state entered the Union.

Oh no? In 1861, eleven states declared their sovereignty to the extent that they seceded from the Union, an act not contemplated in our Constitution and expressly denied by Andrew Jackson in 1833 with the Force Bill.

The Southern Confederacy fired upon Fort Sumter, a federal property, to remove the federal army from that facility and take it over along with all materiel within. The federal government responded by declaring the southern states in a state of insurrection. The rest is, well, history.

According to this point of the Oath the Oath Keepers promise to keep, they will not enforce the law in a state that declares itself in an insurrection against the nation?

The revered Founders, especially George Washington and James Madison, foresaw the probability that states would remove themselves from the original Confederacy (under the Articles of Confederation) and either try to go it alone or realign themselves into loose confederacies. They also saw the disaster that would occur if that came to pass. That’s why they, and their compatriots, came together to hammer out what is now our Constitution—the very Constitution the Oath Keeper organization professes to treasure.

Is there any hint that—outside of Rick Perry and Texas—a state intends to declare its ultimate sovereignty and secede?

6. We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.

Read the rationale the author wrote for this point and you’ll find that the British are charged with conducting an “act of war” against the citizen of Boston (in 1775) “once hostilities began.”

How very unfair—and uncivilized—of General Gates, whose troops had been attacked already.

But, is there any hint that our federal government intends to blockade any US city and turn it into a giant concentration camp?

7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.

The author cites these examples:

• British detainment of Boer families in concentration camps during the Boer War
• Nazi establishment of the Warsaw Ghetto during World War II
• Detainment of Japanese-American citizens during World War II

What isn’t cited?

• The Babylonian Captivity
• US interment of Native Americans on “reservations”
• The Trail of Tears.

Is there any hint that our federal government intends to inter citizens en mass?

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” during any emergency, or under any other pretext. We will consider such use of foreign troops against our people to be an invasion and an act of war.

The author of the rationale behind this point points to the use of troops from German principalities hired by British King George III (a Hanoverian) to suppress the American Revolution with the British Army.

Some conspiracy Web sites (okay, I call them Idiot Web sites) make claims such as:

“It is also known that the bankster government has imported a million or possibly more Chinese and Russian troops into the United States.”

[Liberty for Life Association]

Such assertions are basely absurd.

Is there any realistic hint that our federal government has, or intends to, import foreign troops to enforce law, martial or otherwise?

9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies, under any emergency pretext whatsoever.

The author cites, among other examples, that of the reservation, under the mercantilism economy of the 18^th century in Great Britain, of the sale and use of naval stores exclusively to the British Admiralty and British, including colonial, commercial ship yards. The object of this was the White Pine, which so dominated the southern forest that its pollen coated the eastern Atlantic each spring and all ships sailing therein.

There is little chance the our federal government will either:

1. Impose a mercantile economy on the United States.
2. Restrict the sale of White Pine and its derivative products to the Department of the Navy.

Is there any hint that our federal government intends to “confiscate food and other essential supplies from the people” for any reason, especially to intentionally starve them?

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.

On the face of it, I would seem to have no basis for argument. The author continues, however, saying:

“we will not obey or support any orders to suppress or violate the right of the people to speak, associate, worship, assemble, communicate, or petition government for the redress of grievances.”

What of police who are directed to break up rallies or marches whose leaders have not obtained permits for their demonstrations? What about groups or individuals who attempt to cross police barricades and occupy streets or buildings to shut down commerce or meetings?

Those who organized the student demonstrations against the Democratic National Convention in Chicago in 1968 would have welcomed police who, had they been Oath Keepers then, held true to this principle. Likewise, those who have, in more recent days, attempted to shut down meetings of the International Monetary Fund or Group of 7 (or 8) economists.

Certainly, I would not seek to have a Web site, whether it be that of the Oath Keepers or any other, shut down no matter how much or how strongly I disagree with the message presented. Why? Because I have a halo to protect? Absolutely not.

Freedom of speech is essential to our Constitution. It is also limited in its application to federal and state government. Companies and organizations can restrict the speech of employees and members as they wish, and as those individuals permit.

Is there any hint that our federal government intends to do anything to restrict or eliminate freedom of speech?

A Confused Conclusion

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually affirm our oath and pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

This is the noble conclusion to a most noble document, our Declaration of Independence. It is misappropriated from that sacred document and applied to this Oath, however. Why?

The Oath quoted refers to something very different from the points of this oath. In the Declaration of Independence, the signers stated their intention to declare the colonies Free and Independent States and that those states:

“…have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do

The premise behind the points of the Oath Keeper’s oath is that they, as individuals, have the right to deny the states—and the federal government established by the people through ratification—the rights described in our Declaration of Independence and set in our Constitution.

Militias, the States, & the United States

In the beginning…the United States had no army. In 1792, Congress passed a Militia Act (amended) that authorized the President to call out state militias “whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion from any foreign nation or Indian tribe.”

Note: The militias envisioned are those established by the separate States for their own defense.

From the 1970s, individuals have organized a variety of groups in the so-called “militia movement;” at one point, these numbered close to 900 different organizations The movement was fed by the Ruby Ridge and Waco incidents. By the 1990s, it seemed that the movement was in decline. Surprise! It’s back.

Lawful Order? Unlawful?

During my service in the US Navy, I discussed, on occasion, the nature of a lawful versus an unlawful order with some of my shipmates. All of us recognized the obvious illegality of certain orders within the historical context, such as those that Germans followed in the execution of the Final Solution against Jews in Europe, or the euthanasia the Nazis committed against German citizens who were elderly, sick, or mentally challenged.

The light of reason dimmed considerably when we discussed acts of our nation, such as the interment of Japanese-Americans in World War II or that of forcing Indian tribes onto reservations (where many Indian Bureau agents allowed the tribes to starve).

What would we have done had we the misfortune to be in the Army units at My Lai?

The thing is, that the lamp of truth shows brightest when it stands far off; when it affects someone else. In a combat situation, which none of us had to deal with (fortunately), would we—could we—refuse to obey an order? The best we could hope for was that, at the moment, we would recognize a thing as unlawful and do the right thing.

A problem I have with the points above is that, in many circumstances, the situations described would not necessarily be classified as unlawful.

• Does our government have the right to suppress insurrection?
  • I believe we do.
• Does our government have the right to suppress freedom of speech?
  • I served on active duty—I know that there are times when freedom of speech cannot be allowed.
  • Even in a completely civilian environment, freedom of speech is limited—it’s entirely legal to prevent members of a jury from deliberating a case before the judge puts the question to that jury.
• Does our government, state or federal, have the right to declare martial law?
  • Yes, I can see circumstances when government can do that.
  • Mostly not, but there are circumstances where this would be both plausible and rational.

So, while I don’t disagree with the principles behind the those points cited by the Oath Keepers Web site, things just aren’t so cut-and-dried.

Are they?

Bookmark with: