Will Oath Keepers weaken America's defenses?
That's what fellow Examiner and libertarian Karl Dickey suggests in his recent article, "Oath keepers and libertarians." Dickey expressed concern that, even as libertarians welcomed Oath Keepers as principled individuals, some military personnel "acting on their own accord" could potentially weaken America's military.
His reasoning goes as follows.
Oath Keepers is a relatively new non-partisan association of currently serving military, veterans, peace officers, and firefighters "who will fulfill the Oath we swore" and promise to disobey unconstitutional orders.
Some of America's finest peace officers, as chronicled in The Anti Police State police, have already been refusing to enforce what they see as unconstitutional overreach, refusing to enforce marijuana prohibition laws, gun bans, or breaking up peaceful demonstrations.
As for the currently serving military, the oath they swore was reproduced in Dickey's article so we don't all have to go looking for it:
"I, _____, 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."
A strong military, notes Dickey, requires a strong chain of command. If some active-duty Oath Keepers, acting on principle, refuse to obey what they believe to be illegal orders it weakens that chain, which potentially weakens the military and its ability to defend the country.
But the problem will not come from the Oath Keepers. To understand the source of the problem, read that oath again.
The oath America's military personnel take is to "support and defend the Constitution," to "obey the orders of the President" and to obey "the orders of the officers appointed over me."
If the President and the superior officers are obeying their respective oaths there is no problem and the whole existence of Oath Keepers in the military becomes moot.
But, as we all know, the first thing every new president does is take the Oath of Office and, unfortunately, virtually everything he does after that involves ignoring his oath.
When CNN hysterically accused Oath Keepers of being "an anti-Obama group" in November another fellow Examiner, Gun Rights Examiner David Codrea, was ready with a rational response:
"Their purpose is not to be anti-Obama. It is to uphold their oath to the Constitution. When Obama upholds his, Oath Keepers will be behind him."
So the problem will not be rank-and-file military members refusing to follow illegal orders. The problem is always politicians who unconstitutionally and therefore illegally misuse the military for their own hubristic posturing on the world stage, and military commanders who'll happily sacrifice others for the sake of personal acclaim and advancement.
As America's founders understood, making our leaders keep their oaths has always been the job of us, the everyday citizen. It's why we vote, why we have jury nullification, why we keep and bear arms, why we've always had the option of nonviolent civil disobedience.
Oath Keepers is just one more citizen effort designed to keep the ruling class in line.
A rogue's gallery of well-known Oath Breakers. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
Get the latest libertarian news from the All Libertarian All The Time news source:
The Libertarian News Examiner.
Comments
A “weakened” military is much preferred. The total elimination of standing armies would be even better.
The military doesn’t protect anyone but the ruling regime. It is merely the tool used by demonic, power-mad oligarchs to execute and enforce their “policies.”
911 proved the military can’t “protect the country.” They couldn’t even protect their own building (on their own turf) from a single missile. The Ft Hood massacre proved the military can’t even protect themselves FROM EACH OTHER!
What a useless bunch. Fire the lot of them.
Roger, you da man! For a fuller explanation read:
Oaths, War, And Liberty
@ The International Libertarian
when an order to disarm american citizen is given, this soldier believes in the u.s. constitution and the bill of rights, being an american is what it is about, i do not belong to an democrat nor republican to me they are all but the same and that is a traitors as i see it, when you have a president who calls these documents just a g.d. piece paper and another president calls it an imperfect piece of who knows, i lost respect to the individuals but not to the offices, then this country was built for true american patriots who are suppose to be free and have documents that is the u.s. constitution and the bill of rights and i swore to that and will die by that, i don't have a college degree nor did i go to yale, or to some other university but to the military, i know where i beliefs are and still there, my right hand did not come down, i am an oath keeper, i kept my oath and i have my honor which most of these moonrats don't have. look at our history and you can tell who broke theirs.
Darren and Roger - I'm all hip to the withering away of nation-states and militaries and governments and all, but in the meantime we have to live today in today's real world with governments and massively murderous weapons and such around the world. Ideally we would have a dominant defensive force and no foreign adventuring as Geo Washington et al envisioned which would make us much safer. But blaming the existence of a military for militarism is like blaming the existence of a handgun for killing people. As every gun owner knows, guns can't kill people; it's people firing guns that kill people. Likewise, militaries don't kill people; it's the politician with his finger on the button that launches the troops that kill people. And don't forget that both handguns and militaries can be used either coercively or defensively. They are tools. So banning our military in today's reality sort of parallels banning citizens from owning handguns while world criminals remain armed.
Garry,
Thx for the thoughtful reply, though I have to disagree. The Founders were against the idea of a standing army for the reasons I've outlined in my article. The same logic applies today. If the govt has a military they will find or create a war to use it in.
As to your gun control analogy, I actually favor gun control, applied to the govt that is. The fewer guns they have the better.
Quote:
As every gun owner knows, guns can't kill people; it's people firing guns that kill people. Likewise, militaries don't kill people; it's the politician with his finger on the button that launches the troops that kill people.
So then all those people/troops(including the oathkeepers)who are in the military are nothing but a mindless tool, with no will of their own?
To at least some extent, yes... a vast military establishment IS a "mindless tool." The troops have been conditioned from childhood to be compliant, unable and unwilling to think for themselves.
There are exceptions in the ranks, and they have a tough choice. They can remain in the military and do their best, or they can leave and take the consequences.
The troops are individuals, with individual wills and obligations. It is up to each individual whether or not they will be mindless tools, or oathkeepers.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!