.jpg)
Part of the fallout from the Ft. Hood atrocity is a reexamination of what constitutes "terrorism," as distinguished from mere criminality. While such an exploration may seem at first blush to be little more than an exercise in semantics, the outcome could have very real effects.
We have already discussed efforts to exploit the Ft. Hood rampage to push "terror gap loophole" legislation, whereby people under investigation for possible terrorist connections could either be denied gun sales, or at least have information about their gun purchases more widely shared within the government. Another potential effect is the possibility that, in the entirely understandable (and laudable) interests of preventing another such attack, the Pentagon may cast a much wider net in defining "extremist organizations," in which service members are barred from participating.
The Pentagon may reconsider rules governing participation in extremist organizations that some lawmakers say appear outdated and too narrow in light of the shooting rampage at the Army base in Texas.
Lieberman said Congress may recommend such a review, and a Pentagon spokesman said Friday that the rules could be among the policies scrutinized by a wide-ranging inquiry aimed at preventing another similar attack.
I can certainly understand adding Hamas and Al Qaeda, etc., to the list of unacceptable groups (I am not, by the way, claiming that Hasan was a participant in either of those--just giving a couple examples), which already include racially bigoted groups more commonly associated with the U.S. Still, any broadening of the definition of "extremist hate group" risks being exploited by those who would manipulate the definition process to include groups that, rather than being "hate groups," are actually the targets of hate on the part of those doing the defining.
On reading the Associated Press article that mentioned the possibility of tighter regulation of service members' participation in political groups, my immediate concern was that such a move could provide the perfect opening for suppression of the Oath Keepers. It seems absurd--the Oath Keepers, after all, in reaffirming their oath of loyalty to the Constitution, would seem to be the last people we need to worry about.
Some, however, disagree. The Southern Poverty Law Center, for example, had this (among other things) to say about the Oath Keepers:
[Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. Les] Melnyk provided the specific Defense Department regulation regarding prohibited extremist groups, and it clearly is aimed more at groups that discriminate based on such things as race, ethnicity or religion. Simple conspiracy theorists, for now, might get a free pass.
[ . . . ]
As the SPLC noted in its July report, however, the military services’ track record when it comes to disciplining or purging extremists in their ranks has been spotty. Here’s a story from Stars and Stripes, the independent military paper, based on the SPLC report.
Author Jeff Mushall imagines a similar menace in the Oath Keepers, and would seem to advocate a similar "solution," as outlined in his "The 'Oathkeepers' [sic] Need to Be Put in Check--Now":
Already, the group plans on mass mailing kits to active duty military outlining what they are about and seeking recruits. It's not a violation of free speech to suggest military commanders do not allow that. Just because a person is in the military or on a police force doesn't give them the right to arbitrarily interpret laws and act according to what they perceive as threat.
That last sentence is particularly interesting:" . . . doesn't give them the right to arbitrarily interpret laws and act accordingly . . . ." If the individual service member does not consider whether or not his/her orders are legal (i.e., Constitutional), who is going to do so--the commander? That would tend to mean that no order would be found to be illegal, wouldn't it? To my way of thinking, service members had better devote some thought to evaluating the legality of their orders. Nuremberg established that "just following orders" isn't going to hack it.
I'll leave to others the debate over whether or not Major Hasan's (alleged) heinous act constitutes "terrorism," but I will not sit quietly by while loyal defenders of the Constitution are smeared as members of a "hate group."
Update: National Gun Rights Examiner David Codrea asks "Will Pentagon purge Oath Keepers?"
Atlanta: Ed Stone | Austin: Howard Nemerov | Boston: Ron Bokleman | Charlotte: Paul Valone | Cheyenne: Anthony Bouchard | Chicago: Don Gwinn | Cleveland: Daniel White | DC: Mike Stollenwerk | Denver: Dan Bidstrup | Grand Rapids: Skip Coryel | Knoxville: Liston Matthews | Los Angeles: John Longenecker | Minneapolis: John Pierce | National: David Codrea | Phoenix: Douglas Little | Seattle: Dave Workman | St. Louis: Kurt Hofmann | Wisconsin: Gene German
Comments
Another great article Kurt.
I think the Oath Keepers objective is simple. Do everything possible to separate themselves from contemporary radicalized militia groups.
It's clear the anti-gun media and politicians have had some success in linking modern extremist non-inclusive militia groups with the Second Amendment Militia clause which, of course, is a complete farce. However to the uneducated or uninitiated citizen, the two groups may appear to be one in the same.
IMO, today's extremist militias bear no resemblance to the 2nd Amendment militia doctrine or Article 13 of the 1776 Virginia Declaration of Rights on which 2A was based.
The media and politicians are pulling out all the stops to categorize the Oath Keeps as a radical extremist group when in fact they are an advocacy group of concerned citizens reaffirming their oaths to uphold the U.S. Constitution.
If politicians are threatened by this form of advocacy, that is a dark harbinger for the future of our Republic.
If it involves deep and heavy thinking, there are too many people who would rather not. They become the sheeple, a politician's wet dream.
If the 5-Sided Fortress of Evil prohibits the "Oat Heepers" ;) it will probably be the best advertisement and recruitment tool imaginable. It will just drive membership underground and create unity and loyalty among the members.
"'Oat Heepers' ;)"
Oops--now that's embarrassing. I put the "[sic]" in there, to point out that making it all one word was Mushall's mistake, rather than mine, and then left the "k" out.
It does conjure up a kinda amusing image, though.
I suspect that the biggest potential benefit from having OK around is to force Master's hand on asking the "who do you serve?" question publicly. The state always demands unquestioning loyalty (after all, it by definition asserts a claim on your life) but it would much rather avoid the inconveniences inherent in purging obvious peaceables if at all possible. Much cleaner to purge someone you've re-branded as a scoundrel. So, they'll work on that one for a while. The fecal flingery is just beginning.
What Oath Keepers can do is to remain as visible as possible, and stick to the scruples of the message: we will not help the state to aggress against its own citizens.
Make it obvious that THAT is what Master is trying to crush.
MediaCurves.com conducted a study among 300 viewers of a news clip featuring the Oath Keepers organization. Results found that majority of viewers (53%) felt that armed militia groups should be outlawed in the United States. The percentage of viewers that support the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, which protects the right to keep and bear arms, declined from 80% to 73% after viewing the video. In addition, more than one-third of the viewers (37%) reported that the existence of the Oath Keepers organization causes them to feel less safe.
www.mediacurves.com
Thanks,
Ben
Yeah Ben, I don't doubt your numbers. In response to them I would point out that I am not bound by stupidity of others. We are gradually being outnumbered by the unthinking products of federal education in our schools. However, they won't have a walkover. Outlaw all they can to "feel" safe.
Their stupidity in not my mandate.
Well, Ben, before today, I had never heard of "Media Curves," but I have a couple thoughts about their little "study."
First, one might wonder about the audience, if they actually took CNN's hit piece on the Oath Keepers seriously.
Furthermore, the Second Amendment, as part of the Bill of Rights, guarantees the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and the formation of militias is an important reason why. 53% of the population--or 99% for that matter, can "disapprove," but Constitutional rights are not subject to being nullified by mob rule.
As far as support for the Second Amendment dropping from an enormous 80% to a still-dominant 73%--even 73% of the population in favor of REPEALING the 2nd Amendment would not make the repeal easy.
Finally, even if the 2nd Amendment IS repealed--someone still has to do the actual disbandment of militias and disarming of the people--care to try it, Ben?
SCREW THE POLITICIANS!!! Their afraid of any grassroots organization that keeeps their eyes on the scoundrels running amok in Washington DC. They have every reason to fear, and desire to abolish the oatkeepr's and other groups-Their monthly paychecks are at stake....
maybe if more people involved themselves, these self serving politicos would start to understand that the mood of the American peoplehas changed, except for a few left wing socialit types that are part of the Obama-Nation that worhip his majesty Shiek Obama--
Want the true answer (as I know it?)
Here you go:
oathkeepers.ning.com/forum/topics/why-am-i-an-oathkeeper
Sincerely,
Jon Watts, SMSgt, USAF (ret.)
Oath Keeper
I am an "associate" Oath Keeper, meaning I have never served in the Military nor as a peace officer. I am, none-the-less, an Oath Keeper and unashamed to say so. Though concerned, I'm not surprised that any on the left would react irrationally to our existence. This is the beginning of where the rubber meets the road. Just how far will "they" go and what will be the consequences for those of us who are Oath Keepers by conviction.
I am more than qualified to be an "Oath Keeper "Member,"" however, after reading what the Dept of Homeland Security put out, and paying close attention to the big picture unfolding around us, I refuse to put my name on any list(public or private) that could potentially be placed (conceivably through force) in the hands of such people that will later target us.
Since D.H.S.'s release we have been: flooded w/new members, buying all of our gear trough straw sales and continuously add more to the dozens of "battle gear caches" trough out our city and surrounding counties. Its really no longer a question of if, but when and how, Slow like congress or fast like Katrina.
In short, our Gov't declaring people like me their enemy, is profoundly unsettling and not taken lightly. I seriously suggest you all take this threat serious enough to use the first part of the 2A diligently. As of late we are still relying on the second box... the transition to the forth box will be swift.
~GF
I've read all the pros and cons here, and yes, I'm an Oath Keeper. I wasn't really concerned about this particular list, as I'm a Conservative, a United States Marine Veteran, an active Tea Party Organizer, and a gun owner with a CCW.
What's one more list.
I will tell you one thing. We have in the Oath Keeper forums, which are public, a fair number of people who have to be purged from time to time because of radical views that they might wish to act on. We police our ranks and don't allow the kook fringe into the organization.
Look, we're all worried, and I think with good reason, but "Standing Down," as active duty Oath Keepers have sworn to do in the face of Unconstitutional Orders, is hardly a reason for anyone to go on a witch hunt. ----- Unless it's in their nature to go after any organization that doesn't hold with their leftist views on how the world should work or be run.
What's the Socialist Playbook say? Separate, admonish, make a spectical of, attempt to cut off? Yep!
when I was serving in the military I (we) took the oath to support and defend the constitution. When I left there was no un-oathing ceramony, so with me at least it's still in force. get my drift?
@coolinout, "A stitch in time, will save you nine."
Alls in all, a list is a list and posses no bias....
You may police "your" own ranks all you wish, but when the real police show up @0300 knocking your door down with much less than a whisper before hand, what will you do?
~GF
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!