Veterans Today Hit Piece And An Unofficial Response
On October 1st, Veterans Today writer Bob Hanafin wrote hit piece on Oath Keepers titled “Are Right Wing Extremists Trying to Recruit Our Troops?” Here is an excerpt from the article:
A few months ago there was a controversy that got just as much a radical reception from the right-wing as the tea parties and Fox news coverage of the never ending Health Care debate.
The controversy I’m really talking about is when the Director of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano was forced by pressure from right-wing talk radio commentators and other conservative mouth pieces like the American Legion to apologize to America’s Veterans and Troops for something that actually is a real threat. The potential threat of right-wing extremists or domestic terrorists attempting to recruit our troops is real as this story will affirm.
The American Legion meant well but takes it for granted our troops are too patriotic to be recruited by right or left wing extremists. WRONG! It is just that patriotism that patriotic extremists play on and manipulate. [See Right-wing extremism memo controversy in comments section. VT. Ed]
We will leave it to the Department of Homeland Security (unless they have been too intimidated by the right wing), Department of Defense, and our readers to decide if what Oath Keepers is doing to attract our troops to take an Oath to potentially disobey orders from their Chain of Command is legitimate or if the Department of Defense and Homeland Security needs to closely monitor such recruitment.
Taking oaths to disobey orders of any Chain of Command is not only illegal under the UCMJ, but it is also illegal under the Hatch Act which most of our troops, including Junior Officers don’t know the meaning of.
Propaganda piece continued here
An unofficial response has been posted on a website blog that we recently found. here is an excerpt:
There are two different Hatch Acts, according to federal legislation. The first is the Hatch Act of 1887, which created agricultural experiment stations. The second is probably what he was referring to: the Hatch Act of of 1939, whose main provision is to prohibit federal employees from engaging in partisan political activity (that is why during basic training, military recruits are told you can’t protest in uniform).
The Hatch Act of 1939 lists out what a federal employee can and can not do. No where in the general provision or any amendments to the law does it say that violating a military order is against the law and is punishable as such. So when Mr. Hanafin says that it is something “most of our troops, including Junior Officers don’t know the meaning of”, I think he is incorrect. I think it is something that he doesn’t know the meaning of, and I’m hoping he reads this and does some research of his own.
Now, on to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The UCMJ is the governing body of law for the military. It lists out what you can be charged for, the regulations for pre-trial confinement, non-judicial punishment, etc. Mr. Hanafin says that under the UCMJ, it is unlawful to disobey an order, which would be correct in most circumstances. This would fall under several articles, namely Article 81 (conspiracy), Article 88 (contempt towards officials) if they are a commissioned officer, Article 90 (assaulting or willfully disobeying a superior commissioned officer), Article 92 (failure to obey an order or regulation), Article 94 (mutiny or sedition), Article 98 (noncompliance with procedural rules), Article 133 (conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman), and Article 134 (general article). My, that’s a lot of articles he has to stand on, isn’t it! Let’s take a look at a few of them, shall we?
Read the entire response here
Please donate and support Oath Keepers mission, every little bit helps!
October 7th, 2009 at 6:26 am
Major?
You are way out of line with your uninformed article, your facts are vague, your sources are dubious at best.
The Oath you took as a Commissioned Officer of the US Air Force requires you to defend and protect this document.
As a Comm. Officer retired or otherwise you should conduct yourself with a higher level of respect for the “Committment” that one affirms when taking the Oath in question. After all you are affirming duty to a calling far above the petty desires of any person or group of persons.
I strongly suggest you take the time to research the Constitution before
slandering the upstanding men and women whom have chosen to answer the call to protect the besieged Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
The Oath Keepers Organization does not promote violence. The goal is simple, remove the proverbal chess pieces from the field. Once this is accomplished the persons whom might wish to usurp the rights and protections guaranteed by the US Constitution by the power of the sword will be without the sword.
If taking a stand to defend the Constitution makes one a “RWE” then count me in sir!
The Oath you took has no expiration date.
October 7th, 2009 at 6:54 am
I was an a-team medic in nam and I can guarantee you that I most definitely refused stupid and / or illegal orders given by superior non-coms or officers.
While we may serve our country in the military we are still not subjects, vassels, chattel, serfs, or slaves. We are free citizens and those who happen to hold a superior rank must act in accordance with the law. As the saying goes ‘you don’t salute the man, you salute the uniform and the country it stands for.’ And it is just as true that you serve your country not the man, and as such no man needs to be obeyed when his orders are not legally supported by the law of the land, or the military you are in.
October 7th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
The odds of Mr. Hanafin actually coming here and seeing this is very slim. However, Chris, I want to point out that legally, he is committing “libel”, as it is in writing. Slander is spoken defamation.
October 8th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
As a daily reader at Veterans Today and a proud Oath Keeper, I can attest to Major Hanafins propensity for long-winded diatribes. That being said, I have met many outstanding Veterans, both readers and staff, from all points of the political compass there. They do a good job of presenting articles and allowing open debate from every perspective. I would encourage all members of Oath Keepers visit Veterans Today and encourage Major Hanafin and our Brother and Sister Veterans to join our Cause.
Not on our Watch!
October 8th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
Mr. Hanafin, however, has shown that he is incapable of solidifying a statement with the facts, as he did by citing the Hatch Act and the Uniform Code of Military Justice as saying that under no circumstance should you ever disobey an order given to you. Beyond that, quoting wikipedia as if it should be a viable source of information and credit should be given to it invalidates many of his claims. You made some good claims, and I don’t doubt that there are good people who write for the site, Dan, but i refuse to believe that Mr. Hanafin is one of them. Seems too much like a whackjob to me.
October 8th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
I agree with you Patrick but maybe he can be shown the light. I don’t know, I hate to turn my back on a fellow Vet without trying to show him the facts and get him on board. I don’t see how he can harm our organization as long as his misrepresentations are addressed at the source. Mission first but I’m still going to engage him when the opportunities present themselves unless someone in the chain decides otherwise.
October 8th, 2009 at 5:35 pm
Very interesting article. My answer to the good Major;
“Major,
It seems you have forgotten some very important facets during the above tirade;
1) We men and woman of the Armed Forces are not your chattel.
2) The Free and Sovereign Citizens of this Country are not your chattel.
3) Nuremberg taught us not to follow an unlawful order.
4) If you are not willing to put yourself between the unarmed Civilian and an armed attacker, you have reneged your Oath.
Both “Parties” have shown there true colors, and it is not Red, White and Blue. Do you, Sir, intend to fire on American civilians, just to “follow orders”?
Please reacquaint yourself with the Constitution, your Oath, and to humble Americans everywhere.
Additionally, you may want to Google the following;
Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler, USMC
Twice decorated withe the Congressional Medal of Honor, and a tough China Marine with additional, long experience in Central and South America.
Will you willingly ignore the words of a Superior Officer, Major?”
October 8th, 2009 at 7:41 pm
Dan,
I will not look to bring people like this into the organization right away. They are too set in how they view us that all they would end up doing is gathering “intel” on us, twisting what they see, and publishing it on sites like this. The people I look for are genuinely interested in following their oath, damned be the consequences. Major Hanafin is part of several groups that have become widespread, most likely in an attempt to feel included and “speak out against the man”. I have already given my rebuttal in several opinions, and my blog post is quoted in part in the above as the “unofficial response”.
October 8th, 2009 at 8:26 pm
I was pleased and inspired by the responses I read. I only added my 2 cents worth, as the issue itself was not in doubt. Well done, all.
This simple minded attempt to turn veterans and soldiers to the left may actually be a great benefit to OathKeepers – and to the defense of the Constitution, as bad liars make great testimony to the truth.
October 9th, 2009 at 12:48 am
Couldn’t bite my tongue – had to leave this comment on that thread -
I’m speaking as the director of Oath Keepers for the State of Montana. I wish to clear up a point or two for Major Hanafin.
1) Oath Keepers is not asking any law-enforcement or military or veteran personnel to take a second oath of any kind. Oath Keepers merely asks that all who took the oath to the Constitution honor their oath. Period. Therefore, it is wrong to claim, as your quaint illustration of Uncle Sam on this page suggests, that Oath Keepers is asking for an “oath to disobey orders of your chain of command”.
2) In the proud tradition of the U.S. military, Oath Keepers is apolitical, and as Oath Keepers’ founder Stewart Rhodes has noted, “I don’t care if the illegal order comes from a Democrat or from a Republican – if they violate the oath I’m gonna call them on it, and so should you.” Oath Keepers is not a tool for either the “right” or the “left”. Oath Keepers is a tool for the spirit and letter of the highest common law of our land, the U.S. Constitution as written, that founding legal charter which created its servant Federal government.
3) As an honorably-discharged U.S. Marine and Vietnam veteran, I recall the My Lai incident, in which some U.S. soldiers followed clearly-illegal orders to murder unarmed civilians including women and children. Oath Keepers decries that sort of mindless “orders-following” behavior as unworthy of the service intended for and by enlisted or commissioned military persons.
4) The SPLC obviously works in tandem with the fear-mongering power-damaged mentalities which direct the Department of Homeland Security, as parallels between Fusion Center memos-of-understanding/reports and published attacks on Oath Keepers on SPLC’s website clearly indicate. SPLC is a private sector think tank and is not an elected element within our lawful Federal government, and its biased opinions should not be given credibility when they imply that returning war veterans should receive increased police surveillance and scrutiny on grounds that they “may” be approached by “extremists” and coerced or influenced to become “threats to law enforcement”. A government which fears that its own veteran community might awaken to the abuses suffered by undeclared wars abroad, and which openly characterizes its veterans as potential problems for law enforcement simply because they may come to see through the illusion perpetrated by “policy” in Washington D.C. is a government which has something to hide. Propaganda generated by such outfits as the SPLC and then dispersed via official DHS/Fusion-Center proclamations is a spit in the eye of every American veteran as well as current-serving personnel.
5) I’d like to ask one simple two-part question relevant to this discussion – Sir, for what did 58,000 of my brothers and sisters die in Vietnam? Did the U.S. Federal government declare war on Vietnam, thereby granting moral ground for the intrusion of uniformed U.S. military into Vietnam? Was there ever any plan to win militarily in Vietnam? If we served and died in Vietnam to fight communism, what in hell is the Federal government and its cronies on Wall Street doing trading with the biggest communist nation on earth today? Do you smell a rat here? Could Vietnam have happened the way it did if the Big Brass at the Pentagon had held to their oath to support and defend the U.S. Constitution, which clearly calls for a declaration of war by Congress prior to fielding our military in foreign lands and nations? Can we not all see the value in honoring one’s oath to the Constitution? What about that bothers you, Sir?
I submit that the only people who have a problem with our troops and peace officers honoring their oaths to the Constitution are those who have a politicized motivation to act outside the bounds of the Federal government’s founding legal document for the destruction of American sovereignty in the name of a one-world government led by the United Nations, as President G. H. W. Bush himself advocated, or the even more-imaginary quest for an “American Empire”.
I respectfully invite you to reconsider your perspective on the organization named Oath Keepers. Honor your oath. Join us.
Salute!
Semper Fi!
Elias Alias, director, Montana Oath Keepers