“Malignant Nature” Deconstructed by a Current Serving West Pointer Who Served With the 82nd Airborne.

As many Oath Keepers are aware, “Streiff” over at Red State has written a criticism of us entitled “The Malignant Nature of the Oath Keeper Movement.”  The author, a retired LTC, makes many “arguments by authority.”  This attack on Oath Keepers comes from an odd quarter in that Streiff has written eloquently in the past about supporting our troops and other issues that most Oath Keepers would agree with.  He is nominally, one would think, someone who should agree with us.

A current serving LTC and West Point graduate (and an admirer of Streiff’s previous work), who served with the 82nd Airborne Division, has deconstructed Streiff’s arguments below ad seriatim.  His comments are in red

Oath Keeper

“The Malignant Nature of the Oath Keeper Movement“

“Oath Breakers Not Oath Keepers”

Posted by Streiff Wednesday, October 21st [on www.redstate.com]

Truly malignant ideas crop up in a democracy with the frequency of toadstools after a summer rain storm.  Most of these ideas are dismissed by the great majority of citizens after public debate in one fashion or another.  Some of the ideas hang on despite evidence to the contrary (sorry Texas was readmitted to the Union and the Income Tax was ratified by the requisite number of states) but attract no real following.

Truly pernicious ideas, however, seem benign at first glance but in truth strike at the heart of our system of government.  The “Oath Keeper” movement is one of those ideas.

At first blush, who can object to the 10 orders they say they will not obey.  Until you start examining each of them in detail (we’ll put aside for now the mindboggling assertion in Lexington/Concord was precipitated by an attempt to “disarm” Americans).

[Not sure what history Streiff is referencing; militia members of the colonial and Federalist periods were required to provide their own arms; that the States also maintained stores of arms, powder, shot and equipment does not change the fact that the British action at Lexington and Concord was designed to disarm the colonists – severally and individually.  With an overt goal of seizing the cannon, powder and stores maintained in the village of Concord, General Gage’s troops were also to disarm and disperse any militia encountered en route– which involves the unconstitutional seizing of individual weapons (in that it violated the “traditional and ancient rights of the free (non-indebted) English". So the Oath Keepers’ concern regarding obedience to any orders to disarm the American people has good historical precedent.]

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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” 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.

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.

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.

In the case of a smallpox, or similar, outbreak it would not be unreasonable for any government to direct that a municipality or geographic area be put under quarantine. I would think most everyone would agree that would be a good thing. If there was an armed insurrection in some area of the country, I’d find it hard to object to warrantless searches of homes and the disarming of persons in the area of operations. We need look no farther than the actions of Louisiana governor Kathleen Blanco in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina to see the utter imbecility of the federal government waiting for a state governor to declare an emergency before intervening. The nonsense purveyed by this group would have prevented Lincoln from opposing Secession and, more recently, it would have prevented Eisenhower from integrating public schools in Little Rock.

[The issue isn’t whether local martial law in the face of illegitimate insurrection, or the medical quarantine of a region due to an epidemic.  Streiff’s examples are strawman arguments or red herrings. But assuming the sincerity of his position, what he overlooks is the Oath Keepers’ assertion that it is the unconstitutional exercise of government power.  The list of ten “Orders we will not obey” are, within clear context, ‘enforceable’ (by the individual soldier or policeman’s conscience) upon demonstration of an extra-constitutional use of state power to an end which would subject the American people to “absolute despotism.”]

These principles, if they deserve to be called that, are nonsense and against the American tradition of government as it has been understood since the Whiskey Rebellion was suppressed by George Washington.

Were flogging bad history the only issue at hand, I wouldn’t be writing this. I’d be encouraging them to get a degree in education and teach civics in junior high.

[But I am very concerned that Streiff’s understanding of history and civics is badly lacking.  He would do well to read David Hackett Fischer’s “Paul Revere’s Ride” or “The Minutemen and Their World” by Robert A. Gross and Alan M. Taylor – he might find it illuminating.]

But it isn’t. On one hand the oath these people take is meaningless as they seem to be people who aren’t currently bound by an oath anyway. But as a career infantry officer I am gravely offended that they could be encouraging some number of military members to break rather than keep their oath of office. As a conservative I am offended that anyone on my side of the political spectrum would support such un-American nonsense.

[As a career Army officer, 1984 graduate of the Military Academy (West Point), Infantry Officer, and constitutionalist I take great offense at Streiff’s historical myopia.  I am subject to the oath I swore to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States” – and will be until even after I retire (several years away), until I am no longer viable for recall.  But even then, I will be personally bound, as a citizen, to that same oath.

For Streiff to trivialize the issue as “un- American nonsense indicates to me that he has not through the ramifications of his oath or of the realities of history.”]

When you take the oath of office as a member of the Armed Forces you do not take on the character of a freelance constitutional scholar.

As a commissioned officer you are appointed by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate (yes, this is true for even second lieutenants), and you serve at the pleasure of the President.

Your oath reads:

“I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God.”

[Streiff assumes that obedience to orders is the essence of keeping one’s oath.  Can he envision no circumstances where maintaining one’s sworn oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic…” might require disobedience to un-constitutional orders?  Indeed, they may be lawful orders – but are they constitutional?

Streiff trivializes the issue that the Oath Keepers raise: what is the nature of your oath?  How do you put into practice that sacred trust that you hold as a Soldier (Marine, Sailor or Airman) or Sworn Peace Officer, when daily practice provides you no clear guidance, when conventional wisdom holds that all that is necessary is to “obey orders”, when exercising one’s conscience in the face of clear despotism and tyranny comes at the cost of personal sacrifice.

The knowledge of history, the comprehension of current events, the clarity of moral purpose and the personal courage required of the Oath Keeper establishes the Oath Keeper as the more complete citizen than ever a mere active serving infantry officer’s claim to obedience – and recall I say this with all due respect as I am myself a 1984 West Point Grad, commissioned in the Infantry, served in the 82^nd ABN Div, etc.].

Read the oath carefully. There is not an Obama Exception to the oath. There isn’t a proviso that this oath is subsidiary to some grander more important oath you’ve taken. You agree to “well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office.” To men of honor and integrity — which, in an ideal world, should be the minimum requirement to hold a commission — your word is your bond, if you’ve taken this oath with mental reservations about the intentions of the President, you’ve already violated your oath. So you aren’t an “oath keeper” but an “oath breaker.”

[More strawman arguments.  The Oath Keeper movement is not arguing some “grander oath”.  Rather, they are arguing for those who have sworn an oath to support and defend the constitution to consider just what that means.  It isn’t mere obedience to superior orders that keeps one true to one’s sacred oath.  And in this day and age, to posit the potential for illicit, tyrannical exercise of despotic power on the part of government is the merest prudence – no mental reservation is required, and party affiliation of the past, present or future administration is irrelevant.  This issue is – in the face of exercised despotism – how does one maintain ones oath to support and defend the Constitution.

Go back and re-read the Oath Keepers’ list of Ten Orders We will not Obey.   The issue is resisting, of not being a party to, the exercise of despotism by one’s own government.

I do not look forward to the day or that choice.  But in such a case -- and strawman arguments of Hurricane Katrina and the inability of a governor to act, or red herrings regarding possible medical quarantines are not the issue - - in such a case where the government acts to abrogate those constitutionally protected, natural rights that we enjoy as Americans, then any military or sworn peace officer has a choice – obedience to (arguably) lawfully constituted authority, or follow their oath to support and defend the constitution.]

For enlisted men the rules are even more clear.

“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.”

Read it again, slowly and carefully:

I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me

You’ll note there aren’t ten exceptions here. The Uniform Code of Military Justice places a significant burden off proof on anyone who disobeys an order on the grounds that the order wasn’t lawful. And once you’ve made the effort, the system doesn’t treat full-time soldiers and part-time constitutional scholars like Michael New with great deal of respect.

As a conservative I’m truly offended by this nonsense. This type organization, seemingly equal parts Walter Mitty and the black helicopter crowd, enables the left to lump all opponents of Obama together into a lunatic fringe that will then be studiously ignored.

[I think Streiff’s problem is that he cannot envision a circumstance where government forces act despotically, so the entire Oath Keeper argument appears to him to be hysterical.]

The Tea Parties were taken seriously by lots of members of Congress precisely because they were not lunatics. Polls show we are winning people over to our ideas. Why would anyone opposed to the Obama regime think this organization is a good idea?

In 1783, we were at a critical point in our struggle for nationhood. We had won independence but the form of government which would succeed the British monarchy was clearly up for grabs. There were calls for General George Washington to lead the nation either as a monarch or military dictator. In response, Washington went before the Continental Congress on December 23, 1783 and resigned his commission. That action, captured in a painting by John Turnbull on display in the Capitol Rotunda, paved the way for our republican system of government and our tradition of the civil supremacy in civil-military relations.

My advice to the “oath keepers” is just that. Keep your oath. If you want to make political decisions about how the military and police are used in this country, resign your position and agitate to your heart’s content. If you remain in uniform your oath binds you to the government and absent clear reason to the contrary, and none of the ten reasons set forward by the Oath Keeper organization meet that standard, you have a legal and moral obligation to faithfully carry out the duties given to you.

[Again, Streiff conflates obedience to “lawfully constituted authority” as co-incident with “keeping one’s oath.”  In the normal course of events this would never be an issue, and granted that the duly constituted authorities do not exceed their constitutional authority will never become an issue.  However, Oath Keepers prudentially envision circumstances where such is not the case.

I appreciate his sincerity but I am saddened that he would pick a fight with those on the side of constitutional government, conservative principles and traditional values.]

We are in a tough fight with this administration for very high stakes. The stakes, however, do not justify us checking our brain and our sanity at the door and signing onto truly bizarre and un-American ideas like those set out by the Oath Keepers.

[Time and space preclude my addressing all of the errors in Streiff’s argument.  But I do agree that the various constitutionalists and conservatives ought to make common-cause and tear down one another.  Just because Streiff cannot see any possible reasons for men of good conscience to disobey (arguably) lawful, but equally (arguably) un-constitutional orders – does not mean that such potential conditions and circumstances do not or will not exist.

Finally, I enjoin him to view the film Valkyrie.

Wretched Dog

The author of the rebuttal is a 1984 graduate, with honors, of the United States Military Academy at West Point.  Commissioned as an Infantry officer, he served with the 82^nd Airborne Division and the 6^th Infantry Division (Light) before transitioning to the US Army Reserve in 1992.  Recently returned from his third tour in Iraq (as a Brigade Operations Officer) he is still a serving officer, on full time status as an Active-Guard Reserve Officer in the US Army Reserve.  He is a historian and constitutional scholar by avocation. ]