the oath keepers, discuss!
so it turns out that there is this organization of police, military personnel, veterans and firefighters who disagree with the erosion of our rights and are concerned by the fascist trend over recent years.
they're vowing to defy orders that violate the US constitution. they're refusing to seize property, impose martial law, perform warrantless searches, disarm people, blockade cities, detain americans as "enemy combatants," etc.
the video is a bit slow paced and dramatic but it gives the gist, and unfortunately illustrates its position with hurricane katrina.
i don't know what to think. i read about it in an article that was making the point that the popularity of this group is only one example of a population that's moving toward serious change, out of necessity. i don't know how popular this group is, but they do have patches which i guess is how we will tell them from the rest of the fuzz when the shit hits the fan.
discuss.
- Madame Filth's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Terrifying.
Because of people like this- http://www.theonion.com/content/news/area_man_passionate_defender_of
Some very clear guidelines- aka ONE SOLID interpretation of the Constitution which was clearly understood by every member would have to be part of it for me to feel comforted by the movement.
Scratch that. This seems more about the Right to Bear Arms than anything else. Terrifying.
Reminds me of the guy I used to work with who had gold buried in his backyard.
Oh hell. I don't know what to think anymore.
I suppose if I had been in New Orleans I would have an entirely different perspective on the matter.
I can't think of a way to solve the problem- I guess that in the end, one hopes that an individual will go with his or her own conscience. I know that I would certainly refuse an order to do something I'm morally opposed to. But that's why I'm not in the military...... and I don't work for the government.
It's not so much the actual rhetoric they're using but the tone of the message plus all the Katrina stuff and the fact that the only source of news footage they use is from Fox news that bothers me.
I'd have to know more about the group and what their members actually do (or have done) to form an opinion.
It bothers me that these Oath Keepers are vowing not to do anything that conflicts with their duty to uphold the Constitution rather than saying, simply, that they refuse to obey orders that would mean going against the law. Because the Constitution and current laws are not one in the same. Laws are made based on an interpretation of the Constitution - and on a lot of issues there's still plenty of debate over what the interpretation should be. So the fact that they use the term "Constitution" instead of "Laws" tells me that maybe they disagree with some of the laws as they are currently written. I get the sense that they want to uphold the Constitution as they personally interpret it which is some scary sh*t. Not that I agree with all laws as they exist currently by ANY means but that's what the legislative and judicial processes are for- it's not for individual law enforcement officers to decide as they go along.
used NBC as well as fox, just to be clear. and the contentious interviews were with bill o'reilley and chris matthews.
you're bringing up my own reservations about it. they do talk about the constitution and its protections, but they don't support it by stating which interpretation they subscribe to, and if no ideological benchmark exists (i e present political parties don't apply, no scholar's work applies, etc), describe their interpretations themselves. i'm fine with them using their own interpretation of the constitution as they enforce the law, that doesn't bug me. what bugs me is that they're trying to pass themselves off as neutral when in reality no one is, and there are plenty of scholars or writers whom they could cite as representing their views better than others. the founder worked for ron paul.
oh and i dug a little and found that they honored a cop who refused to break up a demonstration of christians at a university who were taking a stand "about christian moral issues such as abortion and homosexual behavior."
and now, i don't even oppose that per se. i mean, if the cop was asked to disperse a peaceful group in public, good on him for refusing. but how peaceful were they really, and did he refuse to break up counter demonstrators? they don't seem to feel that's relevant when honoring him.
Navigation
Who's online
Who's New
- BeachBunny
- gayle.mallinger
- Mamapocket
- mjcwriter
- addie smith
heavily in support of the second amendment, which is a very good thing. when i first saw this it brought to mind a totalitarian regime where police enforced illegal government actions like foreclosures and lockdowns and whatnot. i looked over what they pledge NOT to do, but don't state why it is they feel the need to state this. is it because of the warrantless wiretapping of the bush and obama regimes? is it because of the illegal prisons where we house and torture (they say american but i say why does that matter) people? or is it because this vaguely racist theme that's so popular at anti-obama rallies depicting him as a socialist, as hitler, as an extremist. fuck, if he were any of those things, i'd like him at least a little. this group says they're non-partisan, which makes me skeptical. no one is non-partisan.
i looked at what they criticize, and there are both bush administration and obama administration shit in there, so.... maybe they defy categorization into the banal tv framework we're used to seeing groups. or maybe if i read more i will find teabaggers.
i was surprised by that footage of katrina. i didn't remember (if i was ever aware) that people were forced into that superdome and a military checkpoint was set at the only exit.
either way, if they're terrifying or the government is, i agree that shit's terrifying. it's probably both. they say proto-fascist groups are stronger than ever now.
p.s. that's a good article. i know that guy.