Militant group’s recruiting of soldiers worries watchdogs

By Daniel Tencer
Wednesday, November 18th, 2009 -- 11:04 pm
Share on Facebook Stumble This!

oathkeepersbadge Militant groups recruiting of soldiers worries watchdogsAcosta: Obama 'inherited' civil liberties problems from Bush

A quickly-growing right-wing group that recruits serving soldiers and police officers and encourages members not to obey presidential orders has some watchdogs worried.

The Oath Keepers, founded earlier this year by a former staffer for congressman Ron Paul, say they aren't a militia group like the many others sprouting up around the country, because they don't need to be -- their recruits are already members of the armed forces or law enforcement agencies, says a report from CNN.

CNN's Jim Acosta reports that inductees to the group swear an oath of allegiance to the US Constitution that is modeled after the oath given to military recruits, but omits one key phrase: "I will obey the orders of the president of the United States."

"Our role is not to be obedient to whoever happens to be the leader, our role is to defend the Constitution and the republic," Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes, a former army paratrooper and staffer for famed libertarian Ron Paul, told CNN.

Story continues below...

Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center said the group is exploiting Internet rumors about plans for "concentration camps" for US citizens and speculation about gun control measures to recruit new members.

"Many of the Oath Keepers are people who believe that martial law is about to be declared at any moment, it's right around the corner," Potok said.

The group's Web site lists 10 "orders we will not obey." Some of the orders are things that are likely to make both libertarians and liberal critics of the Bush administration happy, such as "we will not obey orders to conduct warrantless searches of the American people," and "we will not obey orders to detain American citizens as 'unlawful enemy combatants' or to subject them to military tribunal."

But other assertions betray a belief in questionable rumors circulating around right-wing corners of the Internet about FEMA concentration camps for US citizens or plans to radically expand the US government's control over citizens' lives.

"We will not obey orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state," reads one statement, while another declares, "we will not obey orders to impose martial law or a 'state of emergency' on a state."

ACOSTA: OBAMA 'INHERITED' CIVIL RIGHTS CONCERNS

CNN's Acosta argued that President Obama's problems with groups worried about civil liberties were first seeded by the Bush administration, which was heavily criticized by many on both sides of the political aisle for clawing back civil liberties.

"President Obama seems to have inherited some issues from the Bush administration that many libertarians, many folks in this so-called Patriot Movement don't like," Acosta said. "Things like the bailout, things like the Patriot Act. So in many ways President Obama is inheriting problems with these groups that he got from the Bush administration."

Acosta also said that the group's strategy of recruiting soldiers may "vindicate" a report from the Department of Homeland Security earlier this year that warned "right wing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans."

That report inflamed Oath Keepers founder Rhodes.

"They're considered heroes, but when they come home, now they're considered potential terrorists," he said in a speech earlier this year.

The Southern Poverty Law Center, which monitors right-wing extremist groups in the US, recently stated that some 100 new "Patriot movement" groups have sprouted up around the country since President Obama took the oath of office. In an August report, the group said the Oath Keepers "may be a particularly worrisome example of the Patriot revival" because of the fact its members are currently-serving members of police forces and the military.

Share this article:
  • Print
  • email
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • Facebook

Story comments are below...

  • 3arthling
    I object to the CNN's characterization of this so-called "movement" as radical or potentially terrorist in nature. In fact, the phrase "obey the orders of the President of the United States...", previously limited to Third-World nations and dictators, was added by the Bush Administration. The soldiers are simply swearing the oath as it was before George W. Bush wrecked this nation, it's standing in the world, and its economy. They are simply swearing the oath that was good enough for the United States of America right up until Georgie.

    They are swearing not to obey what are already unlawful orders under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which already states that the President is Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces (so there's no need to swear to him). The Bush Administration needed fealty, not just to the constitution, but to him personally. "Their" oath is the same one that I was required to say before joining the Army in 1977.

    So, while those in the press are screaming OMG!!! Militants!!! The report was true!!!! Notice too, that the press barely reported on it when it was changed in the 80's as part of Bush's attempts to appoint himself dictator.
  • Savantster
    .
    I was going to show the facts you're lacking, but rickpetes beat me to it.

    and "militia" aren't required to acknowledge the U.S. Chain of command because they aren't entering into a contract with the nation.. soldiers do..

    what we have is a domestic insurrection starting. We have people that don't like their government when it wears a D, so they are "mobilizing", yet those same jackasses did nothing while the Shrub lied us to an illegal war.. this is partisan bullshit and facilitates the divisive tools used by the bat-shit insane right-wing leadership.

    but that's ok.. you'll note cops and soldiers get shot by civilians all the time. while recruiting them increases the odds of survival for the militia, it is no assurance they won't still get blown away if they attempt a hostile coup in this country.. Plenty of real patriots will happily gun them down. Don't threaten my Democracy just because you don't like the results of the election.
    .
  • rickpetes
    The first oath under the Constitution was approved by Act of Congress 29 September 1789 (Sec. 3, Ch. 25, 1st Congress). It applied to all commissioned officers, noncommissioned officers and privates in the service of the United States. It came in two parts, the first of which read: "I, A.B., do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) that I will support the constitution of the United States." The second part read: "I, A.B., do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) to bear true allegiance to the United States of America, and to serve them honestly and faithfully, against all their enemies or opposers whatsoever, and to observe and obey the orders of the President of the United States of America, and the orders of the officers appointed over me." The next section of that chapter specified that "the said troops shall be governed by the rules and articles of war, which have been established by the United States in Congress assembled, or by such rules and articles of war as may hereafter by law be established."

    Looks like you're factually challenged. 1789 pre-dates 1977 by a couple of years and the Bush administration by a few more.
  • It's unconstitutional (sedition) for any public official or member of the armed forces to swear an oath that supersedes the oath of office. We've been down this road before -- in fact the Grand Lodge of Freemasonry changed its oaths of office in the early 19th century after Anti-Masons like President John Q. Adams went after the organization.

    This group is breaking the law. Are we a nation of laws or not? These nuts are traitors.
  • mledford27613
    Traitors really? Have your read their Oath? It does not supersede their oath of office it reinforces it. The traitor's are our "representatives" that day by day sell out our freedoms to corporations and banks. You sir are a moron.
  • allenallen
    mledford,

    I have to wonder if you read the entire article because this does not reinforce the oath... it leaves something out. "Leaving out" is not what I think you mean by "reinforcing" or what anyone means by reinforcing. Such as "I took a brace out of the wall to reinforce it." <-- generally considered to be absurd.

    I refer to the article where it reports:
    ...but omits one key phrase: "I will obey the orders of the president of the United States."

    ( The word 'Omit' means to leave out. Not trying to insult you but want to make sure you know that.)

    And how can you call someone who offers a historic example... a moron? I think there is a more accurate insult if you want to insult Mr. Edwards. Personally I think he's on the money but if if you want to insult... hey, go for it. ;-) But clearly "a moron" is not what Mr. Edwards is. See that's why I had to wonder if you knew what the word 'omit' might mean... again... not to insult... I just can't assume.
  • mledford27613
    First and foremost I would like to apologize for resorting to name calling. It was however instigated by your name calling especially the traitor part, I take that kind of personnally considering I have honorably served for 14 years. I do however have a different view than you but luckily we are still able to have disagreements without it resulting in imprisonment. This is actually one of the last freedoms we have left so cherish it while you can.

    I will make a more clear point since I have actually taken the oath of enlistment.
    "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." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

    The first line is the basis for everything. Any line thereafter which goes against the first line is null. So if by following an order given by an officer or the President goes against upholding and defending the constitution it is then rendered unconstitutional and therefor not lawful. Example: my CO orders me to come to your house imprison you and take all your holdings. Should I follow that order just because my CO told me to? Of course not, that goes against the Constitution. Would I be punished probably but the point of the OK's is to get enough people that those types of things would not happen that order would never be given and if it was, there would be enough of us not to follow that order and thereby maintaining our Oath of office.

    The nazis being tried for war crimes tried to use the excuse of, "I was just following orders," how did that work out for them?

    I do understand omit but as stated above I believe I have made my point. You do not insult my intelligence because I do not know you and don't really care what you think you know about me but thanks for the definition.

    Just because you state something from history does not correlate to your intelligence.

    (The word correlate means either of two things so related that one directly implies or is complementary to the other) Not trying to insult yours either.

    go here and read all the orders that OK's will not obey then make your own judgement.:

    http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2009/03/03/declarat...
  • No, I'm not a moron. But thanks for calling me "sir." :-) Please read my reply below concerning the Oathkeeper presence on white nationalist site Stormfront.org.
  • OK, look. Maybe it was too much to say traitors. But maybe it wasn't. I just visited Sto.rmfront.org (white nat'list site) and they have a new thread RE Oath Keepers. First post is the list of 10 oaths. Second post and third post read as follows:

    "They can keep their oath and take it somewhere else for all I care. This is the same group of people that publicly announced the disdain they have for 'neo-Nazis' and other 'racist' groups."

    "Hmmmm..... That doesn't seem like such a good thing once they force the Amnesty bill into law. When 30 million+ illegal criminals become instant Americans will these oath keepers allow them to keep their guns?
    They only say that so they don't get shut out of the mainstream-and if you understood what Oathkeepers is about,it should be obvious that they want everyone to KEEP their guns.I am an Oathkeeper,and I am on this site!"
  • Sorry... meant to point out that last line a little more boldly: "I am an Oathkeeper, and I am on this site!"
  • clayhughes
    OATH KEEPERS ARE OUR LAST HOPE AGAINST A GOVERNMENT THAT WANTS TO TAKE DOWN THE US TO FORM A NORTH AMERICAN UNION AND THEN A ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT. WHY DO YOU THINK ALL LEADERS CONTANTLY TALK OF A "NEW WORLD ORDER" Ron Paul for Pres 2012,
  • Savantster
    .
    the premise of a new world order is tainted by the right-wing's view of what it should be (the U.S. dominating all other people).. The reality is, we will evolve to a global community because we all are stuck on this rock together, and we must all get along. The most efficient way for that to happen is to simply abolish all nations and accept that we're a planet of humans.

    the left-wing, enlightened approach brings peace to the world.. the right-wing, narcissistic and abusive/exploitation approach will being wars and misery to the world.. but, in the end, we'll still end up in a global community with no borders. The only question is, how do you want to get there?
    .
  • wanizame
    A: Give me three examples of members of congress discussing a "new world order" in the past month. I doubt you can.

    B: It will be difficult for Oathkeepers to defend the hapless populous from tyranny when they are in prison for treason. (puttheiceback has a point.)

    C: If you type in all caps and end your post with Ron Paul 2012, I have no choice but to assume you have a special room for storing your tin foil hats in and that you have a small shrine to Art Bell in your bedroom closet. Good luck with that.
  • OATH KEEPERS ARE SEDITIOUS TRAITORS INTENT ON UNDERMINING DEMOCRACY AND THE REPUBLIC IN ORDER TO SET UP A THEOCRATIC GLOBAL THRONE FOR THE MESSIAH WHO IS COMING IN 2012. WHY DO YOU THINK ALL LEADERS -- ALL OF THEM -- RANT ABOUT A "KING OF THE WORLD"?!??!!! Phil McRackin for Pres 2012,
  • NotConvinced
    I'm glad that the "Oaf Keepers" are going crazy in front of the world. Let the world gaze on their total insanity. Let us share our humorous treasure with the world. Bush shouldn't take all the blame for destroying the USA. The "Oafs" should share the blame too. Those gun packing, inbred, toothless, hydrocephalus head mongoloids should get credit for their narrow minded racist contributions. While Bush was drunk choking on pretzels it was the hillbillies carried on and made America what it is today. Screwed up.
  • billbry
    Headline correction, Americans with Unalienable Rights that hold the real power tired of getting fleeced and enslaved ask tyrants nicely to back off and stop your "change" of the Republic! SPLC and ADL are a joke at this point in history. "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win"-Gandhi - Meaning there is a fight coming and they picked the wrong group to fight with. Here come the UN peacekeepers!! But then we win!
  • spinnikerca
    Why don't you look at the Southern Poverty Law Center's definition of a hate group and apply that definition to the SPL, itself? It is an interesting exercise. The SPL thinks people who oppose its own given-by-God agenda are hate groups, as far as I can tell. I don't care, except some people, such as in this article, quote them as if they should have some credibility.
  • Paraphrasing B. Russell:

    Intolerance of intolerance is not intolerance. IOW, it is not intolerance to oppose intolerance. Opposing hate groups does not make you a hate group. So there.
  • putheiceback
    They better read the U.C.M.J.
  • mojolezgo
    What a joke! a cop not willing to abuse warrants? No such creature!
blog comments powered by Disqus