The Oath Keepers are a coalition of current and former military, police, and other public officials who have pledged not to obey unconstitutional commands. They're extremely controversial, with critics accusing them (inaccurately) of fomenting terrorism and (more accurately) of attracting people with an affinity for conspiracy theories and apocalyptic rhetoric. Since they were launched in the first year of the Obama administration, they are also sometimes accused of being unconcerned with the constitutional violations of the Bush years.
The latter charge doesn't match what I've observed in my reporting about the group. Still, I was interested to see how they would react to the unfolding NSA story. In particular, I wondered whether they'd see Edward Snowden's decision to leak the PRISM documents as the sort of disobedience they champion, and I wondered how much their discussion of the story would extend to Bush-era as well as Obama-era surveillance.
Wonder no more. Stewart Rhodes, the group's founder, has emailed me a statement about Snowden:
He is an example of what needs to be done by anyone who has knowledge of such gross violations of our rights. We need more to stand up, because this is surely the mere tip of the iceberg of the infrastructure for a police state that is being built over us.
This is about far more than supposed attempts to ferry out al Qaeda operatives. This is part of a growing Stasi and Checka style surveillance police state which tags, tracks, and prepares plans to detain dissidents with the "Main Core" database of millions of Americans who the regime considers a "threat."
And this is also really about the absurd claim that the U.S. is a battlefield and the Fourth Amendment doesn't apply to the President's "surveillance of the battlefield." That was the claim of neocon, government-supremacist Bush lawyers, like John Yoo, and that idea that the Bill of Rights is trumped by Executive war powers has also been the consistent claim of Obama lawyers such as Harold Koh, justifying even the targetted killing of Americans.
And that absurd view, that so long as they call it "war' they can sidestep the Bill of Rights and act like Stalin, is shared by both Republicans (like Senators Lindsey Graham and John McCain, and Rep. Peter King), and Democrats like Harry Reid (who tells us it's been going on for seven years, so don't worry about it).
Unless we the people purge out these oath breakers from BOTH parties, we will find ourselves in a nightmare dictatorship and we will have to fight to throw it off. Sweat now or bleed later. Purge them all.
Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com
posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary
period.
Subscribe
here to preserve your ability to comment. Your
Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the
digital
edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do
not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments
do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and
ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Unless we the people purge out these oath breakers from BOTH parties, we will find ourselves in a nightmare dictatorship and we will have to fight to throw it off. Sweat now or bleed later. Purge them all.
Of course you don't. You're willfully blind. Let me spell it out. People who adopt tyrannical tactics to accomplish what they believe are good ends invariably end up causing a great deal of harm, much more than if they just let things alone. When confronted by the horrible consequences of their policies, they inevitably say they were trying to do something positive. Your position seems to be that the tactics are just fine as long as the right people are doing them. It's just not a view that's supported by the preponderance of historical evidence. The means do matter, much more than the ends.
I would think voting and exposing criminal behavior by office holders are implied in the line "sweat now or bleed later" and "Unless we...purge...[then] we will have to fight..." construction.
Close, but it doesn't quite top his comment in the previous thread where he proceeded to give a hyper-partisan defense of Obama to explain why he's not partisan.
Well, to explain it in the monosyllabic grunts that your dim intellect can understand, a vast majority of the Oath Keepers were fighting and dying in Bush's wars, gaining first-hand experience as to the abuses of an Executive branch rum amok. When many of them finally came home from Iraq, they met to do something about it. Not their fault that in the interim the White House change parties, but not policy.
Pat Buchanan seems to think the Oath Keepers' primary grievance is the perceived erosion of dominance of white people. He of all people should know about that sort of grievance, but if you say they're not racists, I'll believe you.
Who gives a fuck what Buchanan thinks? He's not involved in the group. I've never experienced racism in the organization. Rhodes himself has commented on this very board that his organization doesn't tolerate racism.
And I would bet you real money that as a whole the Oath Keepers are more racially and ethnically diverse than the Southern Poverty Law Center.
(b) No person who advocates, or has been or is a member, or associated with, any organization, formal or informal, that advocates discrimination, violence, or hatred toward any person based upon their race, nationality, creed, or color, shall be entitled to be a member or associate member
Did it ever occur to your pea-brain that one of the unconstitutional orders Oath Keepers vow to not follow is rounding up people of a certain group and sending them to camps, or worse?
Ah, so you're smearing the entire Oath Keepers organization as "paranoid gun hoarding quasi-white supremacists."
See comment above re: peak derp. Thanks for proving me right yet again about the infinite nature of stupidity. Someone really needs to start working on a way to turn DERP into electricity.
---"I know I want a bunch of paranoid gun hoarding quasi-white supremacists deciding the new national order."---
THIS is why I think you are a fuckwad. Without knowing anything about libertarians as individuals, or me as a person, you insist on throwing down the racist/white supremacist card. You do this often, as if the only reason somebody could disagree with or dislike Obama is that they are bigots. Stop calling me a racist you fuckwad. And it's easy to know you are a fuckwad based on the shit you post.
I'm a big fan of Obama, and admire his willingness to sacrifice himself in his campaign to make Americans dissatisfied enough with the status quo to restore a culture of liberty.
Well that's a clear statement.
No subtlety here, no sir.
Subtlety does not preclude clarity.
A desire to have it both ways does often preclude clarity.
Unless we the people purge out these oath breakers from BOTH parties, we will find ourselves in a nightmare dictatorship and we will have to fight to throw it off. Sweat now or bleed later. Purge them all.
Tell us how you really feel Mr. Rhodes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ad0hL0bRVWY
Would Mr. Rhodes would approve of such a punishment for oath breakers?
-would
Fuck. GIMME AN EDIT BUTTON!
The premium account has one. Email Welch.
Damnable libertarians and their profit motive!
I vote for scaphism. Not the death metal band, but the punishment.
Obey the law, keep the constitution you swore to defend and uphold.
Yep, he is a radical.
That dusty old thing was written by rich, white slave-owners. The ideas in it can't be any good because the people who wrote it were wealthy bigots.
Plus it's like, ever 100 years old, or something. /Ezra Klein
Well, good for them.
like John Yoo, [...] such as Harold Koh
Racist!
Can't argue with that.
Trouble is, the guys who most need purging are Level 5 and above:
http://www.newfoundersamerica.org/about/
I'm interested in their views and... wait, they probably actually have a real newsletter.
Ah, this wasn't here.
Damn my non-refreshing ways!
Mr. Rhodes,
Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
I have to wonder about that "main core" shit. You know what would happen if the fedgov tried to round up even 1% of that 8 million?
I sure as hell wouldn't want to be a DHS employee.
Purge them all.
With an understood "by conscientiously voting," presumably.
I'd prefer tarring and feathering, but whatever works.
I like that he left the method up to each reader.
given that he explicitly said that purging them was the way to avoid a fight in the future it is pretty clear that is what he meant.
So choosing the right leaders does matter.
Tony| 6.14.13 @ 3:24PM |#
"So choosing the right leaders does matter."
Only to retards like you, shithead.
Electing representatives who favor limited government might matter.
The "right people" are, by definition, those who choose to do the right thing regardless of motivation or partisan preference.
Intentions aren't shit, and that's what you just don't get.
I don't follow, sorry.
Of course you don't. You're willfully blind. Let me spell it out. People who adopt tyrannical tactics to accomplish what they believe are good ends invariably end up causing a great deal of harm, much more than if they just let things alone. When confronted by the horrible consequences of their policies, they inevitably say they were trying to do something positive. Your position seems to be that the tactics are just fine as long as the right people are doing them. It's just not a view that's supported by the preponderance of historical evidence. The means do matter, much more than the ends.
No. Electing the right representatives does matter. I don't want a fucking leader.
I would think voting and exposing criminal behavior by office holders are implied in the line "sweat now or bleed later" and "Unless we...purge...[then] we will have to fight..." construction.
Tree of Liberty... yada-yada-yada... periodic watering.
I know I want a bunch of paranoid gun hoarding quasi-white supremacists deciding the new national order.
Peak Derp has been reached?
The above by Tony is proffered to all of you for judgment.
LTC(ret) John| 6.14.13 @ 3:41PM |#
"Peak Derp has been reached?"
Absolutely not! Shithead has far more retarded comments to make.
Close, but it doesn't quite top his comment in the previous thread where he proceeded to give a hyper-partisan defense of Obama to explain why he's not partisan.
I've repeatedly admitted to being partisan.
Please see Kentucky article for Peak DERP discussion.
Peak Derp is a myth. Stupidity is an infinite resource. Just wait, he'll prove me right.
Tony can contradict himself with in three posts on the same article and remain blissfully ignorant of the hole he dug.
Nice unjustifiable smear there, asshole. Now explain to me how I'm a "quasi-white supremacist".
Same here. My "brown" family will certainly be amused to find that such is the case, heh.
*and Tony slinks away, without another word, from yet another thread....*
So you're in the Oath Keepers?
Associate membership. Want to see my challenge coin?
Ah, so perhaps you can explain what y'all were up to when the constitution was really being fucked sideways in the Bush years.
That's your fucking response? "But Bush?"
Well, to explain it in the monosyllabic grunts that your dim intellect can understand, a vast majority of the Oath Keepers were fighting and dying in Bush's wars, gaining first-hand experience as to the abuses of an Executive branch rum amok. When many of them finally came home from Iraq, they met to do something about it. Not their fault that in the interim the White House change parties, but not policy.
So again, explain to me how I'm a quasi-White Supremacist.
C'mon Tony, own up to your ignorance and lies and apologize or fuck off.
Or am I being too "uppity" for you to handle?
Pat Buchanan seems to think the Oath Keepers' primary grievance is the perceived erosion of dominance of white people. He of all people should know about that sort of grievance, but if you say they're not racists, I'll believe you.
Who gives a fuck what Buchanan thinks? He's not involved in the group. I've never experienced racism in the organization. Rhodes himself has commented on this very board that his organization doesn't tolerate racism.
And I would bet you real money that as a whole the Oath Keepers are more racially and ethnically diverse than the Southern Poverty Law Center.
Did it ever occur to your pea-brain that one of the unconstitutional orders Oath Keepers vow to not follow is rounding up people of a certain group and sending them to camps, or worse?
Remember FDR's Japanese Interment Camps, asshole?
I stand corrected then.
Still don't think the OK are or should be the authority on what the constitution means.
Ah, so you're smearing the entire Oath Keepers organization as "paranoid gun hoarding quasi-white supremacists."
See comment above re: peak derp. Thanks for proving me right yet again about the infinite nature of stupidity. Someone really needs to start working on a way to turn DERP into electricity.
Now explain to me how I'm a "quasi-white supremacist".
I can explain the quasi-white part.
I was waiting for that. See, robc, I hand Tony gold and he just shits on it! Gold, robc, Gold!
I was thinking more along these lines:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HHRfuLVfls
+1 bowl of Cheerios
I have a sense of humor. Tony doesnt.
How do you do an en-dash here?
mulatto = quasi-white
Right?
Ack. Came late to that party. I thought I had seen all the sub-thread but I hadn't.
---"I know I want a bunch of paranoid gun hoarding quasi-white supremacists deciding the new national order."---
THIS is why I think you are a fuckwad. Without knowing anything about libertarians as individuals, or me as a person, you insist on throwing down the racist/white supremacist card. You do this often, as if the only reason somebody could disagree with or dislike Obama is that they are bigots. Stop calling me a racist you fuckwad. And it's easy to know you are a fuckwad based on the shit you post.
And also, STFU.
I'm a big fan of Obama, and admire his willingness to sacrifice himself in his campaign to make Americans dissatisfied enough with the status quo to restore a culture of liberty.
Tony, that thing dangling between your legs, that's your brain. You need to use is before posting.
Stewart Rhodes?
Does that mean he's realated to the Iron Patriot
You mean War Machine.
Nah; he's related to Andy Griffith.
How do they know what is constitutional or not when what is constitutional or not is in dispute?
In which case, any oath to uphold it becomes, by definition, meaningless.
That's where you were going with that, right?
The lawyers have to tell us what words like "reasonable" and "shall not" mean.