The Oath-Keepers: Right-Wing Domestic Terrorists Waiting to Happen

[marmar]

from AlterNet:




Posted by Joshua Holland at 5:58 pm
September 3, 2010

The Oath-Keepers: Right-Wing Domestic Terrorists Waiting to Happen
Posted by Joshua Holland on @ 5:58 pm


If you aren’t yet familiar with the Oath Keepers, here are a few graphs of background by Justine Sharrock, writing for MoJo:

Founded last April by Yale-educated lawyer and ex-Ron Paul aide Stewart Rhodes, the group has established itself as a hub in the sprawling anti-Obama movement that includes Tea Partiers, Birthers, and 912ers. Glenn Beck, Lou Dobbs, and Pat Buchanan have all sung its praises, and in December, a grassroots summit it helped organize drew such prominent guests as representatives Phil Gingrey and Paul Broun, both Georgia Republicans.

There are scores of patriot groups, but what makes Oath Keepers unique is that its core membership consists of men and women in uniform, including soldiers, police, and veterans. At regular ceremonies in every state, members reaffirm their official oaths of service, pledging to protect the Constitution—but then they go a step further, vowing to disobey “unconstitutional” orders from what they view as an increasingly tyrannical government.

And they’re prepared to commit acts of violence if need be. They’re armed, trained, and hopped up on an outsized Glenn-Beckian sense of grievance. Scary people.

All terrorists are animated by a belief that they’re serving a higher purpose, and the Oath Keepers no doubt think that their dedication to the Constitution makes them ‘freedom fighters.’ To understand why they’re common terrorists waiting to happen, one needs only to grasp the single most important, bedrock principle upon which the whole Constitution was built: the separation of the powers. The founders understood that it was the most important wall against tyranny. One hopes that every school-kid gets the whole checks-and-balances thing.

Oath Keepers don’t. They’re not pledging to uphold the Constitution as interpreted by the judicial branch. Every cop and member of the military, including non-wing-nuts, are tasked with that enterprise, at least in theory. They are saying that they will violently uphold their own interpretations of what is and is not Constitutional, or the interpretations of Michelle Bachmann or Rush Limbaugh.

The Oath Keepers represent the executive branch. Michelle Bachmann represents the legislative branch. Rush Limbaugh is, most generously, an entertainer. So the moment one of these yahoos decides to put his or her oath into action based on any of their views of what’s Constitutional, he or she will be committing a straightforward act of domestic terrorism, and it’s really that simple.

Having said that, let me add that I don’t think these people represent much of a threat. The Oath Keepers aren’t a serious movement; it’s all political theater designed to intimidate. It’s meant to scare the middle away from supporting the “Obama agenda” and send a little thrill up the legs of the tea-baggers, who share equally wacky views of the Constitution. After all, these people know better than anyone that if the small minority of law enforcement and military personnel who are also die-hard wingnuts were to go up against the very large majority who take their oaths seriously, it’d result in a quick slaughter. It’s one thing to talk tough and wave around your assault rifle at a tea party rally, but something altogether different to take on America’s professional active-duty military.


http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/09/03/the-oath-keepers-right-wing-domestic-terrorists-waiting-to-happen/

[Gman]

1. I don't care how big and bad you think you are

There's always someone bigger and badder. The borderline sane ones know this.

[Hugabear]

2. They have the likes of Glen Beck and Michael Savage telling them what is and isn't "constitutional"

People like Beck, Savage, Hannity, Limbaugh, Boortz, Coulter, and other hatemongers are spewing their anti-Obama, anti-"liberal" venom 24/7, they are basically inciting people to take matters into their own hands.

[proud2BlibKansan]

3. I've been 'talking' with one of these loons on a local board for years

He's as insane a guy as I have ever met on cyperspace.

Oh he's also a birther.

[DoctorK]

4. terrorists?

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

If someone at the FBI refuses to listen in on your phone call, or read your email without a warrant, is that terrorism?
The President says we don't have a privacy expectation with email, so the government should be able to read it without a warrant.

Do you think that is constitutional?

After Nuremburg "I was only following orders" isn't a valid defense.
Given the results of the Milgram Experiment, it doesn't distress me to see some people appeal to their individual conscience on the subject of violating our constitutional rights.

[Aristus]

5. But where were all these supposedly moral order-disobeyers when they were

ordered to invade a country that was no threat to us, and to murder the people living there? Why didn't they disobey THAT order? :shrug:

[marmar]

7. I think you're giving these people too much credit.....Their intentions are hardly that noble.

nt

[HughBeaumont]

6. Didn't the Oath Klux Klan's membership swell to three times it's size AFTER Obama was elected?

Things that don't make you go HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM . . .