Not That Oath...

I, (NAME), 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.

Oath administered to US military enlistees

It gets distorted and complicated where individuals believe that this and comparable oaths administered to National Guard units, state and federal employees and officers (elected and appointed), law enforcement personnel, etc. are what their personal opinion/interpretation of the referenced duties, regulations, statutes, and constitutional provisions might be… or instead, what the opinion of an individual or particular religious denomination or group selected by them – other than the legally recognized source – believes those words to mean. If someone says, “the election was rigged” and repeats it enough times – without legally sustainable proof in contravention of properly anointed judicial bodies and rulings – is that enough to relieve the person who took that oath from adhering to his or her pledge? Is this simply a form of anarchical chaos?

In short, what does the “rule of law” mean? Could a military unit function under this approach? If people can make up what they believe a law should be, even if that interpretation is obviously distorted, if they can pick and choose which statutes or order they should follow, what is the relevance of a constitutional system of laws, checks and balances? Can prestigious citizens issue fiats that negate significant part of our entire legal system? If someone believes that they are exempt from the legal process because they are elected to high office, does that suggest that they are “above the law”? If God told them to it… and it’s not an insanity defense?

You may remember, during the 2015 presidential campaign, Donald Trump stated: “I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn’t lose voters.” In October of 2019, as Trump’s lawyers argued before a three-judge federal appellate panel that the President’s tax records could not be subpoenaed, one of the judges (Denny Chin) referenced the above statement and asked Mr. Trump’s lawyer, William Consovoy “What’s your view on the Fifth Avenue example?” Chin asked. “Nothing could be done? That’s your position?” “That is correct,” replied Consovoy. Trump lost the appeal.

So, if large segments of our military, officers of the law and elected officials are free to pick and choose which interpretation of a legal duty is, would you trust that system? But apparently, even ignoring Donald Trump and his senior staffers, that what a rather significant number of military personnel and law enforcement officers believe… and have actually taken a subsequent contrary oath that affirms their right to follow an entirely rogue view of our laws.

We have witnessed Trump-appointed Florida Federal District Court Judge Aileen Cannon shock the conscience of the federal bar when she granted Donald Trump a stay in a DOJ criminal investigation of dire importance (over heavily classified information seized at Mar-a-Lago) pending review from a special master. On September 15th, she appointed Trump’s choice as special master to review those seized documents (accepted by the DOJ) but denied the DOJ’s request to lift her stay on their investigation. Wow! The DOJ is appealing the stay to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. How many individuals who are the subject of a criminal investigation at the highest reaches of our criminal justice system, where there has been zero finding of investigative impropriety, have ever been able to put a prejudicial hold on those investigating them? Ever?

But even when you get into the grassroots of those who are charged to defend our country and enforce our criminal laws, there are some very disturbing realities of seriously misplaced loyalties. Whether these are members of the Proud Boys, the Three Percenters or the more notorious Oath Keepers, like the above pictured uniformed insurrectionists marching in a stack formation against the Capitol on January 6, 2021, these blatant extremists permeate state, local and federal government in most unpleasant ways. The Oath Keepers are but one example.

“The Oath Keepers, founded in 2009 by Stewart Rhodes, is a loosely organized, conspiracy-theory-fueled group that recruits current and former military members, police officers and first responders. It asks its members to vow to defend the Constitution ‘against all enemies, foreign and domestic,’ promotes the belief that the federal government is out to strip citizens of their civil liberties and paints its followers as defenders against tyranny.

“More than two dozen people associated with the Oath Keepers — including Rhodes — have been charged in connection with the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the Capitol. Rhodes and four other members or associates are heading to trial this month on seditious conspiracy charges for what prosecutors have described as a weeks-long plot to keep then-President Trump in power…

“The Anti-Defamation League’s Center on Extremism pored over more than 38,000 names on leaked Oath Keepers membership lists and identified more than 370 people that it believes work in law enforcement agencies — some as police chiefs and sheriffs — and more than 100 people who serve in the U.S. military… It also identified more than 80 people who were running for or served in public office as of early August. The membership information was compiled into a database published by the transparency collective Distributed Denial of Secrets.” Associated Press, September 8th.

The notion of a Deep State eroding true democracy (actually interpreted here as diluting White supremacy), to be saved by true believers, is hardly new. Throughout modern history, autocrats have risen within vulnerable democracies. This excuse of “preserving the nation” was held dear in Nazi Germany and is currently echoed in the anti-immigrant rhetoric in Victor Oban’s Hungary, Nicolás Maduro’s brutal suppression and vote manipulation in Venezuela, and in President Jair Bolsonaro’s Brazil, where he is badly trailing in the polls and faces an election, complaining to a crowd of roaring supporters about a vast conspiracy against him. Another rigged election. Another possible bout with post-election political violence. They always call themselves “patriots,” as if using that epithet can wash away their underlying treasonous reality. You have to wonder why the GOP chose to be the party of extremism.

It sure looks that way. “I think if [I were indicted], I think you’d have problems in this country the likes of which perhaps we’ve never seen before. I don’t think the people of the United States would stand for it… Big problems!” Donald Trump in an interview with conservative talk show host, Hugh Hewitt, on September 15th. Which people would that be, Mr. Trump, the Oath Keepers and others who support political violence? Your private army?

I’m Peter Dekom, and if those who wish to supplant the rule of law are those who have sworn to protect and enforce it, does democracy stand a chance?