Veterans Today Piece on Oath Keepers

As I have said before, I belong to a group called Oath Keepers. We are a non-partisan group who focus on reminding those who took the oath to support and defend the Constitution of what that truly means. Under that oath, you swear that you will defend the people if the government oversteps its boundaries, and you will defend the country against any threat that may come, from a foreign nation-state or from terrorist groups. Stewart Rhodes, our founder, has even said that if a tyrant comes form the left or the right, it won’t matter because we will treat him as an enemy just the same.

In short, we don’t care what your political affiliation is: we’ll stand up for what is right, which means we will stand by the people if that time comes.

Recently, Veterans Today published a piece on Oath Keepers. In it, retired Air Force major named Robert L. Hanafin accused Oath keepers of being a right-wing organization and, beyond this, that we actively encouraging active duty service members to disobey orders.

You can read the article here: http://www.veteranstoday.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=8752#

Now, Mr. Hanafin has stated that refusal to follow an order (whether lawful or not) is against the law (both under the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Hatch Act). Let’s look at both of these:

There are two different Hatch Acts, according to federal legislation. The first is the Hatch Act of 1887, which created agricultural experiment stations. The second is probably what he was referring to: the Hatch Act of of 1939, whose main provision is to prohibit federal employees from engaging in partisan political activity (that is why during basic training, military recruits are told you can’t protest in uniform).

The Hatch Act of 1939 lists out what a federal employee can and can not do. No where in the general provision or any amendments to the law does it say that violating a military order is against the law and is punishable as such. So when Mr. Hanafin says that it is something “most of our troops, including Junior Officers don't know the meaning of”, I think he is incorrect. I think it is something that he doesn’t know the meaning of, and I’m hoping he reads this and does some research of his own.

Now, on to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The UCMJ is the governing body of law for the military. It lists out what you can be charged for, the regulations for pre-trial confinement, non-judicial punishment, etc. Mr. Hanafin says that under the UCMJ, it is unlawful to disobey an order, which would be correct in most circumstances. This would fall under several articles, namely Article 81 (conspiracy), Article 88 (contempt towards officials) if they are a commissioned officer, Article 90 (assaulting or willfully disobeying a superior commissioned officer), Article 92 (failure to obey an order or regulation), Article 94 (mutiny or sedition), Article 98 (noncompliance with procedural rules), Article 133 (conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman), and Article 134 (general article). My, that’s a lot of articles he has to stand on, isn’t it! Let’s take a look at a few of them, shall we?

Article 81 reads as such: “Any person subject to this chapter who conspires with any other person to commit an offense under this chapter shall, if one or more of the conspirators does an act to effect the object of the conspiracy, be punished as a court-martial may direct.”

Article 81 states that any person who enters into agreement with another person is guilty of being a co-conspirator. However, what does this mean? Conspiracy to commit a felonious act, such as murder, is what is covered here. For all intents and purposes, a conspiracy is how they are able to get witness testimony from other guilty parties, assuming the prosecution does not want to offer leniency on the other charges. Is Oath Keepers a conspiracy?

To meet the requirements, it would have to be proven that:

(1) Oath Keepers requires active duty service members to willfully disobey lawful orders from their chain of command;
(2) Oath Keepers requires active duty service members to act against superiors, and;
(3) Oath Keepers is attempting to solicit the general attention of the military and, thus, interrupt the good order and discipline of the military.

Does Oath Keepers meet these requirements? No, they do not. Oath Keepers is not asking the military to disobey the lawful orders given by their chain of command. We expect that those who serve would remember their oath to the Constitution so that if the time comes to choose between protecting the rights of the people and acting as the government’s arm to remove those rights, they will do the right thing and live up to their oath.

The next article, Article 88, reads as such: “Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”

In short, Article 88 says that any officer who speaks openly against the Executive branch, Legislative branch, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of (fill in the blank with the appropriate military branch), the Secretary of Transportation, or any state government is guilty under this article. Going back to conspiracy, Oath Keepers is not requesting that officers act out against the government under normal circumstances.

Now, I can go on and list out the articles themselves, and I can list out how those who do as they are required by their oath do not violate the Uniform Code of Military Justice. As a former commissioned officer, Mr. Hanafin should understand the UCMJ better then he lets on. If anyone wants me to list out the rest of the articles (I have a copy of the Manual for Courts-Martial, so you know), I will be more then happy to do so and explain exactly how Mr. Hanafin is incorrect.

Suffice it to say, my belief that Robert L. Hanafin was an Air Force officer is gone. Not only is his argument faulty, but his responses to some of the people who leave comments contradicting his “article” leave something to be desired. I expect someone who claims to be a retired major and, beyond that, a former GS-14 with the Department of Justice to be a bit more tactful and respectful of dissenting opinions. Adding insult to injury, in one rebuttal of a reader’s comment he use Wikipedia as a means to provide “factual information” to solidify and back up his statements. I will be contacting the Air Force BUPERS to find out if there truly was a Major Robert L. Hanafin, under the Freedom of Information Act. I am truly interested in finding out the legitimacy of this man’s status.

Semper fidelis.