What is the US Military's position on Oath Keepers?

Does the US military take public positions on private organizations?

I searched the websites at the US Department of Defense, the Transportation Security Administration and Homeland Security and couldn’t find any comments about the organization.

It appears from the article they are to resist an unlawful order mostly posse comatatus. All officers and enlisted are supposed to do that. I can’t see how the Army would have a problem with that. Now there are a few Nancy Boys up the chain that don’t understand what is lawful and not lawful that might have a problem with this organization but the rest of us wouldn’t. LOL. Orders of this type could lead to insurrection and would definitely cause mass defection of the Ring Dingers (West Point types, unless they turn Nancy boy) and any other Officer that has a spine.

“Nancy boys,” @majorrich?

Officers and Men who lack testicular fortitude to refuse an unlawful order.

Is declaring martial law unconstitutional? I thought this was allowed under extreme circumstances like during riots and natural disasters?

@gorillapaws, if you look at the Oath Keeper’s website, you will see the full context of “The Declaration of Orders We Will Not Obey.”

From the site:

Recognizing that we each swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and affirming that we are guardians of the Republic, of the principles in our Declaration of Independence, and of the rights of our people, we affirm and declare the following:

4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state, or to enter with force into a state, without the express consent and invitation of that state’s legislature and governor.

One of the causes of the American Revolution was the attempt “to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power” by disbanding the Massachusetts legislature and appointing General Gage as “military governor.” The attempt to disarm the people of Massachusetts during that martial law sparked our Revolution. Accordingly, the power to impose martial law – the absolute rule over the people by a military officer with his will alone being law – is nowhere enumerated in our Constitution.

Further, it is the militia of a state and of the several states that the Constitution contemplates being used in any context, during any emergency within a state, not the standing army.

The imposition of martial law by the national government over a state and its people, treating them as an occupied enemy nation, is an act of war. Such an attempted suspension of the Constitution and Bill of Rights voids the compact with the states and with the people.

http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2009/03/03/declaration-of-orders-we-will-not-obey/

I am with @bkcunningham; I believe that there really is no official position simply because there has never really been a need for them to have one.

@bkcunningham I should have been more specific. I was referring to members currently serving in the active military. Thanks for the search.

@majorrich Thanks for introducing me to the terms Ring Dingers and Nancy Boys. :-)

@gorillapaws My initial concern was who decides what is and is not a lawful order.

@bkcunningham Thanks for the review of their manifesto. It sounds very reasonable, but thePatriot Act seems to set aside posse comatatus, and I find that deeply troubling.

@jerv Thanks.