Article Image
News Link • Law Enforcers or Peace Officers

Oath-Keeper Stewart Rhodes

day, November 21, 2010 – with  Anthony Wile
Stewart Rhodes

The Daily Bell is pleased to present an exclusive interview with E. Stewart Rhodes (left).

Introduction: E. Stewart Rhodes is the founder and President of the growing, national non-profit organization Oath Keepers. The group supports members (current and former U.S. military and law enforcement) in efforts to uphold the Constitution of the United States should they be ordered to violate it. The Oath Keepers' motto is "Not On Our Watch!" Both sides of his family have a long tradition of military service. Nearly all of his uncles on both sides of the family served in the Army or Marine Corps during WWII, Korea, and Vietnam, and his father served as a Marine. After the Army, Stewart graduated Summa Cum Laude from the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, where his honor thesis focused on the political theory of James Madison. After college he worked on Rep. Ron Paul's (R, TX) DC staff. Stewart graduated from Yale Law School in 2004, where his paper, "Solving the Puzzle of Enemy Combatant Status" won Yale's Judge William E. Miller Prize for best paper on the Bill of Rights.


1 Comments in Response to

Comment by Ross Wolf
Entered on:

Perhaps following Lincoln's interment of of Civilians without probable cause, on March 4, 2010, Sen. John McCain introduced S.3081, The “Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010.”

Sen. McCain’s S.3081 would eliminate several Constitutional protections allowing Government to arbitrarily pick up Americans on mere suspicion—with no probable cause. Your political opinions and statements made against U.S. Government could be used by Authorities to deem you a “hostile” “Enemy Belligerent” to cause your arrest and indefinite detention. S.3081 is so broadly written lawful anti-war protesters and Tea Party Groups might be arrested and detained in military custody just for attending demonstrations; Government can charge attending demonstrations "materially supported hostilities.”

Under S.3081, an “individual” need only be suspected by Government of “suspicious activity” or “supporting hostilities” to be dragged off and held indefinitely in Military Custody. Government would have the power to detain and interrogate any individual without probable cause. Government need only allege an individual kept in detention, is an Unprivileged Enemy Belligerent suspected of; having materially or intentionally supported or engaged in hostilities against the United States, its coalition partners or U.S. civilian population. How would one prove to Government they did not purposely do something? “Materially Supporting Hostilities” against the United States could include any person or group that spoke out or demonstrated disapproval against an agency of U.S. Government. Definition for Unprivileged Enemy Belligerent: (Anyone Subject to a Military Commission)
At least under the Patriot Act, law enforcement generally needs probable cause to detain a person indefinitely. Passage of S.3081 will permit government to use “mere suspicion” to curtail an individual’s Constitutional Protections against unlawful arrest, detention and interrogation without benefit of legal counsel and trial. According to S.3081 Government won’t be required to provide detained individuals U.S. Miranda Warnings or even an attorney.
S.3081 if passed will frighten Americans from speaking out. S.3081 is so broadly written, any “individual” who writes on the Internet expressing an opinion against or an entity of U.S. Government, its coalition partners might be detained on the basis he or she is an “unprivileged enemy belligerent” supporting hostilities. The “supporting hostilities” provisions in S.3081 are so broad Government could use “suspicion” to detain U.S. corporate executives on the premise a corporation “supported hostilities” by providing goods or services to a nation engaged in hostilities against U.S. Government.
How might Americans react should Government use McCain’s bill to take away their loved ones, family members and friends on mere suspicion? It is foreseeable McCain’s bill could drive lawful political activists underground, perhaps creating the domestic terrorists McCain said we needed to be protected from.
McCain’s bill mentions “non-violent acts" supporting hostilities in America including against U.S. government and or emanating from America against a Coalition Partner. Non-violent terrorist acts" are covered in the Patriot Act to prosecute Persons that support “coercion or intimidation to influence a government or to affect a civilian population.” Lawful U.S. activists and individuals under S.3081 would be extremely vulnerable to prosecution if (indefinitely detained only on suspicion) of “intentionally or materially supporting hostilities or an Act of Terrorism”, not probable cause for example: American activists can’t control what other activists or an unknown agent might do illegally—they network with domestically and overseas. Under S.3081 law enforcement and the military can too easily use (hearsay or informants) to allege “suspicious activity” to indefinitely detain someone; it is problematic that detained individuals in the U.S. not involved in terrorism or hostile activities, not given Miranda Warnings or allowed legal counsel would be prosecuted for ordinary crimes because of their alleged admissions while in military custody.

See McCain’s 12-page Senate bill S.3081 at:

Notably, McCain’s S.3081 mandates (merging) Federal, State and Local Police and subsequently the U.S. Military to detain and hold Individuals in the U.S., without probable cause. What could happen to State Rights and what Laws and Jurisdiction would be used to prosecute state Citizens arrested by a National Police Stabilization Force?

Under S.3081 U.S. Government can use an individual’s phone call and email information to allege without probable cause “suspicious or hostile activity” against U.S. Government, its coalition partners or civilians to indefinitely detain Americans.

Obama the last six months and certain members of Congress have proposed or taken steps to give President Obama unprecedented power to crush Americans’ civil liberties, to incarcerate without trial, Citizens that speak out—effectively gagging and Locking down America. For example: In April 2010 Obama during a national security speech, asked Congress for the Power to imprison Americans not on evidence or probable cause, but on government’s word someone might support or commit a violent act in the future—Thought Police?

Obama wants to curtail the 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments including allowing the FBI warrant-less wiretapping of all Americans’ electronic communications including no warrant searches of Internet Activity and emails. No doubt that will make Citizens afraid to communicate by phone or email and worry, someone might say something inappropriate during a phone call or send email that will cause their arrest if they don't report it to police. Police too easily can take an innocent person’s hastily written email, fax or phone call out of context to allege a crime or violation was committed to cause an arrest or asset forfeiture. There are over 200 U.S. laws and violations mentioned in the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 and the Patriot Act that can subject property to civil asset forfeiture. Under federal civil forfeiture laws, a person or business need not be charged with a crime for government to forfeit their property. US private contractors and their operatives (people/asset bounty hunters) work so closely with police exchanging information to arrest Americans and or share in the forfeiture of their assets, they appear to merge with police. Under Obama’s no warrant proposal anything said on a phone or in an email could be used by government against someone in a trial or civil proceeding, e.g. asset forfeiture proceeding, the latter requiring only a civil preponderance of evidence to forfeit property, little more than hearsay.

Since the Civil War and World War II, U.S. Government has stepped up efforts to crush Citizens' Constitutional Rights when their has not been strong public resistance against despot U.S. Presidents and members of Congress.

Join us on our Social Networks:


Share this page with your friends on your favorite social network: