They are, in fact, dire threats to democracy. When analyzed clearly, the answer comes from an almost mathematical proof.
The author actually mentions the original source of the problem when he quotes JFK's words on "secret oaths". All public officials and members of the military and law enforcement take public oaths, to which they are not only morally but legally accountable. If not, what is the point?
If such a person has also taken a secret oath, it is implausible that the time will never come when the duties demanded by one are in conflict with those demanded by the other. If that person chooses to violate their secret oath and suffer the consequences, I don't think anyone outside the group would care in the least. But what about a violation of their public oath?
It would depend on the nature and severity of the violation, but I would say such violation could rise to the level of treason. The purpose of the public oath is to declare your loyalty to your country and your country alone, at all times and in all respects.
At the end of a tremendous article, the author misses the mark with this:
... but as it stands there are no laws on the books that prevent people – even those who say they represent us – from meeting together in private.
Of course not, but that isn't the problem. Conspiracy and action in violation of any public oath is, and is punishable up to and including death.
All that being said, US political and military oaths currently use the phrase "bear true faith and allegiance". Can one be said to bear true faith and allegiance when one has sworn a secret oath to another power?
They are, in fact, dire threats to democracy. When analyzed clearly, the answer comes from an almost mathematical proof.
The author actually mentions the original source of the problem when he quotes JFK's words on "secret oaths". All public officials and members of the military and law enforcement take public oaths, to which they are not only morally but legally accountable. If not, what is the point?
If such a person has also taken a secret oath, it is implausible that the time will never come when the duties demanded by one are in conflict with those demanded by the other. If that person chooses to violate their secret oath and suffer the consequences, I don't think anyone outside the group would care in the least. But what about a violation of their public oath?
It would depend on the nature and severity of the violation, but I would say such violation could rise to the level of treason. The purpose of the public oath is to declare your loyalty to your country and your country alone, at all times and in all respects.
At the end of a tremendous article, the author misses the mark with this:
Of course not, but that isn't the problem. Conspiracy and action in violation of any public oath is, and is punishable up to and including death.
All that being said, US political and military oaths currently use the phrase "bear true faith and allegiance". Can one be said to bear true faith and allegiance when one has sworn a secret oath to another power?