Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 67

Thread: Bush-Era Debate: Using G.I.s in U.S.

  1. #11
    Sage
    bhkad's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Last Seen
    08-13-10 @ 01:01 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    10,745

    Re: Bush-Era Debate: Using G.I.s in U.S.

    Quote Originally Posted by sam_w View Post
    Good lord, you really honestly want to try and argue that they needed the military to arrest a whole 6 people? You want to attempt to explain why the FBI, or any law enforcement for that matter could not be used to legally detain suspects? There is one reason, and only one reason why you would use the military; because it is under the direct command of the President. I guess you don't know your history of Nixon and his enemies list.
    I LOVED that Nixon had an enemies list. And I knew about it at the time.

    OBL 11/24/02

  2. #12
    Educator sam_w's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    09-24-09 @ 04:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    724

    Re: Bush-Era Debate: Using G.I.s in U.S.

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    If you actually read the article, you'd know that that's not the reason why they considered using the military.

    Go on, read it. I won't spoil it for you.
    2002 debate arose partly from Justice Department concerns that there might not be enough evidence to arrest and successfully prosecute the suspects in Lackawanna. Mr. Cheney, the officials said, had argued that the administration would need a lower threshold of evidence to declare them enemy combatants and keep them in military custody.

    Earlier that summer, the administration designated Jose Padilla an enemy combatant and sent him to a military brig in South Carolina. Mr. Padilla was arrested by civilian agencies on suspicion of plotting an attack using a radioactive bomb.

    Those who advocated using the military to arrest the Lackawanna group had legal ammunition: the memorandum by Mr. Yoo and Mr. Delahunty.
    They were also American citizens...by birth. But I guess in the war to defend our "Freedoms" we just throw "Freedoms" out the door? No, the F.B.I. can easily make a case, plain and simple. The reason we have a constitution and body of laws is so people can not just pick and chose which they like, and which they do not. And where was this suppose to end? With the detention of the whole Democratic party? I am sure you would just love that, do away with those nasty liberals so you can have a true demo...err one party rule. At the very least of it, this begs for massive abuse. Maybe you are not familiar with old tricky Dick Nixon using the F.B.I as his own personal vendetta machine, breaking in to the homes and offices of his political and personal enemies, bugging their homes.

    The fact is simple, rest is debatable, Cheney and Addington wanted to circumvent the law to have their own police, for we all know the military answers directly to the White House only. F.B.I., ATF, Justice, etc..are independent bodies that can refuse a direct order, the military can not. The thought that they would even deem it wise to "test" the constitution is repugnant. They sword an oath to protect the constitution, they serve that institution, not the other way around. If Cheney and co. really wanted to keep us safe, maybe they should have listened to their own chief counter-terrorism adviser Richard Clarke, or maybe when the NSC briefs them that Bin Laden plans on hijacking planes to fly them into buildings.

  3. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Between Hollywood and Compton.
    Last Seen
    11-25-09 @ 12:02 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    5,497

    Report: Bush mulled sending troops into Buffalo

    The Associated Press: Report: Bush mulled sending troops into Buffalo

    WASHINGTON The Bush administration in 2002 considered sending U.S. troops into a Buffalo, N.Y., suburb to arrest a group of terror suspects in what would have been a nearly unprecedented use of military power, The New York Times reported.

    Vice President Dick Cheney and several other Bush advisers at the time strongly urged that the military be used to apprehend men who were suspected of plotting with al Qaida, who later became known as the Lackawanna Six, the Times reported on its Web site Friday night. It cited former administration officials who spoke on condition of anonymity.

    The proposal advanced to at least one-high level administration meeting, before President George W. Bush decided against it.

    Dispatching troops into the streets is virtually unheard of. The Constitution and various laws restrict the military from being used to conduct domestic raids and seize property.
    What the hell?

    One wonders if there was any actual perception of some immediate threat of violence posed by these suspects that could have possibly warranted such action. It appears not, since the FBI was apparently able to arrest them without violent resistance...I wonder what else we'll find out about over the next few decades, and if Cheney was in favor of unscrupulous actions on the scale of Operation Northwoods, for example.

  4. #14
    User Kat-2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Seen
    07-14-16 @ 03:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    23

    Re: Report: Bush mulled sending troops into Buffalo

    I would imagine MANY things are considered. So what.

  5. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Between Hollywood and Compton.
    Last Seen
    11-25-09 @ 12:02 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    5,497

    Re: Report: Bush mulled sending troops into Buffalo

    Quote Originally Posted by Kat-2 View Post
    I would imagine MANY things are considered. So what.
    There are certain things that you're wary about mere consideration of. The usage of disproportionate military force in a domestic civilian setting in a manner that would likely be blatantly unconstitutional is one of them. It seems relatively mild compared to the false-flag operation that involved the violent destruction of American targets that was to be used to warrant attack on Cuba that was planned under the Kennedy administration (and ultimately vetoed by him, just as this was vetoed by Bush), but I'm certain that there were several other similar operations considered and partially planned, which is still unfortunately illustrative of the neoconservative mindset. It's not an exaggeration that quite a few U.S. heads of state either oversaw the commission of war crimes or considered their implementation.

  6. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    04-02-15 @ 06:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,211

    Re: Report: Bush mulled sending troops into Buffalo

    Quote Originally Posted by Agnapostate View Post
    There are certain things that you're wary about mere consideration of. The usage of disproportionate military force in a domestic civilian setting in a manner that would likely be blatantly unconstitutional is one of them. It seems relatively mild compared to the false-flag operation that involved the violent destruction of American targets that was to be used to warrant attack on Cuba that was planned under the Kennedy administration (and ultimately vetoed by him, just as this was vetoed by Bush), but I'm certain that there were several other similar operations considered and partially planned, which is still unfortunately illustrative of the neoconservative mindset. It's not an exaggeration that quite a few U.S. heads of state either oversaw the commission of war crimes or considered their implementation.
    Since when did you care about the US Constitution?

  7. #17
    Sage
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    08-27-09 @ 08:41 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,344

    Re: Report: Bush mulled sending troops into Buffalo

    Quote Originally Posted by Agnapostate View Post
    There are certain things that you're wary about mere consideration of. The usage of disproportionate military force in a domestic civilian setting in a manner that would likely be blatantly unconstitutional is one of them.
    On September 11, 2001, President Bush was forced to take the unheard-of step of grounding all commercial aircraft in the US. The notion that US Air Force F-16s would need to be used to shoot down hijacked aircraft before they could crash into their targets was seriously discussed--and for seriously good reason.

    I'm not surprised that the use of military was considered at that time. 9/11 disrupted a lot of the old government taboos.

    President Bush considered the possibility, weighted the possibility, and rejected the possibility--which is what a conscientious leader does.

  8. #18
    Sage
    PeteEU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Denmark
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 07:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,089

    Re: Bush-Era Debate: Using G.I.s in U.S.

    Ah I love the smell of hypocrisy in the morning.

    Conservatives... the defenders of the "purity" of the US constitution when it comes to guns and abortion and state rights, but when it comes to defending their prophet, then screw the law!
    PeteEU

  9. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Last Seen
    08-29-17 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    16,575

    Re: Bush-Era Debate: Using G.I.s in U.S.

    Quote Originally Posted by bhkad View Post
    I LOVED that Nixon had an enemies list. And I knew about it at the time.
    So I'm quite sure you would equally approve if Obama had such a list right?

  10. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Last Seen
    08-29-17 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    16,575

    Re: Report: Bush mulled sending troops into Buffalo

    Quote Originally Posted by Agnapostate View Post
    One wonders if there was any actual perception of some immediate threat of violence posed by these suspects that could have possibly warranted such action. It appears not, since the FBI was apparently able to arrest them without violent resistance...I wonder what else we'll find out about over the next few decades, and if Cheney was in favor of unscrupulous actions on the scale of Operation Northwoods, for example.
    In this case, however, Bush did the right thing in rejecting it.

    Criticizing him for considering it is kind of silly. President's consider many things that are off the wall at times. Putting it into action would have deserved criticism.

    If anything Bush deserves praise in this instance for rejecting it.

Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •