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.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.
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.
The Associated Press: Report: Bush mulled sending troops into Buffalo
What the hell?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.
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.
I would imagine MANY things are considered. So what.
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.
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!
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.