• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bush-Era Debate: Using G.I.’s in U.S.

sam_w

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Messages
724
Reaction score
279
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Breaking News in the NY Times:

Bush-Era Debate: Using G.I.’s in U.S.
Top Bush administration officials in 2002 debated testing the Constitution by sending American troops into the suburbs of Buffalo to arrest a group of men suspected of plotting with Al Qaeda, according to former administration officials.

Some of the advisers to President George W. Bush, including Vice President Dick Cheney, argued that a president had the power to use the military on domestic soil to sweep up the terrorism suspects, who came to be known as the Lackawanna Six, and declare them enemy combatants.

Mr. Bush ultimately decided against the proposal to use military force.

A decision to dispatch troops into the streets to make arrests would be nearly unprecedented in American history, as both the Constitution and subsequent laws restrict the military from being used to conduct domestic raids and seize property.

The Fourth Amendment bans “unreasonable” searches and seizures without probable cause. And the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 generally prohibits the military from acting in a law enforcement capacity.

Speechless...
 
1. The option wasn't used.

2. The time may come when it needs to be. Or would you rather send municipal police into a situation where they'd be mowed down?

3. Life's tough, and sometimes tough choices need to be made.
 
WASHINGTON — Top Bush administration officials in 2002 debated testing the Constitution by sending American troops into the suburbs of Buffalo to arrest a group of men suspected of plotting with Al Qaeda, according to former administration officials.

Some of the advisers to President George W. Bush, including Vice President Dick Cheney, argued that a president had the power to use the military on domestic soil to sweep up the terrorism suspects, who came to be known as the Lackawanna Six, and declare them enemy combatants.

Mr. Bush ultimately decided against the proposal to use military force.

A decision to dispatch troops into the streets to make arrests has few precedents in American history, as both the Constitution and subsequent laws restrict the military from being used to conduct domestic raids and seize property.

The Fourth Amendment bans “unreasonable” searches and seizures without probable cause. And the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 generally prohibits the military from acting in a law enforcement capacity.

In the discussions, Mr. Cheney and others cited an Oct. 23, 2001, memorandum from the Justice Department that, using a broad interpretation of presidential authority, argued that the domestic use of the military against Al Qaeda would be legal because it served a national security, rather than a law enforcement, purpose.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/25/us/25detain.html?_r=1&hpw

It makes more sense when you include the details.
 
I could be wrong here but I thought that the federal government could use military forces in the states as law inforcement but that it had to have the states approval and the govenors signature? If not maybe it was something similar.
 
Former officials in the administration said this debate was not as bitter as others during Mr. Bush’s first term. The discussions did not proceed far enough to put military units on alert.

Still, at least one high-level meeting was convened to debate the issue, at which several top Bush aides argued firmly against the proposal to use the military, advanced by Mr. Cheney, his legal adviser David S. Addington and some senior Defense Department officials.

Among those in opposition were Condoleezza Rice, then the national security adviser; John B. Bellinger III, the top lawyer at the National Security Council; Robert S. Mueller III, the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; and Michael Chertoff, then the head of the Justice Department’s criminal division.

Woah, woah, woah - you mean that when an important decision had to be made, two groups of people who took different positions on a complex and unsettled issue had a debate? And the end result of that debate was that the president agreed with one of the parties?

Holy ****.
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/25/us/25detain.html?_r=1&hpw

It makes more sense when you include the details.

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.
 
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.

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.
 
Some of you might want to learn exactly what the Act entails. Please pay attention to the penalty portion.
And any person willfully violating the provisions of this section shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor
To me this says no big deal. Traffic ticket in magnitude. But then the penalties are more than most think of when thinking about misdemeanors.
Also note that it can be done legally under certain circumstances. And keep in mind not a single person has ever questioned the use Military Fighter Jets as interceptors of possible air borne suicide bombers.
I hope this doesn't descend into a massive argument of something that wasn't done as so often the case here.

Posse Comitatus Act of 1878

SEC. 15. From and after the passage of this act it shall not be lawful to employ any part of the Army of the United States, as a posse comitatus, or otherwise, for the purpose of executing the laws, except in such cases and under such circumstances as such employment of said force may be expressly authorized by the Constitution or by act of Congress; and no money appropriated by this act shall be used to pay any of the expenses incurred in the employment of any troops in violation of this section And any person willfully violating the provisions of this section shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction thereof shall be punished by fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars or imprisonment not exceeding two years or by both such fine and imprisonment.
 
Last edited:
Some of you might want to learn exactly what the Act entails. Please pay attention to the penalty portion.
To me this says no big deal. Traffic ticket in magnitude. But then the penalties are more than most think of when thinking about misdemeanors.
Also note that it can be done legally under certain circumstances. And keep in mind not a single person has ever questioned the use Military Fighter Jets as interceptors of possible air borne suicide bombers.
I hope this doesn't descend into a massive argument of something that wasn't done as so often the case here.

Posse Comitatus Act of 1878

The argument is based on the question of whether this would be law enforcement or not.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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? :shock:

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. :roll:
 
Re: Report: Bush mulled sending troops into Buffalo

I would imagine MANY things are considered. So what.
 
Re: Report: Bush mulled sending troops into Buffalo

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.
 
Re: Report: Bush mulled sending troops into Buffalo

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?
 
Re: Report: Bush mulled sending troops into Buffalo

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.
 
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!
 
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?
 
Re: Report: Bush mulled sending troops into Buffalo

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. :roll:

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.
 
Re: Report: Bush mulled sending troops into Buffalo

Debate, discussion and contingency planing of ALL options ought to be the rule in government. The Constitution and good judgment ought be the only guidelines. So debate away in a "no holds barred" atmosphere. Then judge our leaders on what is decided vice on what is disused.

The safety and the very lives of America and Americans is a serious business and not ought to be conducted under the stupidity of what is the current PC thing to say or do.
 
Re: Report: Bush mulled sending troops into Buffalo

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.

The Army was at Waco in 1993. Was that "neo-conservatives"?
 
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!

Oh? Who's "defending" anything unconstitutional here? Point it out. Specifically.
 
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!

Where'd that come from? There's not a single post on this thread condoning, proposing, suggesting, nor hinting that the United States military should be used to arrest American citizens.

Obviously, the OP was another case of BDS, but only managed to put a feather in Bush's cap. They thought it up, they debated it, they decided against it. And, the problem is?
 
Re: Report: Bush mulled sending troops into Buffalo

The Army was at Waco in 1993. Was that "neo-conservatives"?


I guess you could ask Ms Janet Reno (if you could find her).

What ever it was or wasn't the one thing you can say about that entire operation was FUBAR!
 
Back
Top Bottom