Bush-Era Debate: Using G.I.’s in U.S.

apdst · Jul 25, 2009

Re: Report: Bush mulled sending troops into Buffalo

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

The Army wasn't at Waco. National Gaurd fighting vehicles, driven by US Marshals were used at Waco.

sam_w · Jul 25, 2009

Re: Report: Bush mulled sending troops into Buffalo

TheNextEra said:
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.

Yes and no. Bush deserves praise for rejecting this, Cheney deserves scorn for arguing for this. I have absolutely no doubt who the source for this article was; Bush's former aides. There does seem to be a pattern emerging through Bush's aides that there was a tug of war between Cheney who wanted to go full out Darth Vader, and Bush. This appears to be an ongoing war between the two camps, even though many claim they are still friends. But that itself is deceiving as they never were "friends" to begin with, just colleagues. A good article on this was in Time:

Inside Bush and Cheney's Final Days

Former Bush aides say Cheney's behavior needlessly stoked anti-Bush sentiment, which had only just begun to subside in voters. For Cheney, however, the ongoing battles are an extension of the fight he waged for several years on behalf of Libby. Cheney, says an ally, believes that the true legacy of the Bush years is the uncompromising way he and the President waged the war on terrorism. But Cheney also believes that Bush cannot claim that as a legacy if he fails to protect the aides and officials who carried out the dirty work.

This goes back to that much talked about "debate" when both Obama and Cheney gave speeches on national security at the same time. Everyone in the media tried to whip up this non-debate, when at least a few bright minds pointed out quite clearly this was a debate between Cheney and Bush 2006+. Considering everything we know to date, and I have no doubt more will be coming, that had Cheney never been Vice President, Bush may have left office in a much better light.

apdst · Jul 25, 2009

Re: Report: Bush mulled sending troops into Buffalo

sam_w said:
Yes and no. Bush deserves praise for rejecting this, Cheney deserves scorn for arguing for this. I have absolutely no doubt who the source for this article was; Bush's former aides. There does seem to be a pattern emerging through Bush's aides that there was a tug of war between Cheney who wanted to go full out Darth Vader, and Bush. This appears to be an ongoing war between the two camps, even though many claim they are still friends. But that itself is deceiving as they never were "friends" to begin with, just colleagues.

Who would want an administration filled with people who all think alike? Like George Patton said, "If everyone is thinking alike, someone isn't thinking".

a777pilot · Jul 25, 2009

Re: Report: Bush mulled sending troops into Buffalo

apdst said:
Who would want an administration filled with people who all think alike? Like George Patton said, "If everyone is thinking alike, someone isn't thinking".

Well said General Patton.

rudedog · Jul 25, 2009

Re: Report: Bush mulled sending troops into Buffalo

Wasn't it also General Patton, who was used to run the WW1 vets of the White House lawn ,who were camping out there trying to get benefits that were promised to them.

RightinNYC · Jul 25, 2009

sam_w said:
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.

Are you taking issue with the entire concept of enemy combatants, with the idea that citizens can be enemy combatants, or with the idea that citizens located on US soil can be considered enemy combatants?

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.

This sounds absolutely hysterical.

Scorpion89 · Jul 25, 2009

Hey Sam,

Just a quick one for you but all the Agencys you listed all have to take orders from the White House just thought you might like to know that.:2wave:

WI Crippler · Jul 25, 2009

So is Sam W trying to say he's giving George Bush credit for making a decision he agrees with?

Scarecrow Akhbar · Jul 25, 2009

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

sam_w said:
Breaking News in the NY Times:

Bush-Era Debate: Using G.I.’s in U.S.

Speechless...

The Constitution says not one word about using Federal troops to enforce domestic law.

The US Army was the intrument used to put down the draft riots in New York City in 1863.

The Posse Comitatus Act is the law that prohibits the use of federal troops to enforce domestic law.

Scarecrow Akhbar · Jul 25, 2009

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

sam_w said:
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.

In the late 1990's a gang of thugs wearing military body armor and using military grade weapons robbed a bank in Los Angeles and the LAPD's available firepower was bare sufficient to kill these thugs.

If a band of terrorists in the middle of a urban area were possessed of military grade weapons the urban cops would face similar difficulties in arresting them.

However, the Army would have no problem at all.

And the army's military police are trained to conduct arrests.

On a limited basis in exigent circumtances I can see the validity of certain arguments in favor of using the military to enforce certain national-security related laws.

Scorpion89 · Jul 25, 2009

Oh and Sam,

Do you recall this little incedent in SD, well one of the option at the time was to have a Marine Unit from NAS North Island cal lout to stop him as a matter off act they were in the Air heading out to try to stop this madman when he ran it up on the center divine. But I guess you would have cried foul if the Marine's actually were used correct.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TozUUnsHLg"]YouTube - Military Vet Steals Tank - Goes on Rampage[/ame]

Oh and one other item don't forget right after 9/11 Military Units patrolled Airports/Docks and Tunnels for quite a long time.

a777pilot · Jul 25, 2009

Re: Report: Bush mulled sending troops into Buffalo

rudedog said:
Wasn't it also General Patton, who was used to run the WW1 vets of the White House lawn ,who were camping out there trying to get benefits that were promised to them.

Actually he and Eisenhower were both Majors at the time of the Bonus Marches. It was Hoover that ordered the Marchers removed but as usual General MacArthur over stepped his authority and set fire to the camps.

So I guess the answer to your accusation is....no.

Oh, yes, one could also say this was a violation of the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act......or maybe not.

apdst · Jul 25, 2009

Re: Report: Bush mulled sending troops into Buffalo

rudedog said:
Wasn't it also General Patton, who was used to run the WW1 vets of the White House lawn ,who were camping out there trying to get benefits that were promised to them.

Upon orders from his chain of command: Eisenhower and McArthur. They weren't camped on the White House lawn.

Scorpion89 · Jul 25, 2009

Re: Report: Bush mulled sending troops into Buffalo

rudedog said:
Wasn't it also General Patton, who was used to run the WW1 vets of the White House lawn ,who were camping out there trying to get benefits that were promised to them.

Hey here is a little suggest you might want to check you fact before posting something.

Scorpion89 · Jul 25, 2009

Re: Report: Bush mulled sending troops into Buffalo

a777pilot said:
Oh, yes, one could also say this was a violation of the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act......or maybe not.

Nope the District falls under Federal Control and is not subject to the Posse Comitatus Act.

Article One of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

frazier991 · Jul 25, 2009

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

Soooo.......the big story here is that GW didn't use the military............wow......outrageous.......................the worse Obama does, the more stupid little pointless stories that seem to come out.......about Bush.....may be a connection there..................

rudedog · Jul 25, 2009

Re: Report: Bush mulled sending troops into Buffalo

apdst said:
Upon orders from his chain of command: Eisenhower and McArthur. They weren't camped on the White House lawn.

It's been a long time since I remembered hearing that story,just threw it out there.Patton and McArthur were great generals,but my point was the Army will do what it is told to do.

apdst · Jul 25, 2009

Re: Report: Bush mulled sending troops into Buffalo

Scorpion89 said:
Nope the District falls under Federal Control and is not subject to the Posse Comitatus Act.

Article One of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Except, that the people who live there are American citizens and they do fall under the protection Posse Comitatus.

And, yes, I would have called foul had military aircraft been tasked to attack an American citizen with air-to-surface missiles and/or automatic weapons fire, since the employment against of such weapons systems against American citizens is illegal. Not to mention the potential for colateral damage.

Scorpion89 · Jul 25, 2009

Re: Report: Bush mulled sending troops into Buffalo

apdst said:
Except, that the people who live there are American citizens and they do fall under the protection Posse Comitatus.

No the District doesn't fall under Posse

From Section 8,

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;

a777pilot · Jul 25, 2009

Re: Report: Bush mulled sending troops into Buffalo

Scorpion89 said:
No the District doesn't fall under Posse

From Section 8,

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;

You could be right about the District not eing covered under the 1878 Act.

The Myth of Posse Comitatus

RightinNYC · Jul 25, 2009

Scorpion89 said:
No the District doesn't fall under Posse

From Section 8,

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;

I believe the district actually does fall under the act.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/95-964.pdf

That CRS report offers a very good idea of the scope.

apdst said:
And, yes, I would have called foul had military aircraft been tasked to attack an American citizen with air-to-surface missiles and/or automatic weapons fire, since the employment against of such weapons systems against American citizens is illegal. Not to mention the potential for colateral damage.

This is incorrect. Read the link above.

a777pilot · Jul 25, 2009

We all have access to the words of this act and to other's opinions of its scope and yet we disagree. This is exactly why it is a good reason to have people of various backgrounds and opinions to advise the President. The very fact that this was brought up but ultimately turned down as an option by the President is a good thing.

Scorpion89 · Jul 25, 2009

RightinNYC said:
I believe the district actually does fall under the act.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/95-964.pdf

Sorry NYC but the District doesn't fall under Posse,

The Posse Comitatus Act — forbidding civilian police work by the U.S. military — did not apply to Washington, D.C., because it is the federal district directly governed by the U.S. Congress (U.S. Constitution, Article I. Section 8. Clause 17). The exemption was created because of an earlier "Bonus March". In 1781, most of the Continental Army was demobilized without pay, two years later, in 1783, hundreds of Pennsylvania war veterans marched on Philadelphia, surrounded the State House wherein Congress was in session, and demanded their pay. The U.S. Congress fled to Princeton, New Jersey, and, several weeks later, the U.S. Army expelled the war veterans back to home, out of the national capital.

From,
[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_Army]Bonus Army - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

RightinNYC · Jul 25, 2009

Scorpion89 said:
Sorry NYC but the District doesn't fall under Posse,

The Posse Comitatus Act — forbidding civilian police work by the U.S. military — did not apply to Washington, D.C., because it is the federal district directly governed by the U.S. Congress (U.S. Constitution, Article I. Section 8. Clause 17). The exemption was created because of an earlier "Bonus March". In 1781, most of the Continental Army was demobilized without pay, two years later, in 1783, hundreds of Pennsylvania war veterans marched on Philadelphia, surrounded the State House wherein Congress was in session, and demanded their pay. The U.S. Congress fled to Princeton, New Jersey, and, several weeks later, the U.S. Army expelled the war veterans back to home, out of the national capital.

From,
Bonus Army - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ah, I think you're right. I was looking at 10 USC 381, but that only deals with procuring equipment, not the entire act.

Scorpion89 · Jul 25, 2009

RightinNYC said:
Ah, I think you're right. I was looking at 10 USC 381, but that only deals with procuring equipment, not the entire act.

No problem I was thinking the same thing but decide to check the Bonus March items.

Bush-Era Debate: Using G.I.’s in U.S.

apdst

sam_w

Well-known member

apdst

a777pilot

rudedog

Member

RightinNYC

Girthless

Scorpion89

WI Crippler

Scarecrow Akhbar

Scarecrow Akhbar

Scorpion89

a777pilot

apdst

Scorpion89

Scorpion89

frazier991

Active member

rudedog

Member

apdst

Scorpion89

a777pilot

RightinNYC

Girthless

a777pilot

Scorpion89

RightinNYC

Girthless

Scorpion89