Anyone ever figure out who called these guys to Alabama?
Posted on 07/24/2009 6:54:54 PM PDT by rdl6989
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 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.
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
NY Slimes strike again.
The idea of sending troops to arrest people within in the US makes me really uncomfortable. That’s the job of the FBI. Imagine if he had sent this precedent, and then it became okay for Obama to do this with “right-wing extremists.”
So what’s the point? They considered doing something they chose not to do and didn’t. Wow, now there is some big news right there by golly.
If the NYT knew what all I have dreamed of doing in response to their traitorous acts against my country, they would move to an undisclosed location.
“Obama to do this with “right-wing extremists.”
Give it time....he’ll do it.
Plus the FBI doesn't have that many people. They often have to rely on cooperation with local law enforcement agencies.
That is not a “Bush era debate” topic.
It’s a “Washington era debate” topic, and the prohibition that was decided upon is coded into law.
The reasons to do this would be:
a) To establish the legality of the practice, in case it needed to happen on a mass scale.
b) To avoid putting terrorism suspects into civilian courts.
Anyone ever figure out who called these guys to Alabama?
Not just NO!!!, but HELL NO!!!!
Next thing you know, there are some thing American troops can’t or refuse to do, so the gummint hires foreigners, aka mercenaries.
NO MILITARY TROOPS IN OUR STREETS!!!!!
Wait till we find out what the Thug in Chief is up to.
On the other hand, Zero has sh!t on the Constituion so many times in his short tenure, that this might become reality under his regime.
a) To establish the legality of the practice, in case it needed to happen on a mass scale.
b) To avoid putting terrorism suspects into civilian courts.
In 1942 the US arrested, tried, convicted, and executed a group of NAZI saboteurs who were smuggled into the US via U-boat. They were tried by military tribunals on US soil. Some of them even had dual US-German citizenship. There's already precedent for trying saboteurs by military tribunals on US soil regardles of who apprehended them.
Obama doesn’t need precedent to take action against his enemies.
Read up!
To date no charges have been brought against the mayor, the police chief, the General in charge of the troops, or anyone who participated in the crimes.
How soon some forget tanks at Waco.......another democrat president
Well, and another ungainly, manly looking AG, and don’t forget the tanks came from the Texas National Guard, courtesy of Ann Richards.
Any call from Obama for the military to deploy for domestic “use” will not be heeded. I’ll wager that the uniformed senior military leadership will regard it as an unlawful order.
Ann Richards was one nasty old woman.......
The constitution is such a nuisance/sarc
Thanks I hadn’t seen that. The NRA, the nation’s oldest civil rights organization, brought a civil case too but there have been no criminal charges filed and clearly there should be.
In 1942 the US arrested, tried, convicted, and executed a group of NAZI saboteurs who were smuggled into the US via U-boat.
______________________________________________________
IIRC, it was and still stands as the fastest (not the largest) mass executions in US History. One guy turned himself in and spilled the beans about the operation. After we caught the other two, they were all tried and executed. the whole execution from 1st Nazi to last Nazi took less than 4 minutes. I tried googling that incident about a month ago and didn’t find anything. can you point me somewhere to read about it?
It was war.
Downside: Obama will use the same argument against citizens, instead of non-citizen terrorists.
Interesting that the Times is bringing this up NOW, right before ostammer and his thugocracy try to put the screws to us in ways we’ve never seen before. It looks to me like they’re setting the stage for ostammer to violate Posse Comitatus to put the boot down on our necks when we rise up against his coup.
The point is that since the idea has been batted around by a pub president, pubs and conservatives should not be able to cry out if ostammer decides to use troops against ‘terrorists’ such as you and me, as recently defined by Homeland Security, for rising up against the ruinous policies and laws he is enacting by fiat, Executive Order, and slamming through congress in the dark of night that nobody has read. They are looking for a means to give precedent or the glimmer of violating Posse Comitatus in advance so that he can bring military resources to bear on ordinary Americans exercising their various constitutional rights.
Me thinks someone is trying to change the subject. With all the negativity ZERO is getting and his sinking approval rating this doesn’t surprise me.
Gee, how about we talk about what this Marxist SOB we have in the White House is doing, eh New York Slimes?
Exactly. This article has no relevance, except perhaps to historians and legal scholars. The main purpose of the article, as far as the Slimes is concerned, is an opportunity for more Bush bashing after W has been out of office for six months.
Read about the "Whiskey Rebellion". Goe. W. participated as CIC.
/johnny
And she's STILL DEAD! Can we get a round of applause for AR? Stand up Anne!
Ann Richards, Molly Ivens, Walter Cronkite.... Just having outlived those old socialists is enough for one lifetime. Thank You, Jesus.
But I'm not bitter. I'm just enjoying the fresher air.
/johnny
How do you feel about sending troops in to kill men, women and children, all US citizens?
Oh ooops, that was a demonrat president so it is okay.
1942...demonrat president so it is A-Okay!
Meanwhile, they would have burned President Bush at the stake had he taken those kind of actions to protect us and our country.
There are legitimate debates on this, but I don’t read too many articles complaining about Eisenhower federalizing the Arkansas National Guard to escort the Arkansas 9 into classes.
Contrary to the opinion of the Duke professor which the Slimes interviewed, this situation has undoubtedly happened, at least in a practical sense, after the Civil War.
The roundup of Japanese-Americans in the western US for deportation to detention camps was done by the military in 1942, in accordance with an executive order from the "liberal" president Franklin D. Roosevelt. One can be certain that at least a few of these folks didn't cooperate voluntarily and were detained by the military by force.
Perhaps the good professor drew a blank on this because it occurred during a Democratic administration.
I see we are on the same track. ;*)
Those are Alabama Army National Guard.
Actually it's not. It's the job of state and local civilian law enforcement agents, under the command of County Sheriffs. I believe they may ask for the assistance of federal agents if needed.
It’s called a mutual aid agreement. They are in place all over the US. This is an unusual display of its use but such agreements serve a valuable purpose, especially in rural areas where local resources are limited.
What was the motivation of the discussion about this? that the lak 6 would have required the teams...six..whomever for a takedown?....sounds like HRT or whomever was not thought of being up to the job?
The National Guard belongs to the governor of each state. Even the officers can be appointed as seen fit to include those without any military experience (say Ohio) or the oh so infamous Kentucy Colonel.... The U.S. Armed Forces and Reserves are what wee are talking about here.
Oh, you mean like Janet Reno and Waco?
Punch "nazi saboteurs" into Altavista and get 40,000+ hits, including:
Didn’t they ALREADY do this, under Clinton, at Waco? Soldiers, tanks, attack helicopters, strafing machine guns, etc. Of course there, the flamethrowers incinerated the remaining evidence.
Plus, let’s not forget that at Ruby Ridge, under Bush 1, they mobilized armored troop carriers, machine guns, and had F-16’s buzzing the house where Randy Weaver lived with his kids and wife - till the sniper killed her, of course.
This diversion came a little late, Axlerod. The news cycle is already focusing on Obama’s racism..
Bush decided against it. Bush was right.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.