View Full Version : Report: Bush mulled sending troops into Buffalo
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 **** 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.
According to the Times, Cheney and other Bush aides said an Oct. 23, 2001, Justice Department memo gave broad presidential authority that allowed Bush to use the domestic use of the military against al-Qaida if it was justified on the grounds of national security, rather than law enforcement.
Among those arguing for the military use besides Cheney were his legal adviser David S. Addington and some senior Defense Department officials, the Times reported.
Opposing the idea were Condoleezza Rice, then the national security adviser; John B. Bellinger III, the top lawyer at the National Security Council; FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III; and Michael Chertoff, then the head of the Justice Department's criminal division.
Bush ultimately nixed the proposal and ordered the FBI to make the arrests in Lackawanna. The men were subsequently arrested and pleaded guilty to terrorism-related charges.
Scott L. Silliman, a Duke University law professor specializing in national security law, told the Times that a U.S. president had not deployed the active-duty military on domestic soil in a law enforcement capacity, without specific statutory authority, since the Civil War.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090725/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_terror_domestic_raid
**** Cheney is a scary scary man.
LineDoggie
07-25-2009, 12:56 PM
Osama Bin Ladens worse.........
pascalywood
07-25-2009, 12:56 PM
Seems a little overkill.
FlintHillBilly
07-25-2009, 01:01 PM
Cheney doesnt scare me a single bit.
FullMetalJackass
07-25-2009, 01:14 PM
Yeah I am scared ****less. They mulled over something and then decided not to do it. This keeps me awake at night, even now. Because I know the long arm of Cheney can reach out and choke me in my sleep.
BTW, what is the unemployment rate now?
Yeah I am scared ****less. They mulled over something and then decided not to do it. This keeps me awake at night, even now. Because I know the long arm of Cheney can reach out and choke me in my sleep.
That **** Cheney "strongly urged" the military be used in domestic law enforcement is quite disconcerting (if not the least bit surprising). I'm glad he's outta there.
BTW, what is the unemployment rate now?
Don't know. Pretty high. We're in a recession. Which has fvck all to do with this thread.
FullMetalJackass
07-25-2009, 01:25 PM
That **** Cheney "strongly urged" the military be used in domestic law enforcement is quite disconcerting (if not the least bit surprising). I'm glad he's outta there.
Don't know. Pretty high. We're in a recession. Which has fvck all to do with this thread.
It is the economy stupid.
It is the economy stupid.
The economy is not the topic of this thread.
It's not even loosely related to the topic of this thread.
LineDoggie
07-25-2009, 01:33 PM
That **** Cheney "strongly urged" the military be used in domestic law enforcement is quite disconcerting (if not the least bit surprising).
That **** Cheney didnt consider a Terrorist Cell inside the USA a Law Enforcement Matter is an Option.
He wasnt advocating taking down the Mafia with the 82nd , but using some specialized people for capturing some terrorists waging war inside the USA. In that, how is it different than Using the Army to run down Bloody Bill Anderson or Quantrill? we sure didnt send Cops, did we?
In any case its academic as his option wasnt used
I'll bet JKD is going to tell Cheney stories to get his kids to eat their vegetables.
Allowing yourself to get wound up over this is pretty silly.
SpeedyHedgehog
07-25-2009, 01:40 PM
Just another attempt to picture Cheney as some raving lunatic fighting George Bush to see whose finger could get to the button first. Cheney didn't worry me any more than any other Vice-President in our history.
There have probably been discussions in every administration in this country's history that would curl your hair. But that's just it. They were discussions, nothing more, nothing less, that never reached the execution stage.
FullMetalJackass
07-25-2009, 01:40 PM
The economy is not the topic of this thread.
It's not even loosely related to the topic of this thread.
Nor is this story relevant anymore because it was a hair-brained idea that was shot down by Bush. If you really think any regime is doing things above board all the time you are probably deluisional, not saying you are. What this story fails to mention is why they considered using troops, that is the real fascination I think. That we will never know. I assume their intel at the time must have indicated something that normal law enforcement couldn't have handled, nevermind the constitutional legalities. I couldn't care less about the rights of terrorists- foreign or domestic.
It will be interesting to see what happens when the maobama regime leaves and what kind of dirty little schemes they were cooking up, but ultimately were decided against.
In all this news story could have been more complete if the s h i ty journalist would have snooped around and asked more questions as to the motivation for using troops. But alas, this story is meant to stir up the hatred of the last regime to help out the current one in its present failures that is making it more unpopular by the day.
Euroamerican
07-25-2009, 01:52 PM
October 2001.... We were waiting for the other shoe to drop and were pretty wound up. If a hundred terrorists had started running shooting up the streets of some major US city, I'm sure we would have welcomed/expected/demanded military forces being brought in.
Doesn't bother me very much.
On a similar topic, A few of Kennedy's evil people wanted to start WW 3 because of Cuba, but cooler heads won out there too. Oh, maybe they weren't scary evil people, but just Americans with strong opinions about going after the enemy.
I'm more worried about what the current administration has up its sleeve regarding the formation of the OSA. I don't remember Cheney suggesting the formation of his own brown shirt org. Now THAT is scary.
LineDoggie
07-25-2009, 02:07 PM
Just another attempt to picture Cheney as some raving lunatic fighting George Bush to see whose finger could get to the button first. Cheney didn't worry me any more than any other Vice-President in our history.
There have probably been discussions in every administration in this country's history that would curl your hair. But that's just it. They were discussions, nothing more, nothing less, that never reached the execution stage.It's the latest Talking Point in certain circles.
It's de Riguer to make Cheney out as worse than Stalinhitlerpolpotmansondahmersirhanbundy.......
I could actually understand if his advice was taken, but now they're down to ripping him over advice that was'ntt acted upon. Usually from the same people who claim Cheney ran Bush for 8 years. :roll:
AND, its a handy distraction from the ongoing debacles the new guys are in.
That **** Cheney didnt consider a Terrorist Cell inside the USA a Law Enforcement Matter is an Option.
He wasnt advocating taking down the Mafia with the 82nd , but using some specialized people for capturing some terrorists waging war inside the USA.
He was advocating using the US military to arrest US citizens on US soil.
In that, how is it different than Using the Army to run down Bloody Bill Anderson or Quantrill? we sure didnt send Cops, did we?
Different time, different circumstances. Lots of things aren't done today the way they were done in the 1860s
In any case its academic as his option wasnt used
I'm not suggesting otherwise.
I'll bet JKD is going to tell Cheney stories to get his kids to eat their vegetables.
If that'll work, sure.
Allowing yourself to get wound up over this is pretty silly.
I agree. Fortunately I'm not wound up. Just discussing a topic I saw in the news today.
MJC9678
07-25-2009, 03:06 PM
The worse the economy gets and the more the people find out about just who they elected as President, the more all these type of stories will be in the press.....
I agree. Fortunately I'm not wound up. Just discussing a topic I saw in the news today.
I don't see the point. It's a moot issue.
I don't see the point. It's a moot issue.
To generate discussion? To discuss fairly recent events and a former VP who is still inserting himself in the public dialogue?
little icebear
07-25-2009, 03:57 PM
This is mp.net, JKD. Get real. Majority of folks around here are only concerned about their liberty when it is about their guns.
As long as nobody wants to register their firearms, they will not care about but rather applaude everything that smells like a police-state or stuff, straight out of a 24 episode...
To generate discussion? To discuss fairly recent events and a former VP who is still inserting himself in the public dialogue?
Yeah, but nothing actually happened. You're certainly free to spend your time debating an event (?) of no bearing or consequence. Though to me it just sounds like an opportunity for some people to confirm their belief that Cheney is, in fact, Satan.
Winger
07-25-2009, 04:24 PM
We used special ops to take down a compound in Texas, hey no problem, gotcha covered! Not to mention playing it down with deceit on the back end, still no problem.
Yet som of us mull over using troops to to take down some individuals that are potentially more dangerous than your standard homegrown crazies and people get all in a tizzy about it.
little icebear
07-25-2009, 04:26 PM
Nah... Cheney ainīt Satan. Heīs way cooler. Heīs more like the real-live version of a villain from a TV movie.
The one youīd secretly admire, since heīs got more style than the good guys and vicious humor, going well with his impish smirk.
Connaught Ranger
07-25-2009, 04:26 PM
That **** Cheney "strongly urged" the military be used in domestic law enforcement is quite disconcerting (if not the least bit surprising). I'm glad he's outta there.
Don't know. Pretty high. We're in a recession. Which has fvck all to do with this thread.
Thats the great thing about a democracy, ideas, suggestions, proposals with or without urgings, can be discussed, approved or rejected. woot
Originally Posted by little icebear
This is mp.net, JKD. Get real. Majority of folks around here are only concerned about their liberty when it is about their guns.
As long as nobody wants to register their firearms, they will not care about but rather applaude everything that smells like a police-state or stuff, straight out of a 24 episode...
Judging by the responses I guess the current talking points are that anything that is not about the economy is some sort of liberal media conspiracy to cover for Obama. As if this story is being published at the expense of reporting on the economy. Go to yahoo news where I found it and there is an entire section devoted solely to the economy....go to pretty much any news site and there is a section devoted solely to economic news. There are at least 3 television networks that I know of devoted solely to the economy and business news. And this thread in no way impedes anyone's ability to start a thread about the economy if they so chose. Just sayin'
Personally I think this is an issue worth discussing. I am against using the military in a law enforcement capacity of US soil against Americans and I think Bush made the right call. And yeah, I am absolutely no fan of our former VP.
Yeah, but nothing actually happened. You're certainly free to spend your time debating an event (?) of no bearing or consequence. Though to me it just sounds like an opportunity for some people to confirm their belief that Cheney is, in fact, Satan.
And you are certainly free to repeatedly post in a thread you have no interest in.
Sounds like something that happens in many/every 24 seasons.
Is it against the constitution/law to use military personnel/conduct such operations on US soil?
And you are certainly free to repeatedly post in a thread you have no interest in.
I'll leave you to your sewing circle, then.
I'll leave you to your sewing circle, then.
Hey, you can keep reading and posting in a thread you profess to not be interested in if you want. Don't let me scare you off, man. It's entirely your call.
sinophile
07-25-2009, 04:47 PM
Report: Bush mulled sending troops into Buffalo
Report: Bush upholds Posse Comitatus Act against Advisers
Its all in how you spin it. At the end of the day Bush made the right choice.
Hey, you can keep reading and posting in a thread you profess to not be interested in if you want. Don't let me scare you off, man. It's entirely your call.You seem upset.
Report: Bush mulled sending troops into Buffalo
Report: Bush upholds Posse Comitatus Act against Advisers
Its all in how you spin it. At the end of the day Bush made the right choice.
Agreed. I'm no fan of the title.
You seem upset.
Actually I'm amused.
Mastermind
07-25-2009, 05:42 PM
Yeah, They discussed a potential plan and then decided (The "Decider" Decided) not to go against the law, (Ooooh) and the proper authorites were used....now what is wrong with this?
I am sure the powers in charge discuss all sorts of scenario and possible choices of action. We were not in the room, all we have is this rather slanted version of the day and not one word of praise regarding the choice of proper action!
Is there any concern what-so-ever that the Obama administration discussed the possibility of having the CEO of GM sacked illegally and then chose the illegal action?
Is there any concern that the present congress critters daily exert power over the private sector banks and have all but nationalized the business sectors of the nation? Apparently not.
Is there any concern the present POTUS, and Democrat ruled Congress have unilaterally moved to socialize medicine within the borders of this nation? Is there any concern they have locked half of this nations legally elected representatives out of any debate on this matter?
Yet, **** Cheney, a regular person with no power what-so-ever other than freedom to speak scares the hell out of the poster...
Jeezus H. Friggin Chreist!
My God, what sort of agenda motivated BS are we posting now days?
chauncy republicans
07-25-2009, 05:50 PM
We used special ops to take down a compound in Texas, hey no problem, gotcha covered! Not to mention playing it down with deceit on the back end, still no problem.
I'm unaware of the aforementioned incident, could you elaborate?
Yeah, They discussed a potential plan and then decided (The "Decider" Decided) not to go against the law, (Ooooh) and the proper authorites were used....now what is wrong with this?
I am sure the powers in charge discuss all sorts of scenario and possible choices of action. We were not in the room, all we have is this rather slanted version of the day and not one word of praise regarding the choice of proper action!
Is there any concern what-so-ever that the Obama administration discussed the possibility of having the CEO of GM sacked illegally and then chose the illegal action?
Is there any concern that the present congress critters daily exert power over the private sector banks and have all but nationalized the business sectors of the nation? Apparently not.
Is there any concern the presnt POTUS, and Democrat ruled Congress have unilaterally moved to socialize medicine within the borders of this nation? Is there any concern they have locked half of this nations legally elected represenatives out of any devbate on this matter?
Yet, **** Cheney, a regular person with no power what-so-ever other than freedom to speak scares the hell out of the poster...
Jeezus H. Friggin Chreist!
My God, what sort of agenda motivated BS are we posting now days?
"What about X, Y and Z...?" Well if you'd like to discuss any of those other issues then start threads about them. Nobody is stopping you. Just as nobody is forcing you to read this one.
I'm apparently in the minority here in thinking this was an interesting bit of recent history, constitutional issues, and something that involved a person who is still, voluntarily, in the public eye. Which is fine. It happens. What's bizarre and funny to me is that people are getting so worked up about it. A good 80% of what gets posted here holds no interest to me... but what I don't do is go into big 200+ word rants in those threads about how I'm not interested in that topic. I just move on.
Winger
07-25-2009, 06:02 PM
Sounds like something that happens in many/every 24 seasons.
Is it against the constitution/law to use military personnel/conduct such operations on US soil?
Look up Posse Comatitus. This can be waivered by Executive Order however.
I'm unaware of the aforementioned incident, could you elaborate?
The FBI can request military assistance and has done so in the past. Requested it and used it. I wouldn't go into details or discuss freely as it is sometimes taken the wrong way on this medium.
Mackie
07-25-2009, 06:08 PM
Yeah, They discussed a potential plan and then decided (The "Decider" Decided) not to go against the law, (Ooooh) and the proper authorites were used....now what is wrong with this?
Only thinking about using military for law enforcement is an indicator of stupidity and loss of any democratic understanding.
The post 9/11 wave is still an amazing trip running the worlds biggest democracy close to the abyss.
LineDoggie
07-25-2009, 06:35 PM
He was advocating using the US military to arrest US citizens on US soil. Yeah American Citizens planning a terror war on other American Citizens. Pardon me if I shed no tears for these ****sticks.
LineDoggie
07-25-2009, 06:37 PM
This is mp.net, JKD. Get real. Majority of folks around here are only concerned about their liberty when it is about their guns.
As long as nobody wants to register their firearms, they will not care about but rather applaude everything that smells like a police-state or stuff, straight out of a 24 episode...Let your family live next to these 6 A-Holes when they get out. Betcha if your family was threatened by their actions you'd be singing some different tune
SpeedyHedgehog
07-25-2009, 06:49 PM
The post 9/11 wave is still an amazing trip running the worlds biggest democracy close to the abyss.
What a ridiculous statement. The U.S. is no closer to any "abyss" now than we were during any other crisis in our history - the Civil War, Great Depression and the day after Pearl Harbor to name a few. We'll survive just fine, with the same form of government we've had from day one, despite your obvious wishes otherwise.
little icebear
07-25-2009, 06:49 PM
Let your family live next to these 6 A-Holes when they get out. Betcha if your family was threatened by their actions you'd be singing some different tune
Thatīs not the point. Youīve got federal agents, one gazillion of SWAT teams and Sheriff Rosco P. Coltrane in order to take care of this kind of stuff.
So why wanted Darth Cheney to drag the Army into that affaire? I donīt trust that guy. No sane person should. And thatīs no tinfoil hat stuff. Mr Cheney has his legacy...
Yeah American Citizens planning a terror war on other American Citizens. Pardon me if I shed no tears for these ****sticks.
Scumbags that they are, they are US citizens and I don't think the US military needs to be used to arrest US citizens on US soil.
Scumbags that they are, they are US citizens and I don't think the US military needs to be used to arrest US citizens on US soil.
Hmmm, it's a good thing it didn't happen, then.
Hmmm, it's a good thing it didn't happen, then.
Indeed
......
[WDW]Megaraptor
07-25-2009, 07:58 PM
In the early 1980s the FBI created the HRT to deal with these exact situations - where terrorists were operating on American soil and a group with military capabilities was required to counter them.
I can't think of a name
07-25-2009, 08:08 PM
After you check for **** Cheney under your bed remember Waco, TX
LineDoggie
07-25-2009, 08:15 PM
Thatīs not the point. Youīve got federal agents, one gazillion of SWAT teams and Sheriff Rosco P. Coltrane in order to take care of this kind of stuff.
So why wanted Darth Cheney to drag the Army into that affaire? I donīt trust that guy. No sane person should. And thatīs no tinfoil hat stuff. Mr Cheney has his legacy...Because certain units of the Military are the gold standard of the Raid/Prisoner Snatch. Those units have better equipment, training, cohesiveness, support than the Buffalo PD(no Offence Buffalo but I'd rather SFOD-D than Officer Joe Bolton). These yahoos werent bank robbers or even branch davidians, but real terrorists.
And fear of Cheney is really ridiculous, it's the mark of a feeble minded, if that shoe fits , wear it.
After you check for **** Cheney under your bed remember Waco, TX
Was the military used as law enforcement there?
LongShot
07-25-2009, 08:17 PM
Megaraptor;4293667']In the early 1980s the FBI created the HRT to deal with these exact situations - where terrorists were operating on American soil and a group with military capabilities was required to counter them.
That actually was not the primary, or even secondary reason (nor tertiary) for HRT being formed...(hint...its in the name) Though they certainly have evolved to fill that roll.
Because certain units of the Military are the gold standard of the Raid/Prisoner Snatch. Those units have better equipment, training, cohesiveness, support than the Buffalo PD(no Offence Buffalo but I'd rather SFOD-D than Officer Joe Bolton). These yahoos werent bank robbers or even branch davidians, but real terrorists.
And yet they were all taken into custody.
Winger
07-25-2009, 08:39 PM
Was the military used as law enforcement there?
You 'betcha.
The tanks/ifv were out of Ft. Hood. The no-nametagers were out of NC. Incidentally & entirely unrelated, by hand of fate, at least 4 of these operators died in training accidents not too long afterwards. SOF training is dangerous stuff.
3rdMillhouse
07-25-2009, 08:48 PM
I wonder if, in some 4 decades from now, people will look back at these first 10 years of the 21st century and whether they'll see **** Cheney as a patriot or as some crazy sh1tbag.
Winger
07-25-2009, 08:52 PM
I wonder if, in some 4 decades from now, people will look back at these first 10 years of the 21st century and whether they'll see **** Cheney as a patriot or as some crazy sh1tbag.
Machiavellian patriot would sound about right.
I can't think of a name
07-25-2009, 09:26 PM
Guys, we should take this conversation to safer channels. **** Cheney may be reading this.
Guys, we should take this conversation to safer channels. **** Cheney may be reading this.
Shhhhh, he's right behind you.
With the man's views on the power of the executive branch, torture, posse comitatus, and pretty much every other thing he's expressed an opinion on, I'm glad he's on the sidelines these days.
What's your opinion on Posse Comitatus, I can't think of a name?
Winger
07-25-2009, 09:34 PM
Shhhhh, he's right behind you.
With the man's views on the power of the executive branch, torture, posse comitatus, and pretty much every other thing he's got an opinion on, I'm glad he's on the sidelines these days.
He seems like one of those worst enemy or best friend kind of guy. No in between.
He seems like one of those worst enemy or best friend kind of guy. No in between.
Yeah he seems to give off that sort of vibe.
I read something the other day about him lobbying for the pardon of Scooter Libby where he said "We can't leave a man on the battle field" or something along those lines.
LineDoggie
07-25-2009, 09:40 PM
What's your opinion on Posse Comitatus I thought Mario Van Peebles was OK, but the Baldwin kid sucked
I thought Mario Van Peebles was OK, but the Baldwin kid sucked
Wow, now there's a movie I haven't thought about in, what, fifteen years.
avedis
07-25-2009, 10:35 PM
Cheney > Biden
the end
FlintHillBilly
07-25-2009, 10:41 PM
Bush > Cheney > Biden > Obama
The End.
LineDoggie
07-26-2009, 12:01 AM
Bush > Cheney > Biden > Obama
The End.
Reagan> Bush> Cheney> Biden> Obama /thread
Mothra > Posse Comitatus Act > Cheney /thread
11 Bravo
07-26-2009, 04:53 AM
Cheney doesnt scare me a single bit.
This whole "story" is the current chosen one's admin trying to deflect eyes from their current FUBAR situation... you know that BS they call healthcare "ReFoRm".
ARGAR FORKBEARD
07-26-2009, 05:02 AM
Bush and Cheney are mental!!! maybe the are still searching for WMD's
LineDoggie
07-26-2009, 10:01 AM
Mothra > Posse Comitatus Act > Cheney /thread
Godzilla>Yongari>Gamara> Rodan>Mothra/thread
Godzilla>Yongari>Gamara> Rodan>Mothra/thread
Well....you've got me there.
This whole "story" is the current chosen one's admin trying to deflect eyes from their current FUBAR situation... you know that BS they call healthcare "ReFoRm".
I thought the conspiracy was that they were trying to deflect attention away from the economy?
Anyway, health care reform, here you go:
http://news.google.com/news?pz=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=health+care
If they're trying to deflect our eyes from health care reform they're doing a piss poor job by writing up thousands of articles about health care and one about **** Cheney's idea to use the military for domestic law enforcement.
Winger
07-26-2009, 10:13 AM
Bush and Cheney are mental!!! maybe the are still searching for WMD's
Saddam had so many fooled that he had his own mother hiding non-existant WMDs.
Just don't forget about the 1% and don't get too hung up on the WMD thing. It wasn't the only legit reason for finishing something that should of been finished long before.
11 Bravo
07-26-2009, 10:31 AM
they're doing a piss poor job
Yes , they are doing a piss poor jobof it all. They don't need to deflect as much on the economy as they do blame it all on the guy before them irregardless that they've made a bigger mess of it yet.
Mastermind
07-26-2009, 12:09 PM
Was the military used as law enforcement there?
In a sense, they were...the last time I looked; I do not think VTR's are part of the regular civil police TO&E. But, they served to shoot tear gas into the buildings and rip out corners of the buildings at the Branch Davidian Compound in Waco.
Think about the controversy that came when Chief Darryl Gates developed SWAT...they wear military style uniforms, use military helmets, use military weapons, and use surplus military armored vehicles...some are tracked with turrets and heavy weapons now days.
These may not by organization be affiliated with the military per se...but they are military in all other respects including fire power.
Now, the federal LEOrgs have any military equipment at their fingertips...all they have to do is ask. So, redefining or subverting the posse comitatus limitations is rather simple. Waco, Ruby Ridge, Los Angles, Detroit or even the Boston Bombing does not need a fine determination of use of military forces. Look at the New Orleans Katrina example...how many people were under military supervision? No one gave a hoot...it was a disaster.
Looking back for precedent...what about the Veterans Demonstrations in DC and General MacArthur gave the order for federal troops to use machine guns on American citizens and war veterans besides? What about the draft riots of 1864...hundreds of people were killed in the streets of NY by Federal Troops. What about when the city of Tacoma Wash. experienced massive electrical power drops due to sever drought and the CV Lexington was brought in and hooked up to provide electrical power. The Navy ship (a converted cruiser) remained hooked to shore for almost five weeks, providing about a fourth of the city power requirements.
LineDoggie
07-26-2009, 12:19 PM
US Code Title 10 subtitle A Chapter 15 subsections 331-through 335 give the president such authority
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/331.html
In a sense, they were...the last time I looked; I do not think VTR's are part of the regular civil police TO&E. But, they served to shoot tear gas into the buildings and rip out corners of the buildings at the Branch Davidian Compound in Waco.
Think about the controversy that came when Chief Darryl Gates developed SWAT...they wear military style uniforms, use military helmets, use military weapons, and use surplus military armored vehicles...some are tracked with turrets and heavy weapons now days.
These may not by organization be affiliated with the military per se...but they are military in all other respects including fire power.
Now, the federal LEOrgs have any military equipment at their fingertips...all they have to do is ask. So, redefining or subverting the posse comitatus limitations is rather simple. Waco, Ruby Ridge, Los Angles, Detroit or even the Boston Bombing does not need a fine determination of use of military forces. Look at the New Orleans Katrina example...how many people were under military supervision? No one gave a hoot...it was a disaster.
Looking back for precedent...what about the Veterans Demonstrations in DC and General MacArthur gave the order for federal troops to use machine guns on American citizens and war veterans besides? What about the draft riots of 1864...hundreds of people were killed in the streets of NY by Federal Troops. What about when the city of Tacoma Wash. experienced massive electrical power drops due to sever drought and the CV Lexington was brought in and hooked up to provide electrical power. The Navy ship (a converted cruiser) remained hooked to shore for almost five weeks, providing about a fourth of the city power requirements.
I read something once about Waco where they said military personnel could set up a weapon system, aim it, and it's fine as long as the police are the ones who fire it.
I'm not opposed to SWAT teams. We're well past a time when all the police needed were .38 revolvers. But it does seem at times like they can go overboard with the APCs and such.
I think the Bonus Army incident got around Posse Comitatus by DC being a federal district. Still, really damn shameful.
US Code Title 10 subtitle A Chapter 15 subsections 331-through 335 give the president such authority
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/331.html
Ah, there we go. Thank you, sir.
And I'm not opposed to using Guard or active military if something is beyond law enforcement's ability to handle. Large scale riots, natural disasters, and such. But in this case, I don't think it the military was needed and I think Bush made the right decision here. These guys weren't shooting up town with AKs and RPGs. They'd been under surveillance and I believe were taken in without incident.
I also worry that it becomes easy to simply label anyone on your sh!t list a terrorist or insurrectionist and send in the heavy hitters. I think sending in troops is something you don't want to do unless you absolutely have no viable other options available.
AZZenny
07-26-2009, 01:26 PM
It surprises me how many people here don't give a **** about the Constitution (except when it comes to their personal gun ownership. If it should ever come out that Cheney had his lawyers draft a plan to justify seizing everyone's weapons, even if never acted upon, I wonder what folks here would say).
The gang-rape of the rule of law and the Constitution planned by Cheney's team really should give every American pause. If the exact same stuff came out now about Clinton, most people here would be all over it like it was valid, and news. If it came out now about Obama, you'd be shrieking 'I told you so' and taking to the streets.
Anyhow, I'd guess the idea behind using military to nab these guys was the intention of rendering them elsewhere. It was otherwise certainly a big vote of no confidence for domestic CT ops.
Yeah I am scared ****less. They mulled over something and then decided not to do it. This keeps me awake at night, even now. Because I know the long arm of Cheney can reach out and choke me in my sleep.
BTW, what is the unemployment rate now?
Hold my quivering man pudding!
Oh, BTW most people don't understand or really get this bit:
Scott L. Silliman, a Duke University law professor specializing in national security law, told the Times that a U.S. president had not deployed the active-duty military on domestic soil in a law enforcement capacity, without specific statutory authority, since the Civil War.
In other words, it can be done, has been done and is currently done if applied through the proper channels WITHOUT public knowledge period. Just like closed court hearings for spy programs and the whole nine yards that we find out about years later that were 100% legal.
bababooey
07-26-2009, 07:24 PM
I, for one, welcome a King **** Cheney. If you are reading this, sir, you are no Satan in my book. The Constitution is over-rated anyway.
Actually US military domestic law enforcement is governed by Posse Comitatus Act(link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act). So there are requirements that dictate the details of it, you may peruse at your leisure.
I like how the news media is doing everything to make **** Cheney look like the evil dark lord sith. Yes he advocated deploying some troops to deal with a potentially violent situation. Other people in the administration had different suggestions. It's not as big a deal as it's being made out to be. In that situation you should examine all your options, Bush decided against Cheney's recommendations, and everything worked out.
I'm going to bed now, assuming of course, **** Cheney isn't hiding underneath with the rest of the monsters.
I, for one, welcome a King **** Cheney. If you are reading this, sir, you are no Satan in my book. The Constitution is over-rated anyway.
I keep reading references to the constitution. Can you point to me the part in the constitution where it says that use of military force in civilian law enforcement application is forbidden? I'm 99.9% positive that even if Cheney read the constitution at the moment he was deciding to send troops downtown, he would not find a restriction in any clause or amendment.
Posse Comitatus is so outdated and over hyped. The Reconstruction is over, no need to fear the military.p-) There have been multiple incidents where the military was tapped in when feds couldn't handle situations, but we are still here today safe and sound...
Dominique
07-27-2009, 09:24 AM
This thread is killing me. While the idea was shot down, I've got a serious issue with the fact they were actually considering using military troops, for what should have been an arrest handled by eithe local, state, or federal authorities. And some of the responses I see here make me seriously wonder if some of you have a clue as to what the militayr can and can't do. Or confirm tha tmany of you get you news and info from ConspiracyNut.com
We used special ops to take down a compound in Texas, hey no problem, gotcha covered! Not to mention playing it down with deceit on the back end, still no problem.
I'll hazard a guess that you're referring to Waco, and if so, exactly what "special ops" unit "took down" the compound?
Look up Posse Comatitus. This can be waivered by Executive Order however.
And your point is what?
The FBI can request military assistance and has done so in the past. Requested it and used it. [/QUOTE=Winger;4293467]
Once again, your point.
[QUOTE=Winger;4293467] I wouldn't go into details or discuss freely as it is sometimes taken the wrong way on this medium.
What details, as it sounds like you're talking out your fourth point of contact.
That actually was not the primary, or even secondary reason (nor tertiary) for HRT being formed...(hint...its in the name) Though they certainly have evolved to fill that roll.
Wrong, the HRT was created SPECIFICALLY to be used as a CIVILIAN DOMESTIC CT unit.
You 'betcha.
The tanks/ifv were out of Ft. Hood. The no-nametagers were out of NC. Incidentally & entirely unrelated, by hand of fate, at least 4 of these operators died in training accidents not too long afterwards. SOF training is dangerous stuff.
First off they didn't use tanks, they used modified armored engineering vehicles. The "no-nametagers" you refer to were there to OBSERVE, not to participate, as were several of "Them". And exactly how do you know which operators from that unit were there, as their identities are exactly common knowledge? As I stated before, it sounds like your talking a lot of BS, without anything to back it up.
Winger
07-27-2009, 09:42 AM
This thread is killing me. While the idea was shot down, I've got a serious issue with the fact they were actually considering using military troops, for what should have been an arrest handled by eithe local, state, or federal authorities. And some of the responses I see here make me seriously wonder if some of you have a clue as to what the militayr can and can't do. Or confirm tha tmany of you get you news and info from ConspiracyNut.com
I'll hazard a guess that you're referring to Waco, and if so, exactly what "special ops" unit "took down" the compound?
And your point is what?
[QUOTE=Winger;4293467]The FBI can request military assistance and has done so in the past. Requested it and used it. [/QUOTE=Winger;4293467]
Once again, your point.
What details, as it sounds like you're talking out your fourth point of contact.
Wrong, the HRT was created SPECIFICALLY to be used as a CIVILIAN DOMESTIC CT unit.
First off they didn't use tanks, they used modified armored engineering vehicles. The "no-nametagers" you refer to were there to OBSERVE, not to participate, as were several of "Them". And exactly how do you know which operators from that unit were there, as their identities are exactly common knowledge? As I stated before, it sounds like your talking a lot of BS, without anything to back it up.
Observing = advising = participating. Nothing wrong with that in my book.
To further fill you in, they had IFVs there in addition to the engineer tanks. You can see it on video. As to the modified combat engineer vehicles built on tank chassis, do you really think that ATF or FBI crewed them?
As to what my points were, I was answering questions. So, whats your point?
This isn't tinfoil hat stuff but some get overly sensitive when you talk about military involvement in domestic issues.
Dominique
07-27-2009, 09:59 AM
Observing = advising = participating. Nothing wrong with that in my book.
To further fill you in, they had IFVs there in addition to the engineer tanks. You can see it on video. As to the modified combat engineer vehicles built on tank chassis, do you really think that ATF or FBI crewed them?
As to what my points were, I was answering questions. So, whats your point?
This isn't tinfoil hat stuff but some get overly sensitive when you talk about military involvement in domestic issues.
The FBI got gear from Ft Hood, and the TX ARNG, and while they may have had Bradley's on site, they had their heavy weapons (namely the 25mm) removed. The FBI HRT crewed the vehicles, and as far as the ATF goes, they were relieved in place by either FBI SWAT or HRT personnel. And you still didn't answer my question about how you "know" that four operators, who were on site that day, died in training accidents. And my point is, why are you on here making it sound like you've got some sort of inside info on Delta, that's hush hush, and you can't talk about it?
Winger
07-27-2009, 10:08 AM
The FBI got gear from Ft Hood, and the TX ARNG, and while they may have had Bradley's on site, they had their heavy weapons (namely the 25mm) removed. The FBI HRT crewed the vehicles, and as far as the ATF goes, they were relieved in place by either FBI SWAT or HRT personnel. And you still didn't answer my question about how you "know" that four operators, who were on site that day, died in training accidents. And my point is, why are you on here making it sound like you've got some sort of inside info on Delta, that's hush hush, and you can't talk about it?
An articles in late 90's written up by Time or News Week I'm bringing up from memory that talked about how dangerous SF training was.
It made mention that 4 of the deceased worked in advisory roles for the FBI.
BTW, who brought up omfgDelta? Not wearing a nametag doesn't classify you as that.
Didn't know that they swapped crews out. Personally, I wouldn't of done that. I would of kept the more experienced military crews.
It is the economy stupid.
Of course it is. Where is the maximum 8% unemployment we were promised? Why are Obama's approval ratings going down?
Hey, look over here "**** Cheney is eeevil!"
Dominique
07-27-2009, 10:33 AM
An articles in late 90's written up by Time or News Week I'm bringing up from memory that talked about how dangerous SF training was.
It made mention that 4 of the deceased worked in advisory roles for the FBI.
The way you posted your response, you made it sound as if four of the "no-nametagers" from NC, who supposedly participated in the raid, all were killed in training accidents, within a year.
BTW, who brought up omfgDelta? Not wearing a nametag doesn't classify you as that.
While you may not have speficially stated Delta, what other NC based SOF unit would you have been referring to by stating that "We used special ops to take down a compound in Texas" and that "The no-nametagers were out of NC." ?
Didn't know that they swapped crews out. Personally, I wouldn't of done that. I would of kept the more experienced military crews.
The AFV crews couldn't take direct roles in the operations, as that would have been illegal.
Of course it is. Where is the maximum 8% unemployment we were promised? Why are Obama's approval ratings going down?
Hey, look over here "**** Cheney is eeevil!"
Somehow, despite this article, I was able to track down some very well hidden economic news:
http://news.yahoo.com/business;_ylt=Asws_Jn_uVoydYthl1DA2pSs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTBwdWlhdjVyBHBvcwMzBHNlYwN0bgRzbGsDYnVzaW5lc3M-
http://news.google.com/news?pz=1&ned=us&topic=b&ict=ln
http://www.bloomberg.com/intro3.html
http://www.cnbc.com/
http://www.foxbusiness.com/index.html
http://www.forbes.com/
http://www.*******.com/finance
Winger
07-27-2009, 10:56 AM
The way you posted your response, you made it sound as if four of the "no-nametagers" from NC, who supposedly participated in the raid, all were killed in training accidents, within a year.
While you may not have speficially stated Delta, what other NC based SOF unit would you have been referring to by stating that "We used special ops to take down a compound in Texas" and that "The no-nametagers were out of NC." ?
The AFV crews couldn't take direct roles in the operations, as that would have been illegal.
The 4 SF solders, RIP, mentioned in the article were out of NC. They passed away in entirely different incident over time. Nothing to point out there other than SF training is dangerous. It would make sense that any others in the observer/advisor role were out of there as well.
The AFV crews could of taken direct roles as could have the "advisors" as it could be made legal by executive order. Which is what the OP is really referring to with regards to Bush & Cheney. They can make it legal and bypass the Act which prohibits direct involvement.
On paper these experts didn't participate directly. However, I wouldn't of left these types of activities in the hands of FBI agents if it were up to me. Especially on the vehicles, they probably received very hasting training. I would of used the best at my disposal.
The Danforth report in 2000 summed up the extensive support of the military at Waco.
He concluded that it was all legal.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.10 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.