Bush Weighed Using Military in Arrests
Results 1 to 5 of 5

Bush Weighed Using Military in Arrests

This is a discussion on Bush Weighed Using Military in Arrests within the Politics forums, part of the Main Category category; Even though they did not go through with this the fact that it would even be considered is very troubling. ...

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Fort Worth
    Posts
    7,857

    Default Bush Weighed Using Military in Arrests

    Even though they did not go through with this the fact that it would even be considered is very troubling. I am afraid if Obama had been President this would have been done. As the bumper sticker I once saw said, "I love my country but I fear my government".



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

    Bush Weighed Using Military in Arrests



    Article Tools Sponsored By
    By MARK MAZZETTI and DAVID JOHNSTON
    Published: July 24, 2009

    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.
    Readers' Comments



    Some of the advisers to President George W. Bush, including Vice President **** 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.

    “The president has ample constitutional and statutory authority to deploy the military against international or foreign terrorists operating within the United States,” the memorandum said.

    The memorandum — written by the lawyers John C. Yoo and Robert J. Delahunty — was directed to Alberto R. Gonzales, then the White House counsel, who had asked the department about a president’s authority to use the military to combat terrorist activities in the United States.

    The memorandum was declassified in March. But the White House debate about the Lackawanna group is the first evidence that top American officials, after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, actually considered using the document to justify deploying the military into an American town to make arrests.

    Most former officials interviewed for this article spoke only on the condition of anonymity because the deliberations about the case involved classified information. They agreed to talk about the internal discussions only after the memorandum was released earlier this year.

    New information has recently emerged about the deliberations and divisions in the administration over some of the most controversial policies after the Sept. 11 attacks, like the decision to use brutal interrogation methods on Qaeda detainees.

    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.

    “Frankly, it was a bit of a turf war,” said one former senior administration official. “For a number of people, crossing the line of having intelligence or military activities inside the United States was not worth the risk.”

    Mr. Bush ended up ordering the F.B.I. to make the arrests in Lackawanna, near Buffalo, where the agency had been monitoring a group of Yemeni Americans with suspected Qaeda ties. The five men arrested there in September 2002, and a sixth arrested nearly simultaneously in Bahrain, pleaded guilty to terrorism-related charges.

    Scott L. Silliman, a Duke University law professor specializing in national security law, said an American president had not deployed the active-duty military on domestic soil in a law enforcement capacity, without specific statutory authority, since the Civil War.

    Senior military officials were never consulted, former officials said. Richard B. Myers, a retired general who was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in a recent interview that he was unaware of the discussion.

    Former officials said the 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 lawyers, in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, wrote that the Constitution, the courts and Congress had recognized a president’s authority “to take military actions, domestic as well as foreign, if he determines such actions to be necessary to respond to the terrorist attacks upon the United States on Sept. 11, 2001, and before.”

    The document added that the neither the Posse Comitatus Act nor the Fourth Amendment tied a president’s hands.

    Despite this guidance, some Bush aides bristled at the prospect of troops descending on an American suburb to arrest terrorism suspects.

    “What would it look like to have the American military go into an American town and knock on people’s door?” said a second former official in the debate.

    Chief James L. Michel of the Lackawanna police agreed. “If we had tanks rolling down the streets of our city,” Chief Michel said, “we would have had pandemonium down here.”

    The Lackawanna case was the first after the Sept. 11 attacks in which American intelligence and law enforcement operatives believed they had dismantled a Qaeda cell in the United States.

    In the months before the arrests, Mr. Bush was regularly briefed on the case by Mr. Mueller of the F.B.I. and George J. Tenet, the director of central intelligence. The C.I.A. had been tracking the overseas contacts of the Lackawanna group.

    In a Wall Street Journal op-ed article in March, Mr. Yoo defended his 2001 memorandum and its reasoning, saying that after Sept. 11 the Bush administration faced the real prospect of Qaeda cells undertaking attacks on American soil. “The possibility of such attacks raised difficult, fundamental questions of constitutional law,” he wrote, “because they might require domestic military operations against an enemy for the first time since the Civil War.”

    Eric Schmitt contributed reporting.
    By faith Noah,being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear,prepared an ark to the saving of his house;by the which he condemned the world,and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith Heb.11:7

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    central KY
    Posts
    37

    Default

    Given the mood of the country at the time, it would not have mattered to me whom President Bush sent to arrest terrorist. I think most of the country would have felt the same at the time.

    Never Forget

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    20

    Default

    There is a reason we have a Constitution. It is to insure we are not ruled over by a person who possesses all the power, such as a king. The Constitution was not written for when things were running smooth and easy, it was written for when things are hard and we are in some sort of crisis. It was written to insure that the people have the voice, that the people are not subjects to a authoritarian despot, and that the people's rights are protected.

    Bush, Cheney, Addington, Gonzales, Yoo, and others felt that they could do whatever they wanted under the guise of national security. No where does it say in the Constitution that anyone can disregard it in times of national crisis. Cheney and Addington and company decided what they wanted to do and send Yoo and Gonzales off to justify it using convoluted reasoning. As a result many people's Constitutional rights were violated, many laws were cast aside as though they did not exist, treaties were disregarded, and some of Yoo's opinions were so bad they had to be resended by his successor.

    If our police used the tactics of Bush, et al, we would have their asses fired and in jail. No one, including the president, is above the law.

    People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.
    Republican Party has been taken over by the Four Horsemen of Calumny,
    Fear, Ignorance, Bigotry and Smear.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,739

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by david01 View Post
    Given the mood of the country at the time, it would not have mattered to me whom President Bush sent to arrest terrorist. I think most of the country would have felt the same at the time.

    Never Forget
    Sorry David but the military should NEVER be used as police within the borders of the U.S. I haven't forgotten 9/11, as well as several other instances, but that doesn't mean we should forget the Constitution. Let the FBI, ATF, Marshals, Secret Service and other federal agencies handle making arrests in the U.S. Yes I know that the Coast Guard is already used to make arrests in our seas but it needs to end there.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Fort Worth
    Posts
    7,857

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ronwill View Post
    Sorry David but the military should NEVER be used as police within the borders of the U.S. I haven't forgotten 9/11, as well as several other instances, but that doesn't mean we should forget the Constitution. Let the FBI, ATF, Marshals, Secret Service and other federal agencies handle making arrests in the U.S. Yes I know that the Coast Guard is already used to make arrests in our seas but it needs to end there.

    +1. If 911 is a good reason to trample the constitution under foot then where do we draw the line and who makes the decision? What happens when the crisis is not real but a contrived one and the precedent has been set and for those of you that thinks our government never has and never will contrive a crisis then I have ocean front land in Arizona to sell you.
    By faith Noah,being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear,prepared an ark to the saving of his house;by the which he condemned the world,and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith Heb.11:7

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •