Bush Mulled Using Troops in US Arrests

uscitizen

uscitizen

Villified User
Bush Mulled Using Troops in US Arrests
AP
posted: 1 HOUR 17 MINUTES AGO

WASHINGTON (July 25) - 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.

http://news.aol.com/article/bush-mulled-using-troops-in-us-arrests/588180
 
uscitizen said:
Bush Mulled Using Troops in US Arrests
AP
posted: 1 HOUR 17 MINUTES AGO

WASHINGTON (July 25) - 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.

http://news.aol.com/article/bush-mulled-using-troops-in-us-arrests/588180
Click to expand...

And the right accuses Obama of being a dictator!

Hear the crickets chirping, no rightie has weighed in on this.
 
yeah, trying to protect the United states and it's citizens (which by the way is the actual job of the government, not giving free health care) from more terrorist attacks is a bad thing:rolleyes:...
 
Three points:
1: They didn't do it, even if they did "consider" it. OTOH there have been multiple instances of military presence in law enforcement since Obama came to office, including use of MPs at sobriety check points.

2: Bush is gone. (thank God!) Excusing excesses by Obama because Bush was supposedly worse won't cut it.

3: NYT is the most lying rag ever to call themselves a newspaper. I'd be willing to bet "strongly urged" means the idea was voiced - then tabled as a bad idea.
 
meme said:
yeah, trying to protect the United states and it's citizens (which by the way is the actual job of the government, not giving free health care) from more terrorist attacks is a bad thing:rolleyes:...
Click to expand...
Use of the military in a law enforcement role is a bad idea no matter what the motivation. Not to mention that Posse Comitatus strictly forbids it.

The military has a specific purpose, as do law enforcement agencies. Arresting people on domestic soil - even if they are foreign nationals - is the job of law enforcement. Fighting the enemy on their soil is the job of our military. We start mixing the two, and we're asking for trouble.
 
Good Luck said:
Use of the military in a law enforcement role is a bad idea no matter what the motivation. Not to mention that Posse Comitatus strictly forbids it.

The military has a specific purpose, as do law enforcement agencies. Arresting people on domestic soil - even if they are foreign nationals - is the job of law enforcement. Fighting the enemy on their soil is the job of our military. We start mixing the two, and we're asking for trouble.
Click to expand...

if I read things right this was right after 9/11 and the prospects of more terrorist attacks were high..
and I'm not sure I agree with you about fighting foreign nationals only on their soil...we know they are here, and to simply ignore that is suicide..our police are not set up or capable to fight those type of terrorist..
 
uscitizen said:
Bush probably did more to set up the props for a police state than any other president.
Click to expand...

Uh huh. Some "Dictator"...

So much smoke, so little fire. Imagine if the Times applied themselves to, say, Eric Holder ordering the Justice Dept. to drop charges against Black Panthers convicted of blocking voters from entering a polling place in 2008. Hadn't heard ?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2009/05/29/charges-black-panthers-dropped-obama/

Anyway, here's the breathless Times account :

"The discussions did not proceed far enough to put military units on alert.

Still, at least one [ie. a single - nji] 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."


Then this pointless citation :

"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."


Don't worry, it's really all just a non-story because "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. "

You can trust the Times though, because, as the lede says, it's all "according to former administration officials." As in this baffling "explanation" :

"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."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/25/us/25detain.html

So, um...if the "information" was"released" why the anonymity ?

Just wondering...
 
nji098 said:
Uh huh. Some "Dictator"...

So much smoke, so little fire. Imagine if the Times applied themselves to, say, Eric Holder ordering the Justice Dept. to drop charges against Black Panthers convicted of blocking voters from entering a polling place in 2008. Hadn't heard ?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2009/05/29/charges-black-panthers-dropped-obama/

Anyway, here's the breathless Times account :

"The discussions did not proceed far enough to put military units on alert.

Still, at least one [ie. a single - nji] 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."


Then this pointless citation :

"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."


Don't worry, it's really all just a non-story because "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. "

You can trust the Times though, because, as the lede says, it's all "according to former administration officials." As in this baffling "explanation" :

"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."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/25/us/25detain.html

So, um...if the "information" was"released" why the anonymity ?

Just wondering...
Click to expand...

We can always count on you, nj. Heh,heh.
 
I remember something from about a year ago about an armyunit being trained in urban combat and riot control in anticipation of being used in the US.

Anyone remember?
 
WinterBorn said:
I remember something from about a year ago about an armyunit being trained in urban combat and riot control in anticipation of being used in the US.

Anyone remember?
Click to expand...
It was a case of alarmism. While there were plans to train military units in urban control, the intent was focused on training for deployment to Iraq and Afghanistan, not for domestic use.
 
uscitizen said:
Bush Mulled Using Troops in US Arrests
AP
posted: 1 HOUR 17 MINUTES AGO

WASHINGTON (July 25) - 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.

http://news.aol.com/article/bush-mulled-using-troops-in-us-arrests/588180
Click to expand...

Why did they need the military? That's ridiculous.
 
I think this just adds one more bit of evidence of who really ran the buildup to the Iraq war and who was the fool.
 
christiefan915 said:
RW's have created a regular cottage industry weighing in on Obama CT's and things he didn't do, so why not the same for bush?
Click to expand...

well, let's see....maybe because you would be doing something you apparently thought was really, really stupid?......or perhaps you make a habit of that....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top