PDA

View Full Version : "The President who shall not be named" back in the news



Roger Perry
07-25-2009, 12:39 PM
XXXX considered sending troops into Buffalo

July 25, 2009 - 7:02am. http://www.capitolhillblue.com/files//newsimages/072509buffalo.jpgThe XXXX 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 BXXH 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.BXXH 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 BXXh aides said an Oct. 23, 2001, Justice Department memo gave broad presidential authority that allowed BXXh 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.
BXXh 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.
Copyright 2009 The Associated Press

subroc
07-25-2009, 12:51 PM
is there a point?

Terry Britton
07-25-2009, 02:18 PM
We were at war, and the enemy had soldiers and agents inside our border. The logical choice would have been to use the military to destroy and remove the enemy, and to extract important information from the enemy.

Martin
07-25-2009, 03:19 PM
Yeah. What is the point? I would rather see the good guys, our military, come into my neighborhood to rid it of a bunch of raghead terriosts than see the black panthers on steriods, ie: national civilan security force that is as well funded as our military, patroling my streets!

Stuck at work wanting to be playing with my dogs,
Martin

Hoosier
07-25-2009, 03:27 PM
Am I missing something? I thought Bush was no longer the Prez. Is this an attempt to change the subject from the stupid crap the current POTUS is doing.

Eric Johnson
07-25-2009, 07:37 PM
Lots of things are "considered." There are meetings all the time at which staff people present alternatives to various questions. That's the staff process. The President chose not to use troops. He didn't call in an airstrike either....unlike the Democratic Mayor of Philadelphia a few years back.

It's a meaningless article and it shows just how low folks will stoop with regard to the Bush administation.

Eric

cotts135
07-25-2009, 08:41 PM
I applaud Bush on this decision. Regardless of what some of you might think the President including Obama does not have the right to disregard Congressional statues, The Bill of rights and the Constitution. This was the radical theory pushed by VP Cheney and his Chief of Staff David Addington that the President is omnipotent and not constrained by any law. There are plenty of Governments throughout the World that are run that way. Almost universally the United States condemns such junta's or dictatorships. Let's not turn into one of them.

Gerry Clinchy
07-25-2009, 08:59 PM
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.


Here the key words might be ... "active-duty military" and "without specific statutory authority". There were definitely military (maybe Reservists or Natl Guard) in the streets of Washington DC in the late 60s during the riots. And they almost called in some Marines to "rescue" some VIPs who were "surrounded" in a hotel in downtown DC. I saw it first-hand.

subroc
07-25-2009, 09:37 PM
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.


It doesn't mean he can't.

Bob Gutermuth
07-25-2009, 10:10 PM
Last POTUS was concerned about our security unlike the current one.

Terry Britton
07-26-2009, 12:08 AM
Am I missing something? I thought Bush was no longer the Prez. Is this an attempt to change the subject from the stupid crap the current POTUS is doing.

Yeah, unethical behavior per many texts such as Organizational Theory 8th edition. So if this deflection of topic was done by an attorney or Obama, maybe they should answer to ethical charges from their local BAR if someone would report them. Heaven knows that Sarah Palin has had to many ethical charges that were fake in AK. At least the left can answer to real ethical charges. :)

badbullgator
07-26-2009, 08:21 AM
is there a point?


Yeah Roger gets aroused bashing GW.....(I was going to say bashing bush, but that does not sound so bad):D

Gerry Clinchy
07-26-2009, 08:23 AM
Maybe Roger was simply trying to point out that the "un-named" Prez made at least one decision in those 8 yrs that was a good one? :-)

code3retrievers
07-26-2009, 08:53 AM
Its time to get a life Roger!

I'm sure the former president "considered" a lot of options during his presidency. He can only be faulted for the ones he acted on.

Time to move on before you begin to look pathetic.

subroc
07-26-2009, 09:03 AM
Its time to get a life Roger!

I'm sure the former president "considered" a lot of options during his presidency. He can only be faulted for the ones he acted on.

Time to move on before you begin to look pathetic.

:D chuckling :D

begin...