The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 15

Thread: "The President who shall not be named" back in the news

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Port St. Lucie, Fl
    Posts
    3,611

    Default "The President who shall not be named" back in the news

    XXXX considered sending troops into Buffalo

    July 25, 2009 - 7:02am. The 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

  2. #2
    Senior Member subroc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Dover, New Hampshire
    Posts
    2,112

    Default

    is there a point?
    subroc

    Article [I.]
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
    Article [II.]
    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Tulsa
    Posts
    683

    Default

    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.
    Terry Britton, P.E.

    Engineers believe that if it isn't broken, it doesn't have enough features yet.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    bryant, Arkansas
    Posts
    140

    Default

    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

  5. #5
    Senior Member Hoosier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    864

    Default

    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.

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Wetumpka, AL
    Posts
    2,905

    Default

    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

  7. #7
    Senior Member cotts135's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Watertown NY
    Posts
    697

    Default

    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.

  8. #8
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    6,867

    Default

    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.
    G.Clinchy@gmail.com
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

  9. #9
    Senior Member subroc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Dover, New Hampshire
    Posts
    2,112

    Default

    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.
    subroc

    Article [I.]
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
    Article [II.]
    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

  10. #10
    Senior Member Bob Gutermuth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Transchoptankia, DEMOCRATIC Peoples Republic of Maryland
    Posts
    3,065

    Default

    Last POTUS was concerned about our security unlike the current one.
    Bob Gutermuth
    Canvasback Chesapeakes
    ROLL TIDE!

Similar Threads

  1. Former President back in the news
    By Roger Perry in forum POTUS Place - For those who talk Politics in the Gallery!
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 08-06-2009, 09:28 PM
  2. Reread the sticky " cooling back" above
    By Todd Caswell in forum RTF - Retriever Training Forum
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 06-17-2009, 04:00 PM
  3. HSUS Endorses "Guess Who" for President. And Why? Her initials are S.P. (Pol. GDG)
    By AmiableLabs in forum RTF - Retriever Training Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 09-23-2008, 08:23 PM
  4. good news about a "grand" pup......
    By Sundown49 aka Otey B in forum RTF - Retriever Training Forum
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 06-11-2008, 07:34 AM
  5. Came Back Hips "Good", Elbows "Normal"
    By Chris Atkinson in forum RTF - Retriever Training Forum
    Replies: 49
    Last Post: 08-07-2006, 12:26 PM

Posting Permissions

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