Anyone ever figure out who called these guys to Alabama?
Posted on 07/24/2009 6:54:54 PM PDT by rdl6989
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.
Some of the advisers to President George W. Bush, including Vice President Dick 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 would be nearly unprecedented 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
NY Slimes strike again.
The idea of sending troops to arrest people within in the US makes me really uncomfortable. That’s the job of the FBI. Imagine if he had sent this precedent, and then it became okay for Obama to do this with “right-wing extremists.”
So what’s the point? They considered doing something they chose not to do and didn’t. Wow, now there is some big news right there by golly.
If the NYT knew what all I have dreamed of doing in response to their traitorous acts against my country, they would move to an undisclosed location.
“Obama to do this with “right-wing extremists.”
Give it time....he’ll do it.
Plus the FBI doesn't have that many people. They often have to rely on cooperation with local law enforcement agencies.
That is not a “Bush era debate” topic.
It’s a “Washington era debate” topic, and the prohibition that was decided upon is coded into law.
The reasons to do this would be:
a) To establish the legality of the practice, in case it needed to happen on a mass scale.
b) To avoid putting terrorism suspects into civilian courts.
Anyone ever figure out who called these guys to Alabama?
Not just NO!!!, but HELL NO!!!!
Next thing you know, there are some thing American troops can’t or refuse to do, so the gummint hires foreigners, aka mercenaries.
NO MILITARY TROOPS IN OUR STREETS!!!!!
Wait till we find out what the Thug in Chief is up to.
On the other hand, Zero has sh!t on the Constituion so many times in his short tenure, that this might become reality under his regime.
a) To establish the legality of the practice, in case it needed to happen on a mass scale.
b) To avoid putting terrorism suspects into civilian courts.
In 1942 the US arrested, tried, convicted, and executed a group of NAZI saboteurs who were smuggled into the US via U-boat. They were tried by military tribunals on US soil. Some of them even had dual US-German citizenship. There's already precedent for trying saboteurs by military tribunals on US soil regardles of who apprehended them.
Obama doesn’t need precedent to take action against his enemies.
Read up!
To date no charges have been brought against the mayor, the police chief, the General in charge of the troops, or anyone who participated in the crimes.
How soon some forget tanks at Waco.......another democrat president
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.