Cheney Urged Sending Troops Into Buffalo in 2002
By anniepa
@anniepa (27955)
United States
July 27, 2009 11:10pm CST
You probably never expected to read this by me, but I'm very thankful nothing happened to George W. Bush during his term and that nobody got any bright ideas about impeaching him and leaving the D1ck Cheney in charge! Read more here:
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 D1ck 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.
The proposal advanced to at least one-high level administration meeting, before President George W. Bush 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 Bush aides said an Oct. 23, 2001, Justice Department memo gave broad presidential authority that allowed Bush 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.
Bush 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.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=8171207
It seems the D1ck is even scarier than I thought!Annie
6 responses
@xfahctor (14113)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
28 Jul 09
Bush had almost no reguard for Posse Commitatus for the most part, he demonstrated that when he signed the repeal of the act that allowed this type of thing by including a statement that the executive branch STILL did not "feel compelled" to comply with the original text of Posse Commitatus. I have to admit I'm suprised he didn't go through with this and it almost nausiates me to have to give him credit for it.
I have been pulling the warning alarm cord on this whole issue for a year now and was largely ignored, branded a conspiricy theorist and generaly told I was an alarmist. All this despite putting up links to actual articles from the military times.MIL website and NorthCom's website.
It still goes on, this isn't over. There are STILL troops stationed on U.S. soil who's mission is readiness to enforce civil law on home soil and in fact, it has already happened once in Alabama. Obama has not repealed it, he has not re commissioned those troops. If you are this outraged over Cheny being willing to do this, you should be expressing equal outrage over Obama's same stance. Untill these troops are stood down, we still have the same threat to deal with.
2 people like this
@xfahctor (14113)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
29 Jul 09
I know I come across as paranoid sometimes annie, some of the things I talk about are things people simply do not want to believe are possible in this day and age in this country. Things that are just difficult to swallow because of the rmifications of them actually happening. But what makes us any different than any other nation that has fallen to tyrany or dictatorship?
I see so many things that just don't get attention, there are extremely few people in the main stream news who talk about them, and the few that do get branded, like me, as consipricy theorists or chicken littles. I know you think Glen Beck is a loon, but he is one of the few with the spine to talk about these things, though I am usualy on them long before he has actually gotten a few of his stories from me, so think twice before you completly discount him. I worry people just won't listen because of lables applied to people like me, Beck and other so called "nuts".
SO once again, I am pulling the alarm cord. *tap tap* is this on? ok.....America, wake up, we have a serious problem, pay attention to what is going on in that capitol, it IS in fact as bad as it looks and worse.
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
28 Jul 09
It wouldn't have been and "unprecented" use of military power. Though it would have been as unconstitutional and illegal as the military attack on the Branch Dividians at Waco.
"You probably never expected to read this by me, but I'm very thankful nothing happened to George W. Bush during his term and that nobody got any bright ideas about impeaching him and leaving the D1ck Cheney in charge!"
That's why I call the office of VP "the flak jacket". The person chosen needs to be someone the opposition would hate to see in the Oval Office more than the one whose president.
1 person likes this
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
28 Jul 09
Lol, I used to say the VP was an insurance policy. Nobody would dare assassinate Bush 41 and leave Quayle in charge just like they wouldn't assassinate Bush 43 and leave Cheney in charge. I don't think Biden could be worse than Obama, but even having Pelosi 2 heartbeats away from the presidency is enough to keep anyone from going after Obama.
@matersfish (6306)
• United States
28 Jul 09
President Pelosi
I quit!
I will not move out of my house to make room for the field mice. No!
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
28 Jul 09
Well based on that and a few other stories I've read it seems clear that Bush wasn't afraid to stand up to Cheney. That would have been a horrendous violation of the constitution and clearly, was not the best, or a necessary way of doing things. We have plenty of domestic law enforcement divisions that are trained and equipped to deal with these situations. The military is not.
At the same time, I would like to point out that sometimes a president wants ALL options, even those he wouldn't dare consider. Just because the option was on the table doesn't mean it was really being pushed that hard.
1 person likes this
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
28 Jul 09
I do understand that there are times when pretty much everything has to be on the table. You know how I feel about Cheney, that's no secret, and it really isn't purely partisan. I think he's hungry for power no matter what the cost. I've never considered Bush to be "evil" but the D1ck is a different story. I guess Bush is kind of like a cross between Eddie Haskell and Fonzie, although maybe not as "smooth" as either of them. He's a bit of a smart-aleck and enjoys being "cool" and in charge but not really cruel or mean-spirited. Cheney really IS Darth Vadar...lol!
Annie
@jerzgirl (9384)
• United States
28 Jul 09
I suspect that one of the reasons they didn't impeach Bush when they had the numbers was Cheney. They didn't want him in charge and to take both of them out of the picture would have created such an overwhelming, time-consuming and expensive process that even less would get done in Congress than is done now. Not to mention, it would leave the position at the top open for Nancy Pelosi to fill, which for me anyway, isn't all that good, either. Cheney is a dangerous, dangerous man. We are well rid of him.
1 person likes this
@ZephyrSun (7381)
• United States
28 Jul 09
I was reading that the other day and I was very impressed with Bush for making the right decision. I can now say that Bush did 2 right things while in office, and both had to do with with standing up to Dyck. I suppose Dyck doesn't have much value of the Constitution, shockingly aren't all conservatives bytching about Obama having the same problem? LOL
1 person likes this
