The BGB

Post: #1 (ID: 115154)

WASHINGTON – 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.

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.

Post: #2 (ID: 115155)

"The Constitution and various laws restrict the military from being used to conduct domestic raids and seize property."

Where in the Constitution does it specifically say this?

Post: #3 (ID: 115159)

I actually thought that was the case in America...

It always puzzled me, too, that such a rule would exist.

Post: #4 (ID: 115160)

I'm just curious. I can't recall where it says anything at all about the military being restricted in their domestic employment. I rather suspect this is yet another case of a poorly educated writer not doing their homework... Rolling Eyes

Post: #5 (ID: 115162)

I've heard it said time and time again, though, for YEARS!

You can sorta see why they'd do this.. Well, an untrusted government building up it's forces, declaring that they will never use the forces 'on the masses' - I assume if there is some giant uprising against the government..

But, to not let them deal in individual large cases seems strange.

Post: #6 (ID: 115163)

Someone on the inturweb posted this:

Post: #7 (ID: 115165)

This was not a large case - it only involved 6 people. Incidently, the Muslim community of Buffalo turned these bastards in.

The quote from "Civics 101" is only partially correct. The National Guard may be federalized by order of the President. This is what has been done in recent years. Many of the front line units which served in Iraq were actually National Guard forces. I did like the fact that he pointed out the (Democrat) governor (and Mayor of NOLA) of La. was incompetent, and the President (Bush II) was not responsible for the fiasco following Hurricane Katrina. Razz

The oath ensures loyalty to the country, not an individual. Note the oath the German Army swore after Hitler came to power was to Hitler, not the country.

My question was what specific part of the Constitution deals with military use in domestic issues. The writer of this article - like so many contemporary journalists - is, obviously, incompetent, or badly educated.