Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 7/24/2009 7:52:12 PM EST
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.


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/25/us/25detain.html?_r=1

Link Posted: 7/24/2009 7:53:19 PM EST
Good call
Link Posted: 7/24/2009 7:54:06 PM EST
What the fuck.
Link Posted: 7/24/2009 7:54:44 PM EST
Well, if he wanted to get impeached, that would have done it.
Link Posted: 7/24/2009 7:57:46 PM EST
So his aides recommended doing something unconstitutional and Bush ignored them and followed the law. What's the big deal again?
Link Posted: 7/24/2009 7:58:05 PM EST
Originally Posted By DLoken:
What the fuck.



You would rather he said "yes"?
Link Posted: 7/24/2009 7:59:55 PM EST

Originally Posted By DLoken:
What the fuck.

What? you are ad he didnt use the troops?
Link Posted: 7/24/2009 8:00:32 PM EST
Were they citizens of the US?

Link Posted: 7/24/2009 8:01:35 PM EST
[Last Edit: 7/24/2009 8:03:59 PM EST by Strykewolf]
Originally Posted By raven:
Good call


Bad call, actually. Plenty of teams in the area at the local level that with proper intell could have done just fine.


(ETA) Woops...sorry. Missed this....

Mr. Bush ultimately decided against the proposal to use military force.


Dialup is slow.

Link Posted: 7/24/2009 8:03:13 PM EST

Originally Posted By Strykewolf:
Originally Posted By raven:
Good call


Bad call, actually. Pleanty of teams in the area at the local level that with proper intell could have done just fine.

No it was a good call. He didnt use the troops. Thats a good call.
Link Posted: 7/24/2009 8:04:22 PM EST
Originally Posted By Johnny_Reno:
Originally Posted By DLoken:
What the fuck.



You would rather he said "yes"?


No, I'm just disturbed that people were even suggesting it. Having the military come up and detain people, then declare them enemy combatants on American soil.
Link Posted: 7/24/2009 8:04:28 PM EST
Originally Posted By WildBoar:

Originally Posted By Strykewolf:
Originally Posted By raven:
Good call


Bad call, actually. Pleanty of teams in the area at the local level that with proper intell could have done just fine.

No it was a good call. He didnt use the troops. Thats a good call.


Agreed....see my edit
Link Posted: 7/24/2009 8:08:27 PM EST
Originally Posted By DLoken:
Originally Posted By Johnny_Reno:
Originally Posted By DLoken:
What the fuck.



You would rather he said "yes"?


No, I'm just disturbed that people were even suggesting it. Having the military come up and detain people, then declare them enemy combatants on American soil.


Do you seriously believe the Bush administration is the one and only administration to explore this?

wanna buy a bridge?
Link Posted: 7/24/2009 8:09:05 PM EST
This story smells.

There wouldn't have been any significant advantage to using troops, rather than police, FBI, etc. - which means that there wouldn't have been any reason to even consider using them.
Link Posted: 7/24/2009 8:12:24 PM EST
[Last Edit: 7/24/2009 8:15:24 PM EST by Johnny_Reno]
Originally Posted By gwitness:
Originally Posted By DLoken:
Originally Posted By Johnny_Reno:
Originally Posted By DLoken:
What the fuck.



You would rather he said "yes"?


No, I'm just disturbed that people were even suggesting it. Having the military come up and detain people, then declare them enemy combatants on American soil.


Do you seriously believe the Bush administration is the one and only administration to explore this?




I know Lincoln and FDR did.

I think Eisenhower did as well.

Link Posted: 7/24/2009 8:12:39 PM EST
Well, given the FBI's raging "success" against terrorists during the Clinton administration (when terrorism was a law enforcement issue not a military enemy), I can't blame his advisors for suggesting the use of military.
Link Posted: 7/24/2009 8:13:32 PM EST
Originally Posted By Skibane:
This story smells.

There wouldn't have been any significant advantage to using troops, rather than police, FBI, etc. - which means that there wouldn't have been any reason to even consider using them.


No, that is just Dloken.
Link Posted: 7/24/2009 8:23:34 PM EST
Originally Posted By Johnny_Reno:
Originally Posted By gwitness:
Originally Posted By DLoken:
Originally Posted By Johnny_Reno:
Originally Posted By DLoken:
What the fuck.



You would rather he said "yes"?


No, I'm just disturbed that people were even suggesting it. Having the military come up and detain people, then declare them enemy combatants on American soil.


Do you seriously believe the Bush administration is the one and only administration to explore this?




I know Lincoln and FDR did.

I think Eisenhower did as well.



Washington (Whiskey Rebellion)
Link Posted: 7/24/2009 8:30:34 PM EST
[Last Edit: 7/24/2009 8:31:06 PM EST by thexrayboy]
Many if not most of the Presidents that have occupied the White House have contemplated use of the military in ways that are not approved of by
the Constitution. In the case referenced GW Bush is no different. His advisors suggested he use the mil for the job and I am sure he considered it.
And I am equally certain that he chose to forgo use of the military in this instance not because of his devotion to the Constitution and freedom but
more from his perception that the political costs would be too steep for such an act. He ultimately made the decision that he could achieve the objective
via legal means therefore the cost of using illegal means was not a rational choice. There was no altruism or inherent goodness iin the decision.
It was a calculated political choice.....just like all the others he and the rest of the people who have occupied the oval office make.

Link Posted: 7/24/2009 8:32:38 PM EST
Originally Posted By gwitness:
Originally Posted By DLoken:
Originally Posted By Johnny_Reno:
Originally Posted By DLoken:
What the fuck.



You would rather he said "yes"?


No, I'm just disturbed that people were even suggesting it. Having the military come up and detain people, then declare them enemy combatants on American soil.


Do you seriously believe the Bush administration is the one and only administration to explore this?

wanna buy a bridge?


No shit. The government is NOT, and never will be, your friend or a benevolent ruler there to help you.
Link Posted: 7/24/2009 8:56:40 PM EST
Originally Posted By DLoken:
Originally Posted By Johnny_Reno:
Originally Posted By DLoken:
What the fuck.



You would rather he said "yes"?


No, I'm just disturbed that people were even suggesting it. Having the military come up and detain people, then declare them enemy combatants on American soil.


Obama would pull that card in a heartbeat.


Why do you think the gov has done away w/ posse commitatus, and activated the military to conduct surveillance and policing inside US borders. This is for when the economy goes to hell (the handy work of your messiah), the dollar collapses, and there is civil unrest.

You probably forgot about Dear Leader's other deceitful trick - the declaration of indefinite detention for terrorist suspects if deemed necessary. You probably forgot about all those nasty little DHS documents that surfaced detailing the politburo's list of rightwing enemies, i mean "domestic terrorists".

By the way, how is all this "change" working out for you?
Link Posted: 7/24/2009 8:58:49 PM EST
Originally Posted By Skibane:
This story smells.

There wouldn't have been any significant advantage to using troops, rather than police, FBI, etc. - which means that there wouldn't have been any reason to even consider using them.


Testing the waters is reason enough.
Link Posted: 7/24/2009 9:00:25 PM EST
I'm kind of torn on this one;

- There was a declaration of war made by Congress on 9/12/01 (before this was considered).
- If there were conventional (uniformed) foreign troops on our soil I would damn sure want US troops to handle the problem (not the police or FBI).

On the other hand, where is the line drawn?

Link Posted: 7/25/2009 12:34:20 AM EST
Well unlike some think, it would not have been unconstitutional. As CIC he can do just about anything he wants with troops.

Might have bent the PCA some, depending on whether or not you defined it as Law Enforcement, which is a wobbler, you could probably argue convincingly either way. But the PCA has that little clause about authorization, anybody that thinks he couldn't have received the necessary authorization is fooling himself.

And been impeached for it? for capturing terrorists? declaring them enemy combatants would have caused a lot of pissing and moaning, but impeachment. Impeaching a President for being too aggressive in terrorist hunting? I doubt it.
Link Posted: 7/25/2009 12:36:31 AM EST
Never would have happened. Everyone knows that they're too busy building the FEMA camps.




Link Posted: 7/25/2009 1:06:04 AM EST
Somehow I don't think it was a tough decision at all; there was very little upside to using military, and certainly not enough to outweigh the political and practical problems of such a decision.

This seems to me like one of those things where someone makes a particularly stupid suggestion and they discuss it for about 30 seconds before shitcanning it, but due to the nature of the stupidity it's now "news".
Link Posted: 7/25/2009 1:33:10 AM EST
Consider the source; the Obama New York Times hasn't bashed Bush for a while. Eisenhower sent the 101st to Little Rock to insure that the High School was integrated; I'm sure everyone is fine with that.
Link Posted: 7/25/2009 1:50:44 AM EST
Must divert attention from the 'Head Racist in Charge' latest faux pas by blaming Bush for something.



Link Posted: 7/25/2009 1:59:53 AM EST
So what's the story here? He wisely chose to handle a situation with law enforcement.

Wow, what a salacious find for the media. Bush acted properly, wisely, and without any major incident!!

All Bush's fault.
Link Posted: 7/25/2009 2:05:14 AM EST
Originally Posted By delacrue:
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.


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/25/us/25detain.html?_r=1






Mr. Bush ultimately decided against the proposal to use military force.


I'm sure at some point in his eight years, someone suggest to Bush that he should invade Canada. The fact that he hasn't makes it a non-issue.
Link Posted: 7/25/2009 2:09:57 AM EST
With all the insane bullshit going on in the Obama administration it's going to take more than that to divert our attention.

Is Palin bashing not a worth while diversion anymore?



Link Posted: 7/25/2009 2:11:32 AM EST
How is it wrong to deploy US military forces when a foreign military power (terrorist agents in this case) have invaded US soil?
Link Posted: 7/25/2009 2:13:01 AM EST
If the Japanese landed troops in California during WWII, would you declare it a law enforcement issue?
Link Posted: 7/25/2009 2:16:56 AM EST

Originally Posted By swingset:
So what's the story here? He wisely chose to handle a situation with law enforcement.

Wow, what a salacious find for the media. Bush acted properly, wisely, and without any major incident!!

All Bush's fault.

Nope. Just the media loving the fact that BHO administration has forced released many Bush administration documents and they get to see how "evil" he was (but in this case not so evil). AP wrote the story.

Oh, and on Yahoo's homepage (where I read this story before here) there's two stories on Obama one making apologies for him regarding his race comments on the professor and the second BHO story speaks of how Obama will make small business insurance payments equal or less than that of big business insurance payments to "level the playing field." It's another piece that begs for the public to want socialized medicine because its more fair.

Lastly, a hit piece of Hillary Clinton and foriegn policy. It does nto directly attack BHO and his administraion but makes Hillary and the State Dept. look weak. I guess they are looking ot punish her.
Link Posted: 7/25/2009 2:19:25 AM EST
The only flip side that I can see is what can the US military do to capture a few terrorist agents that the US Marshalls or FBI can't?

J. Edgar Hoover's FBI performed well at scooping up German sabotours during WWII.
Link Posted: 7/25/2009 2:34:51 AM EST
The military arrested many an enemy combatant (including some out of uniform) during the Civil War.

Also, during WWII, enemy spies arrested by the FBI were turned over to the military who interrogated and then executed them.
Link Posted: 7/25/2009 2:46:38 AM EST

Originally Posted By ChiefPilot:
So his aides recommended doing something unconstitutional and Bush ignored them and followed the law. What's the big deal again?

Didn't they use some military in Waco?

Certainly some of their equipment at least and I'll bet some "advisors".




Link Posted: 7/25/2009 2:50:03 AM EST

Originally Posted By shocktrp:
I'm kind of torn on this one;

- There was a declaration of war made by Congress on 9/12/01 (before this was considered).
- If there were conventional (uniformed) foreign troops on our soil I would damn sure want US troops to handle the problem (not the police or FBI).

On the other hand, where is the line drawn?


I think it's plain to see what the strategy was....to declare them enemy combatants and not law breakers (eligible for court service...and all the concomitant issues with national security).
Link Posted: 7/25/2009 2:55:02 AM EST
[Last Edit: 7/25/2009 2:57:09 AM EST by Burntrubber87]
From the sounds of it, that sounded like the perfectly opportunity for DHS to flex its muscles. But i'm not sure if they were around during that time? maybe i'm wrong edit: I shoulda' read the article before posting. Guess the FBI are the ones who took care of it.
Link Posted: 7/25/2009 2:59:06 AM EST
News Flash! During President Bush's last year in office some staff members urged him to stock blue toilet paper in all White House bathrooms. After serious deliberation he decided to stick with the two ply white toilet paper. Jee whiz folks, get a life will ya? Stupid stuff gets proposed all the time in every administration. Its non-news unless they really do it. Find something worthy of getting wound up over why don't you? Is your tin foil coming loose or something?
Link Posted: 7/25/2009 5:25:07 AM EST

Originally Posted By RSG:
Originally Posted By Johnny_Reno:
Originally Posted By gwitness:
Originally Posted By DLoken:
Originally Posted By Johnny_Reno:
Originally Posted By DLoken:
What the fuck.



You would rather he said "yes"?


No, I'm just disturbed that people were even suggesting it. Having the military come up and detain people, then declare them enemy combatants on American soil.


Do you seriously believe the Bush administration is the one and only administration to explore this?




I know Lincoln and FDR did.

I think Eisenhower did as well.



Washington (Whiskey Rebellion)

Buchanan (Utah War)
Link Posted: 7/25/2009 5:47:40 AM EST
Originally Posted By nightstalker:

Originally Posted By ChiefPilot:
So his aides recommended doing something unconstitutional and Bush ignored them and followed the law. What's the big deal again?

Didn't they use some military in Waco?

Certainly some of their equipment at least and I'll bet some "advisors".






Waco was Clinton, not Bush.
Link Posted: 7/25/2009 5:50:54 AM EST


I would be interested in know who those top officials were who supported the idea?

The next Republican administration will probably recycle some of Bush's people.
Link Posted: 7/25/2009 6:20:26 AM EST
That is exactly why I'm no longer a Republican. I am now an Independent.
The Republican Party under the leadership of G.W. left me.
He was no better than Obama when it comes to the Constitution.

While G.W. did a few things right, he is the main reason we have Obama.

I don't trust a Republican or a Democrat.
They all see the Constitution as a hinderance and an obstacle.
Link Posted: 7/25/2009 6:22:35 AM EST
[Last Edit: 7/25/2009 6:23:58 AM EST by Stock_Pile]
Bushes fault.

PS - fuck obungu
Link Posted: 7/25/2009 6:26:23 AM EST
They probably considered using Delta or DEVGROUP, if they did use them they would have sworn them in as Deputy US Marshals and you wouldn't have ever herd anything of it.
Link Posted: 7/25/2009 6:43:03 AM EST
[Last Edit: 7/25/2009 6:44:12 AM EST by Max_Mike]
Originally Posted By Skibane:
This story smells.

There wouldn't have been any significant advantage to using troops, rather than police, FBI, etc. - which means that there wouldn't have been any reason to even consider using them.


Yes it does smell. I suspect in two weeks we will find out it is either a outright lie or taken out of context.

Link Posted: 7/25/2009 6:51:21 AM EST
[Last Edit: 7/25/2009 6:56:45 AM EST by type56]
Originally Posted By nightstalker:

Originally Posted By ChiefPilot:
So his aides recommended doing something unconstitutional and Bush ignored them and followed the law. What's the big deal again?

Didn't they use some military in Waco?

Certainly some of their equipment at least and I'll bet some "advisors".






Nope, they got the equipment from FT.Hood, but the post commander along with others would not send ANY troops...
Link Posted: 7/25/2009 6:51:41 AM EST
Originally Posted By ChiefPilot:
So his aides recommended doing something unconstitutional and Bush ignored them and followed the law. What's the big deal again?


+1

Link Posted: 7/25/2009 6:56:16 AM EST
Originally Posted By delacrue:
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.


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/25/us/25detain.html?_r=1



Times Reporter #1: Oh shit! Obama's approval ratings are starting to drop like a rock!
Times Reporter #2: How could this happen! He's "The One"!
Times Reporter #3: I know, I've got a story on the shelf ready to go for just such an occasion, we'll do another smear against Bush! That will take the masses mind off of Obama's dropping popularity!
Times Reporter #1&2: BRILLIANT!
Link Posted: 7/25/2009 7:10:56 AM EST
Originally Posted By bytor94:
Must divert attention from the 'Head Racist in Charge' latest faux pas by blaming Bush for something.





They are just setting us up for Obama actually doing it:

"Well, Bush thought about it".

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top