WASHINGTON (AP) — 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 Mueller; 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.
Report a correction
Well, Old Bill, I don't see
Well, Old Bill, I don't see a single word in the article slamming Bush for NOT sending in Federal troops. I see an article that states a set of facts. Nothing more, nothing less. From that article, however, I can conclude that Cheney, a man who had five deferments and never served a day of his life in the military and who claims to be a staunch defender of the Constitution of the United States, was more than ready and willing to send Federal troops to arrest United States citizens on United States soil. That shows exactly the kind of fascist mind that Cheney had. I give Bush credit on this one-at least he had enough sense to say no for once in his life. Cheney, along with Karl Rove seemed to have been in an awful big hurry to circumvent the Constitution when it suited their purposes and very quick to throw it up as a shield to protect their collective bacon.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.As justified as was
As justified as was Chicago's Mayor Richard Daley when he called out the National Guard in the 60's, complete with weapons and ammunition, to prevent the blacks from torching/destroying businesses and homes in their own neighborhoods. Without that compelling action Chicago would have been 'burned down' like it was in the 1890's!
Was Truman an idiot for rising to the occasion? Maybe he and Daley were also Communists.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.I figured someone was going
I figured someone was going to compare apples and oranges and horsefeather did. Posse Comitatus forbids the FEDERAL government from using the military for domestic purposes, but says NOTHNG about the Governor's activating the National Guard for emergencies in the state.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.It just goes to show was the
It just goes to show was the real villian Darth Vader Cheney and luckily somebody injected Bush with a brain. We should have never gone into Iraq that was an idiot idea. The number one priority was getting Bin Laden, but I guess Bush wanted to clear his family name after his father blew it. It is easy for Republicans too critisize liberals ,but notice Bush's daughters didn't serve they just followed their fathers example of being patriotic.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Yes, Robert, it is. And,
Yes, Robert, it is. And, some of the other posts here show just how far some liberals will go to slam any conservative. This article clearly shows how Bush refused to use the military for a civil action in Buffalo, yet these libs are chastising him for it. They want to have their cake and eat it, too.
"The democracy will cease to exist when the government takes from those who would work and gives to those who would not." - Thomas Jefferson.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.this story is rediculously
this story is rediculously slanted. Now president Bush is being chastized for not sending in the miltary to a Buffalo suburb. This reminds me of how idiot members of congress were upset at Dick C for not keeping them informed of a program thatwas never implimented.
How about Obama and his idea of his own national police force? If he is considering it isn't that enough to go after him like the people wan to with Cheney n Bush?
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.You should brush up on your
You should brush up on your basic reading comprehension their, Skippy. Bush merely 'considered' the option - it was "Darth Vadar' Cheney who was pushing that additional violation of law.
Thank God cooler heads prevailed.
And our military hasn't been knocking off a number of unarmed women and children since 2003? Or is 'collateral damage' a figment of our imagination?
You can go back to Mama's basement, Troll........
------------------------------------------
When I was a young Sailor - I drank like a Sailor, fought like a Sailor, and screwed like a Sailor. Now that I am old and wise - I have a few scars, but many fond memories.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.I hate W as much as the next
I hate W as much as the next guy, but this further cements the idea that Cheney really was Darth Vader, and Bush made a few wise decisions by not listening to him.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.As if we needed more proof
As if we needed more proof that Dubya is an idiot....
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.David A. "It cited former
David A.
"It cited former administration officials who spoke on condition of anonymity". That tells me everything I need to know. NY Times needs to drop its vendetta on the former administration before its completely in the crapper and has to close its doors.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Posse Comitatus is the law
Posse Comitatus is the law of the land and it expressly forbids what President Bush wanted to do. I realize the law isn't high on his agenda, but using troops to enforce laws is just the kind of thing Communist do.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.I guess you would rather
I guess you would rather 2,500 more die in a terror attack then Bush violate the "law of the land". Lucky for us this action wasn't needed, but had he deemed it so, I would have supported his decision to PROTECT US because I am AN AMERICAN.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.You'll support what the
You'll support what the President does, no matter what, because you're an American?
Amazing...
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Robert II If terrorists want
Robert II
If terrorists want to bring their fight to our turf, then, by all means, President Bush would have been justisfied. I take the New York Times story as a good thing, even though their slant is to always bash Bush/Cheney. Just like the Sun-Journal. We should be thankful for the past eight years of security at home.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.