Cheney pressed Bush to test Constitutional limits by using military force on US soil

Muriel Kane
Raw Story
Saturday, July 25, 2009

According to a story in Friday’s New York Times, Vice-President Cheney advocated in 2002 for the Bush administration to send military troops to Buffalo to arrest the so-called Lackawanna Six as enemy combatants.

This would have violated both Fourth Amendment guarantees against search and seizure without probable cause and the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which makes it illegal to use the military for law enforcement.

Despite those prohibitions, Cheney argued that the president did have the power to use the military on US soil, citing an October 23, 2001 Justice Department memorandum co-authored by John Yoo which claimed that presidential power extended to the domestic use of the military as long as it served a national security purpose.

The Lackawanna Six were a group of young Yememi-Americans who had attended an al Qaeda training camp in 2001. They were arrested in September 2002, and President Bush bragged of having broken their “cell” in his January 2003 State of the Union address.

Cheney pressed Bush to test Constitutional limits by using military force on US soil

However, an investigation by Salon failed to turn up any evidence that they were actually a “sleeper cell” or that they had been planning any kind of violent attack. Most of them were convicted merely of providing material aid to terrorists.

According to Salon, all six were very ordinary young men who had been led to believe they were traveling to Afghanistan for religious studies. The evidence against them was tenuous — which was one reason Cheney pressed for them to be held as enemy combatants instead of being arrested — and many of their Muslim neighbors told Salon they believed the entire case against them was a scam.

The October 2001 Yoo memorandum was declassified last March, but the accounts given to the Times by anonymous Bush administration officials are the first indication that there was serious consideration of actually using it.

Cheney’s legal advisor David Addington and some Defense Department officials supported Cheney’s position, but several aides to President Bush opposed it, along with then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and FBI Director Robert Mueller. President Bush ultimately turned the plan down and ordered the FBI to make the arrests.

The full registration-restricted Times story can be read here.

www.nytimes.com...



Mod Edit: External Source Tags Instructions – Please Review This Link.

Mod Note (This Appears On Every New Thread/Post Reply Page): MEMBERS: Do not simply post news articles in the forums without comment. If you feel inclined to make the board aware of current events, please post the first paragraph, a link to the entire story, AND your opinion, twist or take on the news item.

Mod Note: Starting A New Thread – Please Review Link

[edit on 7/26/2009 by AshleyD]

So what? It never materialized, did it? Where's the news here?

Cheney probably also told Bush not to eat his veggies.

reply to post by jsobecky

So what? It never materialized, did it? Where's the news here?

You can't figure out the significance of such a consideration?

reply to post by jsobecky



Can you imagine the uproar if a Democrat called for the use of the Military on US soil? Would that be news?

Thank God Cheney never held actual Presidential power. This story highlights just how seriously insidious some of the Bush Administration was and the lengths they would go to to justify a fascist agenda.

I know Bush ultimately let the FBI handle the issue, but this just makes you wonder on how many situations Cheney & co. were able to convince Bush to sacrifice the Constitution in the name of "security".

Ya note most of the right wing conservatives who would normally defend cheney are over at birther threads...its far easier to defend a non issue like the so-called Obama' birth certificate controversy than the real threats the bush minor administration and specifically the power that was cheney posed the constitution and the nation.

[edit on 25-7-2009 by grover]

reply to post by whaaa


Now just why do you think the White House employs scads of lawyers? Because the first person's reaction that they look to to whatever current harebrained idea they come up with over coffee is the lawyers. "Can we get away with this"? is the first question asked.

And every admin tries to push the envelope. If they don't, they're not worth their mettle.

reply to post by whaaa

Can you imagine the uproar if a Democrat called for the use of the Military on US soil? Would that be news?

Ever take a look at what FDR not only called for, but did, during his admin?

reply to post by jsobecky

And every admin tries to push the envelope. If they don't, they're not worth their mettle.

What a statement! I would argue that every admin that does is not worth their mettle. What is it about the attempted erosion of the Constitution that you find to be such a redeeming quality in an administration?



[edit on 25-7-2009 by harvib]

Nothing we do really surprises me anymore.
Remember, we are a grand experiment.

Never have liked the sound of that much...
kinda reminds me of lab rats in a cage.
Good luck in the cage.

remind me why this man is not in jail?

money and connections, ah that's right

reply to post by harvib

Originally posted by harvib
reply to post by jsobecky

 

And every admin tries to push the envelope. If they don't, they're not worth their mettle.

What a statement! I would argue that every admin that does is not worth their mettle. What is it about the attempted erosion of the Constitution that you find to be such a redeeming quality in an administration?

Coming from a conspiracy website that is quite a statement. So you are content to sit back and accept everything Obama tells you as gospel truth?

The Constitution has lived on because it has weathered challenges to it over the years. Not too much in it is black and white take it for gospel. Challenges are healthy; thus the amendments.

And if you could be privy to all the internal memos and conversations in the WH you would be shocked.

I think Cheney was correct.

In this instance the issue was not law enforcement, but part of the war on terror.

I think Bush was correct to not use the military as long as civilian personnel could achieve the same thing.

Eventually, war is going to come to the US on such a scale that the use of the military will be necessary.

On the whole, this is really not much news. We know that Cheney was hell-bent on keeping America safe from terror and he was successful.

This is nothing more than a footnote in the history of a very successful administration.

reply to post by jsobecky

So you are content to sit back and accept everything Obama tells you as gospel truth?

LOL. What? Who said anything about Obama? Please explain what you are talking about.

The Constitution has lived on because it has weathered challenges to it over the years. Not too much in it is black and white take it for gospel. Challenges are healthy; thus the amendments.

First off. I think it is debatable whether the Constitution is alive at all. Second it is contrary to the oath of office when your policies are in direct contradiction to the Constitution itself. And most of the items in the Constitution are black and white.

And if you could be privy to all the internal memos and conversations in the WH you would be shocked.

You constantly make these rhetorical statements. Are you privy to all the internal memos and conversations in the White House? If not then how are you able to make such a statement?

reply to post by GradyPhilpott


Oh, sorry that was funny!
We are still living that success everyday!
Haha, that made my night! Thanks!

Edit: cheney's a war criminal, now thats funny.

[edit on 25-7-2009 by dodadoom]

reply to post by GradyPhilpott

Eventually, war is going to come to the US on such a scale that the use of the military will be necessary.

I thought the reason we are giving up all our rights is to prevent this from happening? If this is an inevitability why not retain our rights and accept our fate?

reply to post by harvib


I don't understand what you mean.

We don't need to give up our rights.

If we have to fight a war on our own soil, whom do you think should fight it? The Boy Scouts?

Originally posted by dodadoom


...cheney's a war criminal, now thats funny.

Laugh all you want.

The facts speak for themselves.

Dick Cheney is a national hero.

The enemies of the US naturally feel differently.

reply to post by GradyPhilpott

One mans junk is another mans treasure!
Thanks again for the saturday night entertainment!
I am still smiling and disgusted how far the wool was pulled.
How bout those no bid contracts! Yippe ki yay!
Go palin!

Edit cuz I screwed up trying to write while laughing so hard....



[edit on 25-7-2009 by dodadoom]

reply to post by dodadoom


Perhaps you would be interested in engaging in some serious dialog, instead depending so much on smilies.