Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiBush Weighed Using Military in Arrests
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.
A decision to dispatch troops into the streets to make arrests has few precedents in American history, as both the Constitution and subsequent laws restrict the military from being used to conduct domestic raids and seize property.
The Fourth Amendment bans “unreasonable” searches and seizures without probable cause. And the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 generally prohibits the military from acting in a law enforcement capacity.
In the discussions, Mr. Cheney and others cited an Oct. 23, 2001, memorandum from the Justice Department that, using a broad interpretation of presidential authority, argued that the domestic use of the military against Al Qaeda would be legal because it served a national security, rather than a law enforcement, purpose.
“The president has ample constitutional and statutory authority to deploy the military against international or foreign terrorists operating within the United States,” the memorandum said.
The memorandum — written by the lawyers John C. Yoo and Robert J. Delahunty — was directed to Alberto R. Gonzales, then the White House counsel, who had asked the department about a president’s authority to use the military to combat terrorist activities in the United States.
The memorandum was declassified in March. But the White House debate about the Lackawanna group is the first evidence that top American officials, after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, actually considered using the document to justify deploying the military into an American town to make arrests.
Most former officials interviewed for this article spoke only on the condition of anonymity because the deliberations about the case involved classified information. They agreed to talk about the internal discussions only after the memorandum was released earlier this year.
New information has recently emerged about the deliberations and divisions in the administration over some of the most controversial policies after the Sept. 11 attacks, like the decision to use brutal interrogation methods on Qaeda detainees.
Former officials in the administration said this debate was not as bitter as others during Mr. Bush’s first term. The discussions did not proceed far enough to put military units on alert.
Still, at least one high-level meeting was convened to debate the issue, at which several top Bush aides argued firmly against the proposal to use the military, advanced by Mr. Cheney, his legal adviser David S. Addington and some senior Defense Department officials.
Among those in opposition were Condoleezza Rice, then the national security adviser; John B. Bellinger III, the top lawyer at the National Security Council; Robert S. Mueller III, the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; and Michael Chertoff, then the head of the Justice Department’s criminal division.
“Frankly, it was a bit of a turf war,” said one former senior administration official. “For a number of people, crossing the line of having intelligence or military activities inside the United States was not worth the risk.”
Mr. Bush ended up ordering the F.B.I. to make the arrests in Lackawanna, near Buffalo, where the agency had been monitoring a group of Yemeni Americans with suspected Qaeda ties. The five men arrested there in September 2002, and a sixth arrested nearly simultaneously in Bahrain, pleaded guilty to terrorism-related charges.
Scott L. Silliman, a Duke University law professor specializing in national security law, said an American president had not deployed the active-duty military on domestic soil in a law enforcement capacity, without specific statutory authority, since the Civil War.
Senior military officials were never consulted, former officials said. Richard B. Myers, a retired general who was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in a recent interview that he was unaware of the discussion.
Former officials said the 2002 debate arose partly from Justice Department concerns that there might not be enough evidence to arrest and successfully prosecute the suspects in Lackawanna. Mr. Cheney, the officials said, had argued that the administration would need a lower threshold of evidence to declare them enemy combatants and keep them in military custody.
Earlier that summer, the administration designated Jose Padilla an enemy combatant and sent him to a military brig in South Carolina. Mr. Padilla was arrested by civilian agencies on suspicion of plotting an attack using a radioactive bomb.
Those who advocated using the military to arrest the Lackawanna group had legal ammunition: the memorandum by Mr. Yoo and Mr. Delahunty.
The lawyers, in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, wrote that the Constitution, the courts and Congress had recognized a president’s authority “to take military actions, domestic as well as foreign, if he determines such actions to be necessary to respond to the terrorist attacks upon the United States on Sept. 11, 2001, and before.”
The document added that the neither the Posse Comitatus Act nor the Fourth Amendment tied a president’s hands.
Despite this guidance, some Bush aides bristled at the prospect of troops descending on an American suburb to arrest terrorism suspects.
“What would it look like to have the American military go into an American town and knock on people’s door?” said a second former official in the debate.
Chief James L. Michel of the Lackawanna police agreed. “If we had tanks rolling down the streets of our city,” Chief Michel said, “we would have had pandemonium down here.”
The Lackawanna case was the first after the Sept. 11 attacks in which American intelligence and law enforcement operatives believed they had dismantled a Qaeda cell in the United States.
In the months before the arrests, Mr. Bush was regularly briefed on the case by Mr. Mueller of the F.B.I. and George J. Tenet, the director of central intelligence. The C.I.A. had been tracking the overseas contacts of the Lackawanna group.
In a Wall Street Journal op-ed article in March, Mr. Yoo defended his 2001 memorandum and its reasoning, saying that after Sept. 11 the Bush administration faced the real prospect of Qaeda cells undertaking attacks on American soil. “The possibility of such attacks raised difficult, fundamental questions of constitutional law,” he wrote, “because they might require domestic military operations against an enemy for the first time since the Civil War.”
Eric Schmitt contributed reporting.
18 Comments so far
Show AllPerhaps Bush listened to "Poppa Bush" on this one, and not that "Higher Authority," Cheney.
None of us has dodged Cheney's rabid endgame of militarizing local law enforcement. It's taking place across America as we speak. The following is excerpted from an Oct. 2008, CNN story [a surprising source since CNN is a cross between right wing propaganda and infotainment much of the time]:
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US/10/03/army.unit/
ARMY COMBAT UNIT TO DEPLOY WITHIN U.S.
The 1st Brigade Combat Team of the 3rd Infantry, which was first into Baghdad, Iraq, in 2003, started its controversial assignment Wednesday.
The First Raiders will spend 2009 as the first active-duty military unit attached to the U.S. Northern Command since it was created [post 9/11]. They will be based in Fort Stewart, Georgia, and focus primarily on logistics and support for local police and rescue personnel, the Army says.
Part of their 'job' will be to work with local law enforcement to " put down major political protests"... and 'deal' with angry people on the street.
******************************************************************************************************************************
As someone living close to the Canadian border I can tell you that surveillance drones [I'm guessin' armed] are being used right now to patrol the U.S./CAD border and U.S. military troops will be a regular fixture at these same border crossings within a year. Homeland Security has already allocated the funds.
There is also widespread reporting of local law enforcement across the nation, being trained in military combat exercises by our troops. I'm assuming that rounding up political dissidents, can't be far behind.
The second I saw this article, I thought, "Divert their attention technique number 200." I remembered the same article about the U.S. Army deployment to Homeland Security......my question is, "Will that battalion be reassigned and continue their domestic control training or be sent back to Iraq?"
My guess is "The Power Elite" have one more "False Flag Attack" necessary to complete their mission of World Domination.....Whether they use the Mossad, Saudi Terrorists, or ISI agents, the job will get done......The one question is where?
I have been followed 24/7 since dec 2006. I live near Tampa Fl , and work in Tampa.
Home of Mcdill Air force base , command and control for the illegal occupations of Irac and Iran.
I can tell you first hand, that I have been followed by military personal.
For some time now , I seem to be around a lot of Georgia license plates. So your comment makes a lot of sense.
The military Talon program was never dismantled, maybe renamed. But one thing is for sure, they are working hand in hand with the and FBI,DHS,Infragard, community watch groups led by firefighter and Ems first responders.
Near my corporate office is a DHS office ,there are two huge parking lots filled with cars, and they are used for following people 24/7 by a stazi police. The cars are used by a network of contracted personal from private contractors.
All of this may sound crazy to you, but trust me, thats exactly how they cover what they do. You cant complain to anyone, because you sound delusional , in the mean time they screw with your life and all your friends and family.
By the way , this kind of surveillance was developed by the KKK in 1996, and adopted by the CIA.
The Patriot act has funneled billions of dollars into a nation wide stazi police network and until it is exposed this country has no constitution.
Our democracy is in jeopardy by folks who promote the "Freedom isn't Free" propaganda warmongering ,war profiteering freaks.
BornFreeMen
Warrant less surveillance torture victim for 2.8 years and running by the unconstitutional government cointel pro spy machine.
I'm not sure the threat against Posse Comitatus law went away with this one incident.
Much earlier, the U.S. government started using troops to patrol the U.S.-Mexico border (to prevent drug smuggling allegedly). It resulted in a Mexican shepherd getting shot by a U.S. sniper.
Then there's Northcom, the military command established in Oct. 2002 to defend the United States. Here's what the Northcom Web site says:
"USNORTHCOM’s civil support mission includes domestic disaster relief operations that occur during fires, hurricanes, floods and earthquakes. Support also includes counter-drug operations and managing the consequences of a terrorist event employing a weapon of mass destruction. The command provides assistance to a Primary Agency when tasked by DOD. Per the Posse Comitatus Act, military forces can provide civil support, but cannot become directly involved in law enforcement."
It looks like a slippery slope assignment, usurping the powers of the National Guard and local law enforcement.
So, the Bushies laid the groundwork for nullifying the law by building a military institution with a mission that is contrary to the intent of Posse Comitatus law.
-TIA
The 14 characteristics of Fascism
by Dr. Lawrence Britt
Free Inquiry magazine, Spring 2003
Dr. Britt, a political scientist, studied the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia), and Pinochet (Chile). He found the regimes all had 14 things in common, and he calls these the identifying characteristics of fascism. ]
1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism -- Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights -- Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to 'look the other way' or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause -- The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial, ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.
4. Supremacy of the Military -- Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.
5. Rampant Sexism -- The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and antigay legislation and national policy.
6. Controlled Mass Media -- Sometimes the media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or through sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in wartime, is very common.
7. Obsession with National Security -- Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined -- Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.
9. Corporate Power is Protected -- The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.
10. Labor Power is Suppressed -- Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely or are severely suppressed.
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts -- Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts is openly attacked, and governments often refuse to fund the arts.
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment -- Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses, and even forego civil liberties, in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption -- Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions, and who use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.
14. Fraudulent Elections -- Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against (or even the assassination of) opposition candidates, the use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and the manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Fascism/14_Characteristics_Fascism.html
Gosh, kinda sounds like the good ol' US of A doesn't it?
Very good. Thank you.
Did George Wanker Bush suspect that Cheney/Addington were setting the stage for a military coup in this nation? Did Bush realize that if this were so, Cheney would have had Bush liquidated almost immediately after the constitution was overthrown? Certainly Bush did not do what he did out of any respect for Americans' civil rights. He wanted to keep the climate coming down his throat.
Since the neocons can't tolerate "activist" judges, had the troops been used for the arrests, it would have been instructive to see how the puppet Republican Congress under Bush would have responded to memo-writing underlings in the Justice Department drawing a line through historic constitutional protections against direct military rule. My guess is they would have immediately changed the law to explicitly allow the use of troops retroactively.
It just goes to show that if you put enough lawyers in the same room you can make the Constitution say whatever you need it to. Kind of like fundamentalists and bible verses.
Thus given the fact that the USA has half the worlds Lawyers if the above statement true wherein the Constitution can say anything , then in fact it says nothing.
And given the current state of affairs it seems it in fact devoid of meaning.
It interesting that in the debat eover the Constituion a group of people warned against a listing of RIGHTS as they suggested by documenting them in the text of the constitution they would no longer be seen as inalienable.
We went through this before, where as British subjects the British constitution was supposed to protect us from Redcoat troops searching our houses and confiscating any untaxed items. You would think we'd realize this is old ground.
The only thing to do is Boycott everything with a (monopoly/war) tax on it, like the founders did, and refuse to go to work each Monday until the government gives us redress for our grievances.
Otherwise, it's going to be 1776 time again in a few years.
TJ
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." - Thomas Jefferson
odoco
Domestic terrorist attacks should have never been a reason to question the basis of the Constitution - in fact - quite the opposite. Such opportunities are created for those who seek unparalleled power. That is exactly what Bush and Cheney envisioned all along.
I suspect the Patriot Act was long in existence before 9/11 ever occurred. A document in the waiting. I also believe the anthrax attacts were part of the plan - and yes - I firmly believe that someone inside the government was responsible for them. The timing was evident, the motive was evident - and now two "suicides", one in the US and the other in Britain - to cover the trail.
Tie that to the "C" Street Gang of the "Family" housed in Washington - the ultra-fanatical religious right who believe they are both above sin and the law, and have been chosen by God to lead - and you have the perfect recipe for a totalitarian, Christian jihadist fascist state.
Chris Hedges has pointed this out for years yet few listen. Well folks - it is time not only to listen, but to inform, to educate, and yes, to confront.
odoco July 25th, 2009 9:36 am Have you read these unbelievable articles?.....
http:/www.israelshamir.net/Contributors/
Collateral_Damage_911.pdf
www.israelshamir.net/Contributors/
Collateral_Damage_Part_II_26122008.pdf
If they do not come up, just go to israelshamir.net and scroll down to find them.
I guess we were lucky that we had a slightly sane "Decider" to overrule the true wackos. Then again, that first sentence would make more sense if we all lived together in an insane asylum.
Maybe the California Bar association should consider suspending Mr Yoo's license to practice law.
Just, maybe?