Report: Bush mulled sending troops into Buffalo to arrest a group of terror suspects

[Terminator]

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.

[Morris]

Seems like I saw a movie about that once . . .

[countybear]

Jeez... now that they've run out of things he did to criticize... its time to address things he didn't do.

[Twan007]

anything to keep the focus off of anyone "acting stupidly"

[MacLean]

So uh, the President of the United States decided correctly to not use troops, and it is news?

[Xiphos]

So uh, the President of the United States decided correctly to not use troops, and it is news?

Beat me to the punch. That was exactly my thought.

[TXCharlie]

Infiltrating the country in a time of war for the purpose of destruction is an act of war - So I think the option was a legitimate one to consider if these were foreign combatants who slipped into the US... We would not argue that an overt aerial attack in the USA is an act of war, so a stealthy ground attack in progress should trigger the same reaction from the military.

It's about time they started talking about the things that Bush did right - Considering the option was right, if they were foreign insurgents. They should know that nothing is off the table when it comes to destroying enemy combatants, whether they are in the country or not.

If there were American citizens involved, that is a totally different situation.

I realize that immigrants, illegal or not, have the same protections and civil rights as citizens, but if these were military operatives, then acts of war pretty much suspend a lot of civil rights, including due process.

Actually, an attack on the USA by US citizens can also trigger a military response - It is called Martial Law.

[MacLean]

Infiltrating the country in a time of war for the purpose of destruction is an act of war - So I think the option was a legitimate one to consider if these were foreign combatants who slipped into the US... We would not argue that an overt aerial attack in the USA is an act of war, so a stealthy ground attack in progress should trigger the same reaction from the military.

It's about time they started talking about the things that Bush did right - Considering the option was right, if they were foreign insurgents. They should know that nothing is off the table when it comes to destroying enemy combatants, whether they are in the country or not.

If there were American citizens involved, that is a totally different situation.

I realize that immigrants, illegal or not, have the same protections and civil rights as citizens, but if these were military operatives, then acts of war pretty much suspend a lot of civil rights, including due process.

Actually, an attack on the USA by US citizens can also trigger a military response - It is called Martial Law.

Your history and case law is out of date, as is your definition of martial law.

Martial law was held unconstitutional the only time it was tried based upon Article 1, Section 9.

Article 1, Section 9 spells out when habeus corpus may be suspended, but not anywhere in the document is martial law allowed for.

Hence, ex parte Milligan. SCOTUS properly held that such a situation might be called for, but severely limited the application and scope.

When the civil authority cannot operate, then martial law is not only constitutional, but would be necessary: "If, in foreign invasion or civil war, the courts are actually closed, and it is impossible to administer criminal justice according to law, then, on the theatre of active military operations, where war really prevails, there is a necessity to furnish a substitute for the civil authority, thus overthrown, to preserve the safety of the army and society; and as no power is left but the military, it is allowed to govern by martial rule until the laws can have their free course. As necessity creates the rule, so it limits its duration; for, if this government is continued after the courts are reinstated, it is a gross usurpation of power. Martial rule can never exist where the courts are open, and in the proper and unobstructed exercise of their jurisdiction. It is also confined to the locality of actual war.

The President acted properly in having civilian law enforcement handle this situation.

[cntryboy0531]

Your history and case law is out of date, as is your definition of martial law.

Martial law was held unconstitutional the only time it was tried based upon Article 1, Section 9.

Article 1, Section 9 spells out when habeus corpus may be suspended, but not anywhere in the document is martial law allowed for.

Hence, ex parte Milligan. SCOTUS properly held that such a situation might be called for, but severely limited the application and scope.

When the civil authority cannot operate, then martial law is not only constitutional, but would be necessary: "If, in foreign invasion or civil war, the courts are actually closed, and it is impossible to administer criminal justice according to law, then, on the theatre of active military operations, where war really prevails, there is a necessity to furnish a substitute for the civil authority, thus overthrown, to preserve the safety of the army and society; and as no power is left but the military, it is allowed to govern by martial rule until the laws can have their free course. As necessity creates the rule, so it limits its duration; for, if this government is continued after the courts are reinstated, it is a gross usurpation of power. Martial rule can never exist where the courts are open, and in the proper and unobstructed exercise of their jurisdiction. It is also confined to the locality of actual war.

The President acted properly in having civilian law enforcement handle this situation.

I agree. Short of actual warfare in the streets, and mass chaos, I don't think the military has any place conducting raids of that nature in this country.

[TXCharlie]

I don't know of very many law enforcement agencies, though, who are capable of defending themselves against much more than small-arms fire. Dallas SWAT has an Armored Personnel Carrier, but that's the exception, not necessarily the rule.

Maybe they had reason to believe that these guys didn't smuggle in any RPG's, C4, or high caliber armor pericing ammo, but they probably didn't know for sure, and it's a given that almost any terrorist group will use whatever they have at their disposal, even if they die too.

[MacLean]

I don't know of very many law enforcement agencies, though, who are capable of defending themselves against much more than small-arms fire. Dallas SWAT has an Armored Personnel Carrier, but that's the exception, not necessarily the rule.

Maybe they had reason to believe that these guys didn't smuggle in any RPG's, C4, or high caliber armor pericing ammo, but they probably didn't know for sure, and it's a given that almost any terrorist group will use whatever they have at their disposal, even if they die too.

You're missing the point.

The FBI is a law enforcement agency, and has access to the tools they require to arrest terrorists.

If they need advice, they can get it from SFOF-D, but they don't get to play.

[cntryboy0531]

You're missing the point.

The FBI is a law enforcement agency, and has access to the tools they require to arrest terrorists.

If they need advice, they can get it from SFOF-D, but they don't get to play.

Exactly. The constitution is very clear on this. If threats increase to the point military equipment would be needed...

I guess the Fed's can fork over some cool toys to us locals.

"xxxx to dispatch, I have shots fired, I need backup, request air support"

[Norm357]

At the Atlanta prison riots...

Atlanta Prison Riots - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I saw with my very own eyes, Special Forces troops on the ground as advisors(?).

[TXCharlie]

I believe that the President, as a civilian leader, can order military assistance, just as Governors can order National Guard assistance.

Didn't the military assist the ATF during the Branch Davidian siege in Waco, TX, due to the weapons that the ATF potentially faced? I believe they did. The ATF probably commanded them by proxy from the President, but since it's all Federal Government, seems to me it's a gray area at the very least.

[MacLean]

I believe that the President, as a civilian leader, can order military assistance, just as Governors can order National Guard assistance.

Didn't the military assist the ATF during the Branch Davidian siege in Waco, TX, due to the weapons that the ATF potentially faced? I believe they did. The ATF probably commanded them by proxy from the President, but since it's all Federal Government, seems to me it's a gray area at the very least.

Military assistance means advisory, not shooters.

BTW, it is a very different animal to compare the National Guard ordered by a governor to military forces ordered by the President.

The National Guard is not a federal force until activated, which is why Guardsmen can be used to quell a riot and regular forces cannot.

It ain't a gray area Chuck.

[Xiphos]

The National Guard is not a federal force until activated, which is why Guardsmen can be used to quell a riot and regular forces cannot.

I've done riot training with National Guard forces here. They are unarmed and rely on law enforcement for deadly force if it's needed.

[MacLean]

I've done riot training with National Guard forces here. They are unarmed and rely on law enforcement for deadly force if it's needed.

They've armed them here, and I'm pretty sure they had bullets for Katrina.

Our Army Guard is the 81st Infantry Brigade, reinforced.

Our Air Guard includes AFSOC people and an Security Forces Group out of Fairchild.

Not too many of our Guardsman are the type to go out without a gun, but I suppose it could happen.

[Xiphos]

They've armed them here, and I'm pretty sure they had bullets for Katrina.

Our Army Guard is the 81st Infantry Brigade, reinforced.

Our Air Guard includes AFSOC people and an Security Forces Group out of Fairchild.

Not too many of our Guardsman are the type to go out without a gun, but I suppose it could happen.

I'm sure every governor has different expectations about NG deployments for civil issues. Here, they are unarmed for civil disturbances. If we had a Katrina like disaster I'm sure the governor could step up their response as needed.

[MacLean]

My guess is you are right!

[armsmaster270]

I was activated as National Guard for the Rodney King Riots in LA I had my M-16 and 1911 and lots of ammo just after getting there we were Federally activated also there were a lot of Marines there riding backup on LASO units.

From wikipedia
Order was restored on the sixth day of rioting after a mandatory curfew, lock down, and state of emergency had been declared. At its peak, the deployment of the National Guard, brigades from the 7th Infantry Division based at Fort Ord, Marines from the 1st Marine Division based at Camp Pendleton, US Coast Guard from the 11th District, federal officers including FBI, Federal Protective Service, Immigration & Customs Enforcement and Justice Department assisted the LAPD, Los Angeles County Sheriff, California Highway Patrol, Los Angeles Fire Department, and the police departments of Bell, Bell Gardens, Huntington Park, Inglewood, Long Beach, Maywood, Vernon, Torrance, Culver City, Gardena and Hawthorne.

US Marines patrol Crenshaw


By the time the riots ended, 54 lives were lost, 2,383 people injured (228 critical), 12,111 arrested, 7,001 fires set, 1,400 structures destroyed, 3,100 businesses looted, and an estimated material damage of $1 billion.[8] Over 15,000 military and federal officers with 2,000 military Humvees, 20 M1A1 Abrams tanks, 5 AH-64 Apache helicopters, and the visual presence of F-15 fighters complimented the combined police presence of 16,000 officers.