Bush mulled sending troops into Buffalo

2009-07-26 15:04:48

#1

Macbeth: Banned; +2,444|5598

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.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090725/ap_ … estic_raid
So beside that whole constitution thing do you think it'd be reasonable to use the military to perform domestic raids?

2009-07-26 15:20:47

#2

nickb64: formerly from OC (it's EXACTLY like on tv)[truth]; +77|5624|Greatest Nation on Earth(USA)

Maybe if police were not equipped to handle situation...

Never unless police cannot handle it and there is serious, imminent risk of harm to civilians.

2009-07-26 16:01:38

#3

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|6729

nickb64 wrote:
Maybe if police were not equipped to handle situation...

Never unless police cannot handle it and there is serious, imminent risk of harm to civilians.

SWAT

https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png

2009-07-26 17:09:20

#4

coke: Aye up duck!; +440|6722|England. Stoke

I'm willing to bet that military personnel have been deployed before in situations similar to this, it's just they don't advertise the fact...
It's not as if they were on about rolling tanks into the area or anything.

2009-07-26 17:22:59

#5

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6166|what

Cybargs wrote:
SWAT

This.

You don't need to deploy your army into a city unless you are defending that city from another army.

6 men isn't an army. Good call on Bush's part.

2009-07-26 17:32:56

#6

nickb64: formerly from OC (it's EXACTLY like on tv)[truth]; +77|5624|Greatest Nation on Earth(USA)

Cybargs wrote:
nickb64 wrote:
Maybe if police were not equipped to handle situation...

Never unless police cannot handle it and there is serious, imminent risk of harm to civilians.
SWAT

If SWAT couldn't handle it...

'course, if SWAT can't handle it, you're probably fucked anyway...

EDIT: I was including SWAT as part of Police, as that's what they are, leet cops

Last edited by nickb64 (2009-07-26 17:39:08)

2009-07-26 18:08:42

#7

Doctor Strangelove: Real Battlefield Veterinarian.; +1,758|6481

SWAT would be able to handle a small group of suspects in a small area, however if there was a large group of suspects covering a large area (like what happened in Mubai last year) then they might be overwhelmed.

Last edited by Doctor Strangelove (2009-07-26 18:09:00)

2009-07-26 18:18:56

#8

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|6729

Doctor Strangelove wrote:
SWAT would be able to handle a small group of suspects in a small area, however if there was a large group of suspects covering a large area (like what happened in Mubai last year) then they might be overwhelmed.

ATF

2009-07-26 18:54:49

#9

Red Forman: Banned; +402|5413

AussieReaper wrote:
Cybargs wrote:
SWAT
This.

You don't need to deploy your army into a city unless you are defending that city from another army.

6 men isn't an army. Good call on Bush's part.

You do not have SWAT in every city.

2009-07-26 20:13:52

#10

BN: smells like wee wee; +159|6781

What about Posse Comitatus Act?

2009-07-26 20:15:31

#11

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|6729

Red Forman wrote:
AussieReaper wrote:
Cybargs wrote:
SWAT
This.

You don't need to deploy your army into a city unless you are defending that city from another army.

6 men isn't an army. Good call on Bush's part.
You do not have SWAT in every city.

National Guard as last resort. No need for regular army.

2009-07-26 20:26:05

#12

nukchebi0: Пушкин, наше всё; +387|6337|New Haven, CT

Surprised at Bush's decision; gives me a bit more respect for him than I had.

2009-07-26 20:54:19

#13

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6166|what

Red Forman wrote:
AussieReaper wrote:
Cybargs wrote:
SWAT
This.

You don't need to deploy your army into a city unless you are defending that city from another army.

6 men isn't an army. Good call on Bush's part.
You do not have SWAT in every city.

Yeah, I know that. What's your point?

Police forces have local police, state police and a slew of other forces trained to deal with 6 men.

2009-07-26 21:05:26

#14

Commie Killer: Member; +192|6400

Cybargs wrote:
Red Forman wrote:
AussieReaper wrote:

This.

You don't need to deploy your army into a city unless you are defending that city from another army.

6 men isn't an army. Good call on Bush's part.
You do not have SWAT in every city.
National Guard as last resort. No need for regular army.

Regular army is better trained, but in general, they were probably talking about special forces, Delta, Green Berets, w/e.

2009-07-26 21:10:38

#15

Hurricane2k9: Pendulous Sweaty Balls; +1,538|5715|College Park, MD

Yeah they used the National Guard during the LA Riots.

https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/36793/marylandsig.jpg

2009-07-26 22:18:16

#16

nickb64: formerly from OC (it's EXACTLY like on tv)[truth]; +77|5624|Greatest Nation on Earth(USA)

For 6 people, I agree with most, police would be capable.

If there were a lot more, then I would say some sort of Nat'l Guard or Military might be good as a last resort to eliminate the threat (small SpecOps team) if there was no SWAT. Only as an extreme last resort.

2009-07-26 22:40:36

#17

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6614|132 and Bush

Macbeth wrote:
So beside that whole constitution thing do you think it'd be reasonable to use the military to perform domestic raids?

Please elaborate.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2009-07-26 23:46:23

#18

Ioan92: Member; +337|5735

USSOCOM?

A little squad?

Its not like you're sending an invasion force!

2009-07-27 00:48:58

#19

Masques: Black Panzer Party; +184|6735|Eastern PA

http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/documents/memo … 232001.pdf

That memo (written by the infamous John Yoo) asserts that for domestic military operations the 1st and 4th amendments wouldn't apply. Given the previous, and some of the other "findings" by Yoo et. al (no limits on executive use of force, non-adherence to the Geneva Conventions, indefinite detentions, etc.) and the fact that the "Lackawanna Six" were citizens. It appears that many in the gov't, including apparently Cheney himself were essentially advocating negation of the constitution as applied to US citizens.

That's what the practical effects of this would be.

2009-07-27 06:34:53

#20

Stubbee: Religions Hate Facts, Questions and Doubts; +223|6756|Reality

Scary to think how close you guys are to a police state when your top politicians consider breaking the law to uphold the law. It would have been a very scary first step.

It appears that many in the gov't, including apparently Cheney himself were essentially advocating negation of the constitution as applied to US citizens.

The US economy is a giant Ponzi scheme. And 'to big to fail' is code speak for 'niahnahniahniahnah 99 percenters'

2009-07-27 07:10:23

#21

Red Forman: Banned; +402|5413

AussieReaper wrote:
Yeah, I know that. What's your point?

Police forces have local police, state police and a slew of other forces trained to deal with 6 men.

Point is you do not know what the intelligence was on those guys. It is VERY easy for you just to sit there and say "just six people." You do not know what they were being told. Like you said he made the right call.

Last edited by Red Forman (2009-07-27 07:11:30)

2009-07-27 07:13:41

#22

Mekstizzle: WALKER; +3,611|6634|London, England

Don't see why you need to, I thought the US had all sorts of stuff for domestic shit. Local police. SWAT. ATF. FBI. Homeland Security. I dunno, loads of shit. Unlike some other countries that don't have as many branches dedicated to domestic shit so the military gets called in more often than not

2009-07-27 07:23:30

#23

Red Forman: Banned; +402|5413

Mekstizzle wrote:
Don't see why you need to, I thought the US had all sorts of stuff for domestic shit. Local police. SWAT. ATF. FBI. Homeland Security. I dunno, loads of shit. Unlike some other countries that don't have as many branches dedicated to domestic shit so the military gets called in more often than not

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

2009-07-27 07:35:07

#24

Stubbee: Religions Hate Facts, Questions and Doubts; +223|6756|Reality

So Forman are you saying you don't need police, SWAT ATF etc because you have the armed forces? <--- police state here we come.

These people aren't enemies. They are criminals. Unless you think all criminals are enemies. If you do they have medication and therapy for that.

The US economy is a giant Ponzi scheme. And 'to big to fail' is code speak for 'niahnahniahniahnah 99 percenters'

2009-07-27 07:37:49

#25

Red Forman: Banned; +402|5413

Stubbee wrote:
So Forman are you saying you don't need police, SWAT ATF etc because you have the armed forces? <--- police state here we come.

These people aren't enemies. They are criminals. Unless you think all criminals are enemies. If you do they have medication and therapy for that.

You need help dude. They were terrorists. I am NOT saying police can't handle it. But, that is what we pay govt to do. To debate these isuues and come to a decision. Then they are held accountable for their decisions. Worked perfect. What's your problem?

BF2S Forums Bush mulled sending troops into Buffalo

nickb64 wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

nickb64 wrote:

Doctor Strangelove wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Red Forman wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Red Forman wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Red Forman wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Mekstizzle wrote:

Stubbee wrote:

Board footer