To be honest.Kmarion wrote:
Please elaborate.Macbeth wrote:
So beside that whole constitution thing do you think it'd be reasonable to use the military to perform domestic raids?
This tbh.Red Forman wrote:
"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."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
Posse ComitatusMacbeth wrote:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090725/ap_ … estic_raidThe 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.
So beside that whole constitution thing do you think it'd be reasonable to use the military to perform domestic raids?
FEOS wrote:
Bush couldn't have legally done it even if he wanted to.
Interesting it got that far, and that Cheney was unfamiliar with such a well known law.The proposal advanced to at least one-high level administration meeting, before President George W. Bush decided against it.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-07-28 04:56:43)
By that reasoning the US gov't could have sent the 82nd after Tim McVeigh, Terry Nichols, or Eric Rudolph. Correct? They were terrorists after all.Red Forman wrote:
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?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.
Yes in theory I guess. But, you have to remember THIS was not that long after 9/11. I am sure you can understand that right?Masques wrote:
By that reasoning the US gov't could have sent the 82nd after Tim McVeigh, Terry Nichols, or Eric Rudolph. Correct? They were terrorists after all.Red Forman wrote:
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?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.
And that was not long after the OKC bombing (McVeigh and Nichols) and Khobar towers (though not carried out by Rudolph it occurred just before the Olympic Park bombings).Red Forman wrote:
Yes in theory I guess. But, you have to remember THIS was not that long after 9/11. I am sure you can understand that right?Masques wrote:
By that reasoning the US gov't could have sent the 82nd after Tim McVeigh, Terry Nichols, or Eric Rudolph. Correct? They were terrorists after all.Red Forman wrote:
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?
Last edited by Red Forman (2009-07-29 11:26:46)
I'm just trying to get your opinion on the matter.Red Forman wrote:
What are you asking me for? I am not a lawyer or an expert on the constitution and powers of the President. The government debated this, and came to a decision. They did the right hing and government surprisingly worked out good on this one.
I know we used troops to partol the streets after Katrina.
It's not surprising, tbh. Politicians truly have little awareness of the various aspects of US Code that apply to many activities...even though PC is a pretty significant legal concept.Dilbert_X wrote:
FEOS wrote:
Bush couldn't have legally done it even if he wanted to.Interesting it got that far, and that Cheney was unfamiliar with such a well known law.The proposal advanced to at least one-high level administration meeting, before President George W. Bush decided against it.
Like, say, a Vice-President trampling on it?nickb64 wrote:
This tbh.Red Forman wrote:
"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."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
The VEEP doesn't take the Oath of Enlistment.nukchebi0 wrote:
Like, say, a Vice-President trampling on it?nickb64 wrote:
This tbh.Red Forman wrote:
"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."
Last edited by nukchebi0 (2009-07-31 03:59:50)
I know.nukchebi0 wrote:
Oh, lel. I was not really reading the oath, and mistook it for the presidential oath. With that said, the same concept about protecting the constitution does apply to the President (implicit in his oath), which was my initial point.
