Frightening on so many levels
I’m speechless. They just make up memo’s so they can/could break the law.
“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
It is just truly amazing to read this stuff. What sickens me even more are the apologists and defenders. How? How can people say this is acceptable? Can people see past their noxes and 20/30/40 years from now. Don’t they understand what this means for the citizens of the country and our freedoms? I mean, they have us fighting against ourselves. Morons arguing about the 2nd Ammendment? Are you kidding me? They have a merry band of lackies ready to accept and do whatever they are asked to do. It so blatantly obvious, yet, no big deal to some. Too many people find this acceptable and it is sad.
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.
I think people forget that Cheney worked for Nixon. That point of fact can’t be lost on people. One of the most racist, xenophic, paranoid people to run this country. And here, some 30 years later, he is reincarnated as the VP. Thank god.
I can’t believe I am actually going to say this, but thank God for Bush. He really played a dumb SOB but when I read stuff like this, I just find it so hard to fathom that he had the brains to understand the limits of our military and that he understood the constitution.
Is it possible that Bush had a firmer grasp of the Constitution then we all are led to believe? He didn’t pardon Libby after all. It shows on some level that he was smart enough to know some things. He must have just been so powerless.
The so called “patriots” on the right would have been solidly for it. GOP über alles.
Let’s see if I get this straight — you are arguing that only police forces may be deployed against foreign enemies deployed on US territory during time of war.
And you wonder why so many of us don’t consider Democrats and/or liberals to be sufficiently serious about national security to be trusted with responsibility for it.
By the way — I agree that we should not have been deploying the military to arrest foreign/international terrorists. We should have been deploying them to KILL such individuals.
As we’re being attacked, we need to be reading them their Miranda rights I guess. How bold of our government.
Then again, we will likely need to read the Al Quaida terrorists their rights in Afghanistan/Iraq soon…I think we should send Beau out to do this for us prior to any attacks.
RwR and Tom S prove my point. Scratch a Republican around here and you reveal a fascist.
Thank goodness when talking about Republicans, we don’t have to say “except for RSmitty” anymore.
Let me guess, Jason — while brave men fought and died at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, your great-grandfather stood on the shore with a badge shouting “Stop, you Japanese pilots are all under arrest! You have the right to remain silent…”
Actually, the law enforcement approach was exactly how we dealt with foreign spies and terrorists on US soil in WII.
By the way, there is no requirement to read Miranda rights to someone who is attacking you. Ask any cop.
And interestingly enough, we tried such individuals before military commissions with an appeal only to the President — including US citizens among them.
were those funny concrete towers along the Delaware Shore filled with police men durring WWII?
Did you even read the link?
we tried such individuals before military commissions with an appeal only to the President — including US citizens among them.
Yes, and Ronald Reagan manned up admitted it was wrong. Cost us over a billion dollars.
Perhaps you should read the Oath of Office the President takes and swears to uphold.
It is obvious liberals are disconnected from reality and are hopeless. The ultimate liberty is life and measures must be taken to assure American Citizens are protected from foreign and domestic threats.
You hide under the umbrella of security our nation affords you and then you cowardly try to dictate the terms of that security.
Pure cowardice and bluster by those who want the venue to complain, whine and cast false allegations but will do nothing to defend this country.
Mike Protack
I am surprised that you brought up the Presidential Oath. Bush and the wingnuts consistently got it wrong, stating that their highest priority is to protect the nation. No, the oath says that their highest priority is defend the Constitution. Americans have decided time and time again that they are willing to take risks and die if necessary to defend the Constitution. The idea that you can trash the Constitution in the name of preventing any conceivable threat is a radical and totalitarian idea that is wholly un-American.
Did you even read my link? It had nothing to do with the internment of Japanese. It had to do with the arrest, trial, and execution of Nazis landed by submarine on the east coast.
Here’s what the Supreme Court found constitutional.
So which nation are we at war with?
The problem with the Yoo/Bush rulings is they don’t want to follow the “laws of war,” they just want to claim the “do whatever the fuck I want” part without any of the responsibilities.
“we tried such individuals before military commissions with an appeal only to the President — including US citizens among them.
Yes, and Ronald Reagan manned up admitted it was wrong. Cost us over a billion dollars.”
What did Ronald Reagan admit was wrong? Was it not the internment of Japanese-Americans on the West Coast, a fiasco that had the support of FDR and Earl Warren. J Edgar Hoover was opposed? Note that Japanese in Hawaii were not interned.
A number of German saboteurs were tried by a military commission in Washington and most were executed. They had yet to do any damage.
A German agent was whacked in NYC before our entry into the war by a British agent and J Edgar was not pleased. Tough for two of them. The incident inspired a scene in”From Russia with Love”.
There was massive censorship of mail (most was microfilmed as ‘V-Mail’ and enlarged and printed before deliver) and international first class mail was routed through the BWI, where US rules that forbade opening of such mail was not in force. Some interesting ‘microdot messages’ were discovered.
Should we not infiltrate groups that preach jihad and recruit potential terrorists?
Or should we take the ‘law enforcement approach’ and put up a lot of crime scene take after the fact and provide terrorist suspects with the finest attorneys that the ACLU can provide? This would be akin to the ‘Gorelick Wall”.
What’s next? A fund-raiser for a new trial for the Rosenbergs? Perhaps a more meaningful approach might be an endowment for a chair of applied electricity.
“we tried such individuals before military commissions with an appeal only to the President — including US citizens among them.
Yes, and Ronald Reagan manned up admitted it was wrong. Cost us over a billion dollars.”
What did Ronald Reagan admit was wrong? Was it not the internment of Japanese-Americans on the West Coast, a fiasco that had the support of FDR and Earl Warren. J Edgar Hoover was opposed? Note that Japanese in Hawaii were not interned.
A number of German saboteurs were tried by a military commission in Washington and most were executed. They had yet to do any damage.
A German agent was whacked in NYC before our entry into the war by a British agent and J Edgar was not pleased. Tough for two of them. The incident inspired a scene in”From Russia with Love”.
There was massive censorship of mail (most was microfilmed as ‘V-Mail’ and enlarged and printed before deliver) and international first class mail was routed through the BWI, where US rules that forbade opening of such mail was not in force. Some interesting ‘microdot messages’ were discovered.
Should we not infiltrate groups that preach jihad and recruit potential terrorists?
Or should we take the ‘law enforcement approach’ and put up a lot of crime scene tape after the fact and provide terrorist suspects with the finest attorneys that the ACLU can provide? This would be akin to the ‘Gorelick Wall”.
What’s next? A fund-raiser for a new trial for the Rosenbergs? Perhaps a more meaningful approach might be an endowment for a chair of applied electricity.
“Rhymes With Right” certainly pointed out the ignorance of history that seems so rampant among self-styled “progressives” with their affinity for selective civil libertarians.
Padilla, Miranda: GOOD
Bush, Cheney: BAD
NAMBLA: GOOD
NRA: BAD
Mumia: HERO AND VICTIM
Carper: Not good enough
Cheney wanted the ability to send the military into Buffalo and send those American citizens to Guantanamo. I find it ironic that Republicans are scared of internment camps now that we have a Democratic president. We came close under Bush. Thank God Cheney didn’t get his way in everything.
And I think Cheney was wrong in what he suggested — we should have sent the military in to send those American traitors to HELL!
So basically Cheeeeeney defenders would think it more beneficial to kill a fly with a bazooka.
I think the Romans had it right when the republic barred active armies from crossing the Rubicon. They understood that it’s about power. And when the senators acquiesced, well the rest IS history.
But let’s break it down for the simpletons:
Active military operations within the US borders is, de facto, Martial Law. Don’t believe me? Well ask yourself who’s ultimately in charge of the soldiers and operations.
Are you ready for that?
Oh, and I forgot….STATES’ RIGHTS! STATES’ RIGHTS! STATES’ RIGHTS! STATES’ RIGHTS! STATES’ RIGHTS! STATES’ RIGHTS! STATES’ RIGHTS! STATES’ RIGHTS! STATES’ RIGHTS! STATES’ RIGHTS! STATES’ RIGHTS! STATES’ RIGHTS! STATES’ RIGHTS! STATES’ RIGHTS! STATES’ RIGHTS! STATES’ RIGHTS! STATES’ RIGHTS! STATES’ RIGHTS! STATES’ RIGHTS! STATES’ RIGHTS! STATES’ RIGHTS! STATES’ RIGHTS! STATES’ RIGHTS! STATES’ RIGHTS! STATES’ RIGHTS! STATES’ RIGHTS! STATES’ RIGHTS! STATES’ RIGHTS! STATES’ RIGHTS! STATES’ RIGHTS! STATES’ RIGHTS! STATES’ RIGHTS! STATES’ RIGHTS! STATES’ RIGHTS! STATES’ RIGHTS!
And Art, you’re a moron, chock-full of false equivalency. You use terms such as “law enforcement”, police tape, blah, blah to support a bogus claim that investigative work is somehow is an ineffective measure against terrorists? First of all, aren’t they criminals, but instead of committing crimes for monetary gain, it’s political? And second, an overwhelming majority of experts, who are a hell of a lot smarter than you, support treating terrorist cells for what they are…..criminals.
why stuck in moderation?
“Perhaps a more meaningful approach might be an endowment for a chair of applied electricity.”
Art rings the bell with the best phrase of the day!
A prime example of a specious rebuttal and facile juxtaposition should never be recognized as the phrase of any day.
Though it could be an example of a shitty argument by someone who cannot develop a proper one.
Von Cracker — which experts? What is your evidence that they “are a hell of a lot smarter than you”?
And remember — It was America’s “best and brightest” who decided it was best to supply no aid to the freedom fighters at the Bay of Pigs and fucked up the Vietnam War.
And Von Cracker — you’ve just supplied the best argument for why Lincoln was wrong in 1861. He should have just sent a bunch of US marshals to arrest the Confederates!
what? you trying to make a funny, rwr?
i hope so; otherwise you’re saying that a small band of American crazies is tantamount to a hostile army of hundreds of thousands traitorous confederates.
Oh, and to your other query….by no means do I endorse strictly a law enforcement-only policy to combat terrorism…the military is useful too, such as with AQ camps in Afghanistan. In fact, both Obama and McCain endorsed a hybrid approach. It depends on the size, locale, propensity for collateral damage, so forth and so on.
But when you’re relying solely on the military to investigate, infiltrate, and apprehend small groups of criminals (at this time, please think of the Mafia…they fit the proper definition of a terrorist org), you are setting them up to fail. It would not be their fault; it’s not what they are trained to do. What you’ll most likely get with a military action against criminals (who use terror as a tactic) within the US or elsewhere would be something akin to cutting a cake with a guillotine. Yeah, the cake was cut (mission accomplished!), but the amount of force used caused the cake to explode and everyone’s left with no dessert.
What I cannot believe is conservatives actually defending the use of the US military on home soil against its own citizens! Is it really party/ideology over country? Say it isn’t so!
oh, and I should have added that US military action on home soil will adversely affect citizens, regardless if the criminals are exclusively foreigners.
Both Obama and McCain were wrong. The Islamist terrorists we fight are NOT criminals — they are a loosely organized military force that needs to be treated as such, whether they are US citizens or foreign nationals.
What’s more, they do not merit a civilian trial — they merit indefinite detention in a military facility until the cessation of hostilities against us by their fellow Islamists. Those who have taken actions for violations of the laws of war deserve a military trial followed by execution.
But if you DO want to include a law enforcement aspect, see my comment above for what it should look like.
Oh, and i wasn’t trying to “make a funny” — I was mocking the stupidity of your position.
time and again the “conservative” posters on here prove they know nothing about government, how ours was set up, and anything about the constitution outside of the 2nd amendment.
Using the military to roll down Main street and round up some “evil doers” is so Un-american that it beyond belief that Cheney was advocating it. Yet not, with the crazies here supporting it. Cheney trashed the constitution precisely because idiots like RWR and Art and Anoni suppress high school civics lessons.
a loosely organized military force with soldiers and captains like the Mafia, rwr?
Restating your failed point won’t make it correct.
And if the military is so effective in combating terrorism, then how is it that a vast majority of the successes against terrorism (foiling plots, apprehending perps) have been due to effective investigation and law enforcement?
Why are the islamic criminals (who rely on terror to force an agenda) any different than say the ira or groups right here in the states that bomb buildings because it doesn’t like gov’t policy?
To your last attempt at self-gratification, coming from a backwards, self-imposed retard like yourself….I’ll take it as a complement! Danke!
rwr thinks SPECTRE moved to the middle east! and i know, they are there. they just traded in their Saville Row suits for dashikis!
lol
VC gets it right again. Law enforcement has been very effective against terrorism suspects. How would the military have avoided the London or Madrid bombings? Terrorism has global reach – are conservatives suggesting we should invade Turkey, Great Britain, Germany and Spain? We need the cooperation and intelligence of other nations to stop terrorist plots.
John Yoo is still making it up as he goes along and none of it has anything to do with the law.
Sorry Jason, but I’m not a Republican, but just keep namecalling…you’re good at that. We enjoy watching you “act stupidly”.
This is nothing new. The White house has had dictatorship status when it comes to military action since the end of WW2. Only the congress can approve military action of any kind. The only exception is if we are being actively invaded, and there is no way to convene congress. It doesn’t matter how many UN or NATO resolutions there are, onl congress has the power to put american troops into action. I guess we just need a congress to grow some balls and remind the president that.
RWR, i see how you’re trying to justify it by using the past, but you are wrong. Your link about nazis there has nothing to do with the current situation. We were in an actual declared war with a declared enemy, not these ‘police’ or ‘military’ operations. You’re vietnam example was also flawed, because we were supporting the north at the same time we were fighting them.
Either way, you shouldn’t be so suprised at a memo like this. Just about all of the presidents for the past 75 years have been shredding the constitution little by little. Even this administraion is doing its part.
So, now you not only rave about what the Bush Administration did that you don’t like, but what some people considered, but didn’t do.
One would have thought that the rampant cases of Bush Derangement Syndrome would have abated by now, but I guess not.
Mr von Cracker: You have assumed something about which you seem to be less than well-informed, when you asked:
In many cases, it would be the various Governors, who are the Commanders-in-Chief of their state National Guards, when the National Guard is activated for duty within a state.
And, quite frankly, it happens all the time, almost always in the form of disaster relief. When the National Guard was flying helicopters around New Orleans in hurricane relief, that was an active military operation.
Of course, we have military bases all across our great land, and there are active military operations proceeding every single day on them. Even the security checkpoint at the gates to a base are active military operations.
These things don’t constitute martial law.
Hey Dana, your link says common sense, maybe you should start using some. National guard unless they are under title 10 orders report to the state and its govenors. Therefore it’s not an US military operation under command of the president. That memo was for Federal troop use on american soil against americans.
National guard used in natural disasters are not a military operation. Join the NG, you’ll learn that.
You’re example about the bases is just as absurd. They are not out engaging american citizens, or even working on military operations that support engaging american civilians.
Besides, look up the definition of martial law before you throw it around so casually.
the fact that the vice president butted heads with the President of the united states to the point it was a power struggle on whether or not to arrest us citizens with our country’s military is not some piss ant q and a that a couple of fuktards have at a bar that are discussing if batman could kick superman’s ass.
it happened and it is scary that a dude one breath away from running the country wanted to use the Army to arrest people.
Where have you been for the past 8 years, Dana? See the results from Bu$hCo’s policies today? Nothing much more than the loss of American lives, treasure, prestige. It ain’t fucking derangement; it’s knowing you’re right all along….meaning before, during and after the great train robbery.
But clever little slogans, such as BDS, are cute though, albeit silly and ineffective…actually, it’s rather masturbatory.
apparently Tienanmen Sq was something that happened in a movie a long long time ago.
I have a question: as absolutely scary as the premise of deploying troops domestically is to me, does anyone here (other than DCB who does in his post) give W credit for saying no?
I am glad he ultimately decided no, even if he was considering it in the first place (which just confirms his “worst ever” status)…we all know he wasn’t an intellectual president, but I am curious about the DL core crowd: does he get any credit for rejecting this advice as perhaps a teeny, tiny, even accidental good decision in a sea of bad ones here at DL?
W’s did a few good things. That decision was one of them.
VC, you’re wrong on one part. Not 8 years, more like 50. It is just more obvious now because of the exponential growth of constitution thrashing.
JY (not to be confused with KY)
I find it simply amazing that Bush was able to say no. I mean, what does that say about the guy? How smart was he? How much did he really know about the constitution? What does it say about how powerless he was as President?
Simply amazing that he put his foot down on this of all situations as well as few others…
but there he was in early 200? flying in a helicopter saving Terri Schiavo….
so perplexing
i agree, he did dome perplexing things….if i finish my large snifter of rum tonight I may find a few more doozies…you mention a few questions that I don’t know if I will ever be able to answer but merely guess.
One guess is that W was never as evil as many thought but rather possessed quite a large and giving heart, unfortunately his advisors and his intellect caused him to make policy that belied his goals and his love of country on face value. History may be a bit kinder than most of us are now, but probably only a bit.
Yeah, you’re right about that, Phil.
BTW, is your avatar smoking a spliff?
NSFW: http://www.illwillpress.com/GOGREEN33.html
Has anyone ever seen Harold and Kumar Escape from Gitmo?
Spot on with W.
Nah, just a cig. can you believe capital one wouldn’t let me use that pic in the card lab?
that’s BS!
F- Capital One.
Do I give W any credit? Not much. If Rice and others had agreed with Cheney he would have done it. I think Bush is a guy who is easily led, because he is intellectually incurious and lacks compassion. A man with a “kind and generous heart” does not mock a prisoner right before her execution (Karla Faye Tucker) and doesn’t skip out on his military duty. The best think Bush ever did was leave. The fact that he wasn’t as insane as Cheney doesn’t say that much good about him.
he is assuredly not a curious person, not as sure about no compassion (HIV stance in Africa comes to mind) as the evidence is very conflicting. Your points stand though…as I said, probably not much improvement likely in history’s eye.
Bush was not evil like Cheney, but I think he lacked compassion. I’m glad he tried to do something about AIDS in Africa but my understanding was that he was pushing abstinence-only stuff? (Perhaps I’m wrong) I just don’t think of invading Iraq as the moves of a compassionate man and boy did he leave a mess in pretty much everything he tried.
Bush HIV article: http://www.thebody.com/content/art49447.html
I agree with you almost completely, but I think we miss on one point, some of his “un” compassionate efforts are the result of accidental thinking…meaning he did not envision the result (Iraq as prime example).
This does not excuse the behavior/decision/result at all, just gives me pause as to the motivations and the label of compassionate as it pertains to the intent of his misguided decisions.
The brilliance of Dick Cheney was demonstrated during the first Gulf War. The top generals had their ground war plan but he was presented an alternative by retired USAF Colonel Boyd. Colonel Boyd was a top pilot and tactical innovator. He created the OODA Loop that some USAF brass chose to ignore. Boyd was rather outspoken and was punished for his comments with a desk job managing two fighter development programs. He was not happy with the first product nor overjoyed by the second although the F-16 was an obvious success. After escaping the USAF, he offered his advice to the USMC and they adopted his concept for winning in air combat to ground warfighting.
Cheney decided that Boyd had better ideas than the generals and made the proper decision. A lot of ground was covered and our casualties were low.
Partisan sniping at Cheney may be a sport in some circles but it ignores his achievements and dedication.
One should also look at his charitable contributions during his time in office and compare them to the niggardly offerings of a Joe Biden or Al Gore.
Whatever “brilliance” you want to attribute to Dick Cheney because of the first Gulf War is permanently overshadowed by his idiocy during the second Gulf War. The net/net is the Cheney was(is) an evil moron. That is not my subjective opinion but an established fact of history.
From the history I’ve read Cheney is a smart guy and is really smart at manipulating bureaucracy. In the Nixon and Bush I administrations he was reigned in somewhat by other strong personalities. In GWB’s administration he had full reign and the other strong personality, Rumsfeld fought for the same things. The relatively weaker personalities like Powell and Rice were overcome by Cheney is most instances.
JY, as far as Bush goes, you know that old saying – save me from people with good intentions. Intentions are not enough, politicians should be judged by actions and outcomes. I spent a lot of time arguing with people in 2004 about Bush during the election. They argued that they thought he’d learned something, that he’ll get better, etc. I argued that we already have evidence of his incompetence, let’s get someone knew. Well, we know what happened (I was right!).