Civil war narrowly averted.

[Steyr M40A1]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090725/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_terror_domestic_raid

Report: Bush mulled sending troops into Buffalo
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.

Had this had happened, well you really never realise just how close we come to a disaster.

[tombogan03884]

http://www.downrange.tv/forum/index.php?topic=8003.msg101700#msg101700

As I stated in the other thread:

In fact, right off the top of my head I can think of 2 cases where the military has been "deployed the active-duty military on domestic soil in a law enforcement capacity, without specific statutory authority, since the Civil War."
1) The Wounded Knee stand off with members of AIM in 1973
2) The Waco massacre
As for "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." That may be the case if you are an ignorant reporter with an agenda and no knowledge of American history. The rest of us are aware that Washington deployed Federal troops to both Mass. and Western Virginia to suppress Shays rebellion in Mass which was put down by Ma. Militia before they arrived. and the "Whiskey Rebellion which saw fighting between farmers and soldiers, burning of homes, and seizures of private property.
The informed are also aware of the use of Federal troops to put down the Civil War era "Draft Riots", and to maintain order after the 1906 San Francisco earthquake, an action that saw not only warrentless arrests and seizure of private property but possibly hundreds of looters shot with out arrest or trial. In a somewhat different vein the Army took over the Airmail routes in the 1920's and the US Marines were responsible for railroad Mail security during the same era.

[Hazcat]

TOM,

Was the military deployed when the WWI vets (I think it was them) marched on DC over pensions/benefits?

[Pathfinder]

TOM,

Was the military deployed when the WWI vets (I think it was them) marched on DC over pensions/benefits?

Yes. Led by McArthur no less. Technically in DC, a Federal Government protectorate. Don't know if that mattered or not.

Also, the 101st Airborne was deployed in Little Rock IIRC.

[tombogan03884]

TOM,

Was the military deployed when the WWI vets (I think it was them) marched on DC over pensions/benefits?

Oh yes, I forgot about Army Chief of Staff MacArthur sending Patton's fledgling tank Corps to disperse the "Bonus Marchers" on orders of the President. Then of course there were Army Capt. Robert E. Lee leading a Company of Marines to retake the Harpers Ferry arsenal from John Brown and his abolitionist rebels, The use of the Army as law enforcement in the south during the era of "Reconstruction", and the fact that Eastern State police forces started as Army Cavalry, which is why they were boots, are divided into "Troops" and are assigned to "Barracks".

Path, You do indeed recall correctly, The regular Army was used during the Civil rights incidents because the State Guard units could not be relied on.

[Sponsor]

[twyacht]

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.

I thought for a threat level that was not totally known at the time, and arrest warrants were issued, that the U.S. Marshalls, FBI, ATF, SWAT, etc,... would be enough?

Geez, they carry the same weapons as the military, except for artillery and MOAB's,... and it keeps it under the umbrella of a "Law Enforcement" action, NOT a military undertaking in civilian cities...

Which would have been very BAD.

[onrecess]

Don't leave out Katrina. there WAS no lack of response. The problem was the responce was thousands of mercinaries instead of help. People held at gunpoint on overpasses by them to keep them from leaving the area and perhaps commiting property crimes to survive. Again, the govt decided that "law and order" (law enforcement) is the primary response, not helping citizens. Hmm, one party seems to do these actions (or, in Clinton's case- republican lite, a administration well to the right of center- as in nafta, waco...) yet the people decrying the actions at the same time back the political viewpoint/party that causes it! Hoover= bonus marchers, Teddy Roosevelt=1906 quake, Ruby Ridge=Bush I
Hence, the difference in two parties as to the role of govt:
Rep= individual freedom from govt interferience, no govt except law and order, main duty is enforce laws to enforce proper conduct
Dem= social justice, govt main duty is to reflect the defining of society as a banding together of people to help all and make society benefit all.
Any political science text will define he parties in said way, though I've tried to simplify it here.
You cannot (logically, anyway) back a political philosophy AND decry it's actions following said principles.
PS: The funniest story of the republican "help" by sending military/police law and order insead of help was when the FEMA office (sent into Houston a couple of years ago for that storm) did not even bring food and water for THEMSELVES! They had to go on the radio and ask for citizens to bring them food and water! They had plenty of guns and law nforcement, but not even a cracker of food relief! Moronic seems too kind for this response.

[tombogan03884]

 Did some one fart ?

[Timothy]

Did some one fart ?

I does kind of stink around here!

[onrecess]

Did something pop out with the fart? They do smell when they doo that.