Share

Cheney Pressured Bush to Authorize Use of Military on US Soil

by: Jason Leopold, t r u t h o u t | Report

photo
Dick Cheney wanted to use the military on US soil. (Photo: The Los Angeles Times)

    Former Vice President Dick Cheney pressured President George W. Bush and other top administration officials to deploy US soldiers to a Buffalo, New York, suburb to arrest suspected terrorists, according to a report.

    Using American soldiers for domestic law enforcement purposes would have been unprecedented. The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 generally prohibits the armed forces from acting in a law enforcement capacity.

    The Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution states that “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.”

    â€śSome of the advisers to President George W. Bush, including Vice President Dick Cheney, argued that a president had the power to use the military on domestic soil to sweep up the terrorism suspects, who came to be known as the Lackawanna Six, and declare them enemy combatants,” says a report published Friday evening in the New York Times.

    Bush ultimately opposed the idea.

    But Cheney, according to the Times, said a 37-page October 23, 2001, legal opinion prepared by John Yoo, the former deputy assistant attorney general in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), authorized the president to use the military for domestic matters. Yoo’s legal opinion, “Authority for Use of Military Force to Combat Terrorist Activities Within the United States,” was declassified and released along with other OLC memos in April.

    Yoo, who is a visiting law professor at Chapman University in Orange, California, asserted that the president had unlimited powers to prosecute the “war on terror” on American soil and could ignore constitutional rights, including First Amendment freedoms of speech and the press and Fourth Amendment requirements for search warrants.

    â€śThe current campaign against terrorism may require even broader exercises of federal power domestically,” Yoo wrote. “First Amendment speech and press rights may also be subordinated to the overriding need to wage war successfully. The current campaign against terrorism may require even broader exercises of federal power domestically.”

    The memo also said that Bush had the legal authority to order searches and seizures without warrants against individuals whom he judged to be terrorists.

    â€śWe do not think a military commander carrying out a raid on a terrorist cell would be required to demonstrate probable cause or to obtain a warrant,” said the memo, which was prepared by Yoo for then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales and Defense Department attorney William Haynes. Another OLC attorney, Robert Delahunty, was identified as a co-author of the memo.

    â€śWe think that the better view is that the Fourth Amendment does not apply to domestic military operations designed to deter and prevent future terrorist attacks.”

    Just three months before Bush exited the White House, Stephen Bradbury, as acting chief of the OLC, renounced the October 23, 2001, legal opinion in a “memorandum for the files” that called Yoo’s opinion about suspending First Amendment protections “overbroad and general and not sufficiently grounded in the particular circumstance of a concrete scenario.”

    In a memo written October 6, 2008, Bradbury wrote that Yoo’s legal opinion “states several specific propositions that are either incorrect or highly questionable.” But Bradbury attempted to justify or forgive Yoo’s controversial opinion by explaining that it was “the product of an extraordinary period in the history of the Nation: the immediate aftermath of the attacks of 9/11.”

    The October 23, 2001, memorandum “represents a departure, although perhaps for understandable reasons, from the preferred practice of OLC to render formal opinions only with respect to specific and concrete policy proposals and not to undertake a general survey of a broad area of the law or to address general or amorphous hypothetical scenarios that implicate difficult questions of law,” Bradbury wrote.

    It’s still unclear what prompted Bradbury to draft the memo to the file, although his legal work, along with Yoo’s and that of Yoo’s boss, Jay Bybee, a federal judge, was the subject of an internal Justice Department investigation by the Office of Professional Responsibility, which is expected to release its report sometime this summer.

    Yoo was sharply criticized in an inspector general’s report released two weeks ago for using flawed legal theories and failing to cite legal precedent when he authorized Bush’s domestic surveillance program. The report said Yoo worked closely with Cheney’s attorney, David Addington, in drafting the legal memo that permitted domestic spying – the same memo Cheney cited when he told Bush he could deploy American soldiers to upstate New York to arrest suspected terrorists.

    Some of Yoo’s thinking on domestic military operations was revealed in an even earlier memo than the one dated October 23, 2001– another written 10 days after the 9/11 attacks, on September 21, 2001. The memo was drafted in response to a question posed by Timothy E. Flanigan, the former deputy White House counsel, who wanted to know “the legality of the use of military force to prevent or deter terrorist activity inside the United States,” according to a copy of Flanigan’s memo.

    Yoo suggested some scenarios, such as the need to shoot down a jetliner hijacked by terrorists; to set up military checkpoints inside a US city; to implement surveillance methods far superior to those available to law enforcement; or to use military forces “to raid or attack dwellings where terrorists were thought to be, despite risks that third parties could be killed or injured by exchanges of fire,” according to his memo.

    Yoo argued that President Bush would “be justified in taking measures which in less troubled conditions could be seen as infringements of individual liberties.... We think that the Fourth Amendment should be no more relevant than it would be in cases of invasion or insurrection.”

    Yoo wrote that his ideas would likely be seen as violating the Fourth Amendment. But he said the terrorist attacks on 9/11 and the prospect that future attacks would require the military to be deployed inside the US meant that President Bush would “be justified in taking measures which in less troubled conditions could be seen as infringements of individual liberties.”

    In his 2006 book, "War by Other Means: An Insider’s Account of the War on Terror", Yoo cites various arguments for local and federal law enforcement agencies, as well as a sitting US president, to ignore the Fourth Amendment, especially regarding domestic surveillance.

    â€śIf al-Qaeda organizes missions within the United States, our surveillance simply cannot be limited to law enforcement,” Yoo wrote. “The Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement should not apply, because it is concerned with regulating searches, not with military attacks.”

    The Times report said that “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.”

    â€śAmong those in opposition were Condoleezza Rice, then the national security adviser; John B. Bellinger III, the top lawyer at the National Security Council; Robert S. Mueller III, the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; and Michael Chertoff, then the head of the Justice Department’s criminal division.”

    However, senior military officials, including Richard Myers, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, were never consulted about the proposal.

    â€śFormer officials said the 2002 debate arose partly from Justice Department concerns that there might not be enough evidence to arrest and successfully prosecute the suspects in Lackawanna,” the Times reported. “Mr. Cheney, the officials said, had argued that the administration would need a lower threshold of evidence to declare them enemy combatants and keep them in military custody.”

    Bush eventually ordered the FBI to arrest five Yemeni Americans suspected of having ties to al-Qaeda in Lackawanna. A sixth person was arrested in Bahrain immediately thereafter. All six pleaded guilty to guilty to terrorism-related charges.

  

»


Comments

This is a moderated forum.  It may take a little while for comments to go live. Be civil and on-topic, don't threaten or advocate violence, please keep it under 300 words. Thanks for participating.

It seems that Mr. Cheney,

It seems that Mr. Cheney, Addington and Yoo have forgotten the words of Moses: "Be certain that your sin will find you out." And as Martin Luther King said, "No lie can last forever," even the ones we tell ourselves.

I see the Bush presidency as

I see the Bush presidency as most of the time trying to hold Cheney back from conquering the whole world, and the US. The man should be in jail, not on tv.

Hitler couldn't take away

Hitler couldn't take away our freedoms and make us live under a ruthless dictatorship. Stalin couldn't either. George Bush, working with his collection of lunatics and with the support of Osama Bin Ladn came closer than either of them. The greatest real threat to American Democracy came from our own government.

Students, alumni and faculty

Students, alumni and faculty at UC Berkeley, where John Yoo is currently employed, should put pressure on their regents and university president to remove Yoo from their faculty. There have to be consequences for such actions.

This is breathtaking

This is breathtaking considering that Bush also took steps to categorize certain domestic groups as terrorists--e.g., environmental and animal advocates. The unconstitutional Animal Enterprises Terrorism Act was jammed through during a congressional recess. All of this, of course, was on behalf of corporate polluters and animal agribusinesses that had their heyday during the Bush II era. Don't think that the "war on terrorism" didn't turn out to be a convenient catch-all to justify a peek in on the activities of a large numberr American citizens. Anti-war and other peaceful protesters were also targeted. Disgusting.

Yoo's opinions and Cheney's

Yoo's opinions and Cheney's push seem to indicate a total ignorance of the lessons of Hitler's Germany.

The fact that the FBI

The fact that the FBI handled the case with no problems only accentuates the fact that, when faced with any crisis, the Bush-Cheney reaction was always whatever is most radical, most costly, and most damaging to the United States of America as a whole. Iraq remains the crown example.

I hope Bush and his cronies

I hope Bush and his cronies are eventually punished to the full extent of the law. Otherwise, as has been happening, each successive Republican president ventures further into canceling our constitutional rights.

Ah, Detroit 1967?

Ah, Detroit 1967?

Feeling somewhat sardonic

Feeling somewhat sardonic here, may I suggest that it is not a stretch too far into the imagination, to picture in one's mind's eye, Messrs. Cheney, Yoo and Addington promulgating that the Supreme Court be abolished, never minding the 4th Amendment, as it should be seen as moot in the era of The War on Terror; that anything goes when it comes to Presidential power, and that a DOJ/Whitehouse administered High Tribunal, consisting of those "Three Wise Jurists," Cheney, Woo and Addington. Now, how proud the "Gipper" would have really been!

The U.S. constitution as

The U.S. constitution as originally written was designed to protect citizens from the proclivities of government. It stands alone in this regard. Virtually all constitutions on the planet are written protecting the state or the government and giving it the power to protect the common good. As we see by this article a Dick Cheney will define the common good in vastly different ways then a Thomas Jefferson or even a Homer Simpson might. Defining the common good is a subjective undertaking thereby opening the door to wholesale abuse (tyranny). I am sorry to say that in this day Americans need protection from their government. Our government writes laws benefiting corporate interests, or put another way "those who believe they are acting for the common good". The miracle that America was, was based upon a foundation that when viewed from another country provided a beacon of hope for individual people around the world. That beacon has diminished and can only return if and when the simple tenet of the true American dream, the right to protect oneself from one's own government, even by dismantling it, is exercised.

Chain, chain, chain,

Chain, chain, chain, Cheney's ghouls...

Isn't it time the repubs.

Isn't it time the repubs. take a turn @ Zeroing Out the Deficit, Creating an Infrastructure, Creating Jobs, Getting people Off Welfare, Into School, & Positioned in a Career, while Leaving a Record Surplus for the Dems. to Pee Away on Illegal War profiteering, Deregulated Banks, & Investors Gone Wild? And why Not? Who could possibly find reason to complain? Perhaps if they did it in the name of God, & @ the Co$t of about 5,000 American Lives? Mission Proposturous!

Has the current president

Has the current president made any declaration to restore Posse Comitatus (the law that prevents use of US military force against US citizens without the expressed consent of the government of the state involved - EVER)? I don't think this president has done much to restore our now soiled Bill of Rights - just a lot of lip service - no real change. And why is that? Why has this man kept that option open for himself? What would it cost him to stand up and say "I hereby restore Posse Comitatus"? Right after Katrina in October 2005, Bush talked about 'we need to think about how we can use our military in the event of a domestic emergency - like a bird flu pandemic'. What on earth is going on here? And they've ordered 600M doses of Swine Flu vaccine - how are they going to get us to take all those shots? Doesn't look good at all.

Of every ten articles in

Of every ten articles in Truthout, four of them are lamenting new revelations about the demonic duo (Bush/Chenney) yet no one is calling for trials and consequent jailing of these monsters and the new President is himself now subject to impeachment for not protecting the constitution and pushing for their trials. When our local fascists (the Rethuglicans) win the next election by lies and subterfuge (and they will), they wont need to go back to zero because there have been no deterrents placed on their devilish intentions by Obama; all to the contrary, it looks like he is going out of his way to make life as pleasant and safe for them as humanly possible. Is anyone willing to take on the fascists and bury their evil ways? Please, anyone??

Cheney, Addington, and Yoo!

Cheney, Addington, and Yoo! All forever free and feted in an America truly beyond the pale. In the barbarous tradition of utter terror, torture and criminal mass murder, the grand tradition of Henry Kissinger, burns resplendently. They will all go off into the good American fascist night, profiting all the way! Obama and his love for the drones of state terror, is cut from the same cloth, although infinitely more hypocritical and disingenuous .Cheney, the devil take his scabrous soul, at least never attempted to obfuscate his chilling delight in what is clearly, unconscionably evil. One cannot say the same of Obama's continuance of the American imperium and the reign of permanent state terror he promulgates. One gets much the same thing bathed in the glow of platitudes, oratory and a shameless duplicity–(Jill Bains)

For the several years of the

For the several years of the Bush-Cheney administration the United States existed in what jurists call a "state of exception" in which essentially ALL normal rights, procedures, and constitutional protections are suspended. That martial law was not declared was a matter of convenience to the government, as was the continued operation of criminal courts, traffic courts and regular police work. Walking us back from this "state of exception" will be an extended process as we still are in a state of war. We can take some comfort that the current administration does seem to want to get back to a constitutional government.

And Sebelius said we cannot

And Sebelius said we cannot sue if any harm is caused from this hastily co ncocted vaccine..

bush "oposed" cheney? On

bush "oposed" cheney? On what authority?

Let Bush and Chcney be

Let Bush and Chcney be brought before the courts. "If they have done nothing wrong, they have nothing to fear," maybe even if their hand-picked supporters, all the way up to the Supreme Court, are there to protect them.

To 03:40 — Martin: I

To 03:40 — Martin: I agree. The problem is that when we enter a state of intentionally imposed permanent "war", the exception becomes the rule. This is why we cannot afford to give up our rights EVER, not even "temporarily". As in 1984, "We are at war with Eastasia. We have always been at war with Eastasia." This is the purpose of being in a state of permanent war. The real war is against us and our constitution.

Have these people done

Have these people done anything right?

A blueprint for a military

A blueprint for a military takeover. There are elements in the military who'd be happy to join in the fun. Put some "discipline" into America. ("Yes, sir, you have to stop at this checkpoint. No, sir, you don't have any rights; this is a national emergency. Nothing personal, sir, but I have to shoot you because the captain ordered me to...")

Cheney, Yoo and Addington

Cheney, Yoo and Addington never believed that The Constitution was an actual working document in our country anyway. And Bush, with his signing statements, showed his real regard for the work of Congress. Let's put Rove, Miers and all these other people under the lens of Special Prosecutors, clear up all this mess and define who does some Jail Time, here. Why are we not taking action against these evil doers???

Pulitzer prize winning

Pulitzer prize winning journalist Charlie Savage wrote an astounding book called -Takeover: The Return of the Imperial Presidency and the Subversion of American Democracy - all about the Bush/Cheney/Yoo attempt to subvert the constitution. Its a must read-we were lucky enough to have mr. savage as a guest on our show... in this excerpt Savage discusses whether Bush can legally defy Congress and the Constitution... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvm-QzFI9dw kathryn jones msl

Cheney - 9/11 a terrorist

Cheney - 9/11 a terrorist act or motivation for war/control? An awful question.

Difficult for US under Obama

Difficult for US under Obama to do an about face and criticize the coup in Honduras when their was in effect a coup led by Justices Antonin Scalia and Sandra Day O'Connor that put Bush into the White House in 2000. From that point on the Bush-Cheney administration did anything and everything necessary to hold onto their power grab which was completely successful thanks to a compliant and corrupt US Congress. These stories simply add flesh to the bones of these crimes.

To the post about martial

To the post about martial law-after 911 we were in fact under martial law-a technicality of law introduced by an earlier Bush administration national security directive that called for the suspending of constitutional protections whenever the President publicly declares a "national emergency". I am uncertain as to whether we have ever declared that national emergency to be over. If not, then we are still technically under martial law. I am not a lawyer so I have no idea whether or not a National Security Directive can be considered "legal" or not. Perhaps someone with knowlege of that could answer. I believe the first time this was in effect was during the first Gulf war. This brings one to conclude that much of what happened under the second Bush administration with regard to the flouting of constitutional rights was all very much grounded in this national security directive. If my memory on this is correct, a Texas congressman stood up during the Iran Contra hearings to ask about this NSA directive and was admonished by the chair to cease from asking such questions publicly. The congressman protested to the chair that it was his belief that any directive ordering the suspension of the United States constitution should be discussed openly and not in closed session. He was told to sit down or face censure and/ or removal from the hearings.

Violations of the Posse

Violations of the Posse Comitatus act have been part of the general MO of how things get done in DC and around the country for decades. Today's story on Democracy Now revealing illegal cooperation between Army Intelligence and local and state police is yet another peek under the hood. Cheney, Bush, Addington, Yoo -- all are only more candidly flagrant in their contempt for the fig leaf of constitutional law than the typical occupants of the offices they held. The Obama administration couldn't change such policies even if it wanted to. The two party system is owned and operated by the corporations, which are not interested in justice. They are interested in power and the profits which flow from it. Anything coming between them and these two ultimate objectives, be it political activists, competent and honest journalists or politicians, or The Constitution of the United States of America, will sooner or later be collateral damage. "Terrorism" is nothing more than the most convenient cover story and rationale currently available to explain corporate depredations to an increasingly restive and unreliable electorate.

Well, I now think Obama

Well, I now think Obama should order the Marines to arrest Cheney, Addingnton, Yoo and the rest of the criminal neo-conspirators and hold them in one of the secret detention centers they've build around the world. What goes around eventually comes around. Is there a more hated and reviled man in the world than Dick Cheney? He seems to relish the hatred he gets. He is the walking and talking definition of the criminally insane.

With all the egregious

With all the egregious abuses fresh in our minds here, write to Attorney General Eric Holder at AskDOJ@usdoj.gov with your grievances and demands!!