That would have been scary.In the discussions, Mr. Cheney and others cited an Oct. 23, 2001, memorandum from the Justice Department that, using a broad interpretation of presidential authority, argued that the domestic use of the military against Al Qaeda would be legal because it served a national security, rather than a law enforcement, purpose.
The youtube blog I posted goes into some of the laws that it would violate. Many going back to the 19th century.Cpl Kendall wrote:Doesn't that violate some rather important laws?
Wait...Cheney...disregard.
Well, I didn't say that if she DID go in that you guys wouldn't take her to task for that as well...Mikey wrote:Actually, many of us have taken her to task for that type of disregard for local law. And that example presupposes an actual threat, not just the fact of someone having a different skin tone than Cheney.
Beside the point. Fresh fear =/= an actual incident.sunnyside wrote:But the date of that memo is a month after 9/11. While eight years of no large scale incidents have cast a different light on things, at that particular moment in time I don't think many people felt there was "no actual threat".
Probably -- O, and we didn't have a VP who thought he was more powerful than God? Remember:Cpl Kendall wrote:You guys have police for this, heavily armed police at that (SWAT). The thought of martial law being declared for what would certainly be a small group of lightly armed psycho's is ludicrous. You guys didn't call out the military for the Washington sniper, Ruby Ridge or Waco (and they apparently had .50 cals). What's different about this? The guys are brown?
