As the New York Times points out, the use of the military on US soil is prohibited by both the Fourth Amendment and by the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. Yet, this proposal was advanced by Dick Cheney, David Addington, and unnamed Defense Department officials.

Opposed 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. The legal basis of the claim that to use the military in this case was, naturally, the Yoo/Delahunty memo of Oct. 23, 2001.

The lawless impulses of Dick Cheney have been well-documented, and of course this comes as no surprise. But what always shocks me, and what is of course absent from the NYT article, is any explanation as to the why. Why do this? What was the virtue, beyond a naked grasp for executive power, in doing this? What threat did the so-called Lackawanna Six pose that could not be handled by the FBI? What is the benefit to the American people if we choose to use our armed forces this way?

I have no idea. Years after the abuses instigated by Cheney first came to light, I still haven't the slightest understanding of what his motives were. And I don't suppose I'll ever know.

Updated to add: Many of you have made excellent points about the will to power, the fetish for nationalism, and the codification of executive power.

They are all plausible explanations of his immediate motives. But ultimately, I think they fail to satisfy. There have been many ultra-nationalists and authoritarians who have occupied the Oval Office. None have shown the repeated and reckless disregard for established US law and principle demonstrated time and again by Cheney. It is all too easy, with all that has happened, to view Cheney as a cartoon villain, like the Commie Nazis from McBain. But he's a human, and there must be a more human explanation out there.