<< News Scan | Main | News Scan >>


Military Force Within the United States

| 0 Comments
Attorney General Holder's letter to Rand Paul has been the subject of some commentary.  It is available on Sen. Paul's site, here.

It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States.
One need not imagine.  It has happened.  President Washington used military force to put down the Whiskey Rebellion.  President Lincoln used military force to quash a larger rebellion.  President Eisenhower sent the 101st Airborne to deal with Little Rock High School.  Fortunately, they didn't have to shoot anyone in the latter instance, but they might have.

We have not hesitated to criticize Mr. Holder on this blog when he is wrong, but he is right in this instance.  A lawful use of military force, even on American soil, cannot be ruled out in advance, even though the circumstances would have to be extreme and are unlikely to occur in our time.

Update:  The WSJ has this editorial Thursday:

The country needs more Senators who care about liberty, but if Mr. Paul wants to be taken seriously he needs to do more than pull political stunts that fire up impressionable libertarian kids in their college dorms. He needs to know what he's talking about.

Update 2:  The AG has sent Sen. Paul a supplemental letter:

It has come to my attention that you have now asked an additional question: "Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?" The answer to that question is no.

Leave a comment

Monthly Archives