Do people think President couldn't use the military if one of these "patriot" groups attacked? [View all]

[SpartanDem]

Last edited Thu Mar 7, 2013, 03:38 PM - Edit history (5)

First, the use troops on US soil is not without historical precedent take John Brown's raid on Harper's Ferry it was the Marines who were called out to deal with the matter. But let's put it in modern terms we can understand, you may have seen a recent report by the Southern Poverty Law Center that the number of militia and patriot groups are at an all time high. What if these people, who've been stockpiling weapons for years, attacked a federal building thinking it's going to start the revolution? John Brown's raid consisted of 20 men, if 20 of these yahoos started shooting, I think the use of the military would be justified.

I think we have too many people having visions of the President just randomly bombing their neighbor. In his response, Holder sited Pearl Harbor and 9/11 and in my hypothetical scenario, these are situations in which the shit is literally hitting the fan. We're talking about situations bordering on war/insurrection. Presidents in the past have used these powers during "extraordinary circumstance" be it Washington during the Whiskey Rebellion or Buchanan at Harper's Ferry. So the idea that Obama was articulating some new imperial power is simply wrong.

UPDATE: AG Holder issued a statement today saying what I was trying to say with this thread.

Dear Senator Paul:
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.