It was my hope that this localized situation would be brought under control by city and State authorities. If the use of local police powers had been sufficient, our traditional method of leaving the problems in those hands would have been pursued. But when large gatherings of obstructionists made it impossible for the decrees of the Court to be carried out, both the law and the national interest demanded that the President take action.

If radical left lunatics disrupt the election, it should be very easily handled by — if necessary, by National Guard, or if really necessary, by the military.

We must reject any thinking of our cities as a "battlespace" that our uniformed military is called upon to "dominate." At home, we should use our military only when requested to do so, on very rare occasions, by state governors. Militarizing our response, as we witnessed in Washington, D.C., sets up a conflict — a false conflict — between the military and civilian society. It erodes the moral ground that ensures a trusted bond between men and women in uniform and the society they are sworn to protect, and of which they themselves are a part.

More and more, we all confront difficult questions about how to prevent the slaughter of civilians by their own government, or to stop a civil war whose violence and suffering can engulf an entire region. I believe that force can be justified on humanitarian grounds, as it was in the Balkans, or in other places that have been scarred by war. Inaction tears at our conscience and can lead to more costly intervention later. That's why all responsible nations must embrace the role that militaries with a clear mandate can play to keep the peace.

There was only one justification for the use of troops; to uphold the law. Though Faubus denied it, I, as President of the United States, now had that justification and the clear obligation to act ... the 101st Airborne Division, from nearby Fort Campbell, Kentucky, arrived in Little Rock; another five hundred moved in later the same day.

If there is no attack on police, if there is no use of violence, of course there is no need for police to resort to the use of force. You can see petrol bombs being thrown, you can see fire being set, you can see people being dragged out of the car because of opposite views. So, this is sowing the sea of terror which I think police must deal with.

Well, I think we use all of the tools that make sense. And if using the National Guard, which is folks I think in New York state are already using the National Guard, that is something that has to be done. This is clearly, as the vice president indicated, a national emergency. And what I worry about is not only how we respond aggressively to the virus, but also how we respond aggressively to the economic fallout of a global recession. So right now, in Illinois and Ohio, if my memory is correct, the governor there has said they're closing down bars, they're closing down restaurants. What happens to the workers who are there? What happens to the millions of workers who may end up losing their jobs? So what I think we have got to do right now is, if Trump can provide or the Fed can provide a trillion and a half to -- for liquidity for the banks, what we've got to say to every worker in America, you know what, don't panic. You're not going to -- you'll be able to pay your mortgage, because you're going to get a check.

The military was the last resort to contain social and political chaos. It would have been very dangerous if the military had faltered . . . . The troops were mobilized to save the nation. We did not intend to take power. It is not proper at all to link the incident with a coup.

but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.

If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.

[The] police needed to be given sufficient resources to do that job properly

If I had been told to get out of the street as a teenager, there would have been a distinct possibility that I might have smarted off. But, I wouldn’t have expected to be shot.<p>The outrage in Ferguson is understandable—though there is never an excuse for rioting or looting. There is a legitimate role for the police to keep the peace, but there should be a difference between a police response and a military response.<p>The images and scenes we continue to see in Ferguson resemble war more than traditional police action.

As much as I’m honored by this award, I do want to address what’s happening right now outside of the building. There are ruthless attacks that are creating fear and chaos in our communities in the name of law and order. Trump is using military forces to stop a protest. And I want y'all to consider what kind of government it appears to be when every time we exercise our democratic right to protest, the military is deployed against us. What type of government is that? People are being swept up and torn from their families, and I feel it's my responsibility as an artist to use this moment to speak up for all oppressed people. For Black people, for Latino people, for trans people, for the people in Gaza. We all deserve to live in hope and not in fear, and I hope we stand together, my brothers and my sisters, against hate, and we protest against it.

Pushback from former national-security officials is a good thing for the country and the agencies once served by these dissidents. Just as the Founders envisioned a citizen army so the defense of the nation would be in the hands of the people, a national-security structure responsive to responsible dissent should be cherished.