Sen. Tom Cotton is standing by an opinion article he wrote in the New York Times about using the military to control unrest around the country despite backlash from the newspaper’s own staff.
“Once again, it exposes the hypocrisy of all of these woke progressives who claim to defend liberal values, but as soon as they are presented with an opinion with which they disagree, they go into meltdown,” Cotton said Thursday on Fox News’s America’s Newsroom. “They demand censorship. They refer to words as violence. They call for firings at their newspaper.”
Recommended Stories
Several journalists at the New York Times slammed Cotton’s Wednesday opinion piece, saying that it endangered the lives of the paper’s black staff. An editor for the publication’s opinion section defended running the piece as an obligation to show readers “counter-arguments.”
The paper later ran a separate article on the backlash it received from running Cotton’s piece. Three unidentified journalists said they had informed their editors that sources told them they wouldn’t provide them with information anymore because of his article. Others online vowed to cancel their subscription to the paper because they couldn’t support an outlet that would publish a stance such as Cotton’s.
Cotton wrote in his piece that he encouraged President Trump to invoke the Insurrection Act, a law that gives the president the authority to deploy the U.S. military and National Guard troops domestically.
“One thing above all else will restore order to our streets: an overwhelming show of force to disperse, detain, and ultimately deter lawbreakers,” Cotton writes. “But local law enforcement in some cities desperately needs backup, while delusional politicians in other cities refuse to do what’s necessary to uphold the rule of law.”
The Arkansas Republican’s argument came in response to protests across the country demanding justice for George Floyd, a black Minneapolis man who died in police custody. In some cases, protests turned into riots that included instances of looting, arson, and even shootings.
Cotton argued on Thursday that there have been several historical examples of using the Insurrection Act as a “last resort” and that those who had a problem with his thoughts did not take into consideration the historical use of the act.
“In cases where local law enforcement is outnumbered and overwhelmed and where the National Guard is not sufficient, the Insurrection Act provides the legal basis with many historic precedents for the president to protect our citizens,” he said. “Progressives have not engaged with any of these arguments or any of these historic examples. They are simply throwing a temper tantrum.”
