That was then, this is now, *Mayday 1971* edition

That forthcoming book is authored by Lawrence Roberts, and the subtitle is A White House at War, A Revolt in the Streets, and the Untold History of America’s Biggest Mass Arrest.  Here is one excerpt:

The president had made his wishes clear.  That was why Kleindienst was pushing a military solution.  The police chief made one last attempt to dissuade him.  Let’s just suppose the crowd is big enough to shut down the government, Jerry said.  Wouldn’t it be better for us, he gently suggested, if the militants could crow only that they had defeated the police, rather than the mighty U.S. military?  An army official chimed in on Jerry’s side.  Why not wait a day, see if the troops were really necessary?



Prediction of where riots and the mob in the street will go is hard, and a gamble. Best of luck, they will fizzle out without requiring the army, and avoiding the downsides of getting them involved.

Still, prediction is hard. The best chance of accuracy is too look at recent historical experience and simple pressures, and to ignore the media's ideological stance on it.

Case in point, has there been any less accurate prediction by blog owners on this blog during this pandemic than Alex's April guess that Trump supporters would be rioting soon - ? Right about the rioting, I guess, exactly wrong (exactly opposite, the inverse of correct) about who would be rioting. (I think I called the demographic of who *would* be rioting, but not why that demographic would be rioting. +1 for calling the rioters based on who generally riots and the economic pressures, -1 for calling it based on scary MAGA hat people photos commissioned and published by The Grauniad.)

It is not hard. It is an election year. When Obama needed to mobilize the Black vote, BLM was born. When the Dems needed to win the 2018 midterms, MeToo came from nowhere.

Now the Democrats, or at least the rather large women from the Democratic Socialists I just saw on Russia Today, have become desperate. Could they do any more to encourage the rioting?

Re: " Democratic Socialists I just saw on Russia Today, have become desperate. Could they [meaning Democrats or large women? and Democratic Socialists] do any more to encourage the rioting?"

So Much,

You're kidding, right.

Putin is publicizing Democratic Socialists to defeat Donald Trump. You should tell Putin that he should not be letting RT put those Democratic Socialists on RT TV.

Unless the logic is that Putin is now supporting Biden.

I'm waiting for Trump to call Putin a Traitor, or, at least, Overrated.

By the way, who are these large women Democratic Socialists. And, Are you attracted to them because of their large breasts?

All of this incoherence is premised on the assumption Putin favored or favors Trump. And that there was collusion.

We now know that there was never any evidence of collusion. Rosenstein testified to that again today. 53 or so Obama administration figures swore under oath to Schiff's committee that they had no evidence of collusion. Robert Mueller himself was told clearly to stop referring to "Russians" in a way to imply that some teenagers were actually in the pay of the Russian government. And Crowdstrike swore under oath that they were not even sure the DNC server had been hacked much less by the Russians.

So all in all, very incoherent. Who cares what Putin is doing or wants? Democracy can survive some trolling from the poor Russian cousin of 4Chan.

"And Crowdstrike swore under oath that they were not even sure the DNC server had been hacked much less by the Russians."

You must have read a different report. It clearly says on page 24:

MR. STEWART OF UTAH: And can you identify that as being -- with a fair degree of confidence that it's associated with the Russian Government?
MR. HENRY: We said that we had a high degree of confidence it was the Russian Government.

You're right I had too much hydrocholorquine in my covfefe.

High confidence means he is guessing. It is the same transcript. In which he admits that there is no actual evidence the DNC server was hacked or data removed. He just says he thinks it was.

And by the way, I love the guy imitating me. He does a much better job than I could.

Collusion isn't a legal term. There was evidence that Trump's team was was communicating with Russia using encrypted phone apps. ( Signal )

1. Which was his job as part of the incoming administration 2, The CIA has transcripts of these conversations, and concluded Flynn was representing America's interests in them. So, exactly what was supposed to happen.

Well of course it is not a legal term. If you want to bring down a President and overturn an election, it is not as if you need an actual *crime* or anything.

Obamagate is the greatest political scandal in American history. It is interesting to see everyone is fine with it. Something to remember the next time a Democrat wins an election anywhere.

Republicans are fascists plotting to create a Christian theocracy in the US.

See, you can type anything you want here!

Obamagate, exactly what laws did he break?

In your mind, did Joe Biden use mind control to make Trump act like an idiot this election year? Trump is approaching comical levels of mustache twirling villainy. I'm almost expecting Shaggy and Scooby Doo to pop out of the Mystery Machine half-stoned any moment now.

Another devoted CNN fan I see. Actually Trump is doing nothing. It must be really frustrating. The point was to accuse Trump of Fascism when he restored law and order but he persistently won't Fash. He has left it up to the States. Good for him.

So the Democrats are reduced to foaming at the mouth because he walked over to a Church.

If he's leaving it up to the state then why does he keep threatening to use the military which is straight up dogging him? Trump is turning out to be an older but male version of a Karen. He spoke to the supervisor and still salty because he didn't get his way.

He says something. He doesn't do anything. If the Left wants to burn their own cities down, Trump seems fine letting them do so. He is just letting them know there are other options.

Again, accusing Trump of acting like an idiot is clearly the Journolist approved approach but it is not the one Trump is taking.

It'll be over soon, January 2021 we can get back to a better country.

You don't have to wait. Move to Russia now.

I guess Trump is the most fiscal conservative president ever, running a multi-trillion budget surplus repaying all Federal debt,...

Conservative and GOP spinmeisters no longer even attempt to match their claims with reality.


Actually, we call this the Trump Show, made for reality TV.

One of the past episodes we watched last night was the "Let's Put Children in Cages" episode narrated by Geraldo Rivera. Touching. Ended with a covid outbreak in the detention centers. Fortunately, Mike Pence was there to pray for them.

Guess it depends on whether you think the boogaloo types are rioting Trump supporters. Three have just been arrested.

Three former US servicemen and self-proclaimed members of the far-right "boogaloo" movement were arrested on domestic terrorism charges and accused of carrying unregistered firearms and trying to spark violence during protests against police brutality.

According to the charging document, which was reviewed by Business Insider, the three defendants previously served in the US Navy, US Army, and US Air Force.

The filing also noted that the men "self-identified as part of the 'Boogaloo' movement," which prosecutors described as "a term used by extremists to signify a coming civil war and/or fall of civilization." According to the Associated Press, all three men are white.

According to the Clark Country Detention Center records, Stephen Parshall, 35, Andrew Lynam Jr., 23, and William Loomis, 40, are each being held on $1 million bond. A preliminary hearing will be held on June 17.

No; it doesn't, the rioting is not "false flag" by Trump supporters, that support of conspiracy theory ideation simply does not match how widespread rioting and violence has been, unforced by any police action. It doesn't read as if these guys were even getting to the point of being out there at the outset or on the field inciting riots or anything; they were monitored from well before they did anything and stopped before it happened. We've had riots before and never needed anything like this to cause them; it's just rioting demographics doing what would be expected, not framing by right wing groups to make them look as if they would. That's a very silly idea.

Would this example count? "At a Sunday press conference, both Mayor Jim Kenney and police commissioner Danielle Outlaw were quick to separate the actions of those participating in the violent riots from those of the peaceful protesters seen earlier in the day. And when asked if it was true that a large percentage of those arrested on Saturday (we’re still waiting for the final numbers to come in) were white people who don’t live in Philadelphia, Outlaw, who is African American said, “They did not look like me.”"

Along with this. "Videos are making the rounds of white men in Fishtown armed with bats. They’ve said they are there to protect police and their neighborhood. One bystander, a WHYY reporter, says he was attacked by some of the men. He wound up in the hospital last night after filing a report with police. On Tuesday afternoon, both Mayor Jim Kenney and police commissioner Danielle Outlaw made it clear that “vigilantism” is unacceptable."

There are a number of people attempting to use present circumstances to their advantage. Instigating a riot is the sort of thing that a number of people - boogaloo, antifa, or any other bugaboo group - are attempting to do.

You can't really move from "the riots were incited by Trump supporters" to "the riots were incited by many people, such as anti-fa" and them claim these are remotely the same idea. Not that the blaming of the riots mainly or wholly on white anti-fas gets us much closer to anything plausible.

The links above don’t say anything about “antifas.” I’ve yet to hear of any riots incited by “anti-fas.” This account, which is otherwise pretty sympathetic to the police, claims that the antifas were the ones running the medical tents and keeping order among the protestors: I similarly didn’t see any antifas in the many pictures and videos I’ve seen of my local protests (one kid was arrested for vandalizing things with communist symbols but turned out to just be a random teenager and not connected to anything else).

“Antifas” are starting to feel like Emmanuel Goldstein to me.

Charles: "Instigating a riot is the sort of thing that a number of people - boogaloo, antifa, or any other bugaboo group - are attempting to do"

That's the bit I'm responding to, not the individual links. I've assumed Charles is summarising the argument he believes his links evidence here.

(As for "Emmanuel Goldstein"? There are few stereotypes I can see being given the five minutes hate by aspirant AmerSoc, anti-fa aren't really one of em).

That comment, using the phrasing 'or any other bugaboo group,' might actually be more than a bit dismissive of the facile use of labels when talking about rioting Americans. Especially in contract to the much larger number of peaceful protesters. That some people are actively working to conflate the two groups is more than obvious after Monday's presidential stroll across Lafayette Park.

one of the biggest elite left wing sociology scams is teaching kids that
property theft, arson, stealing, et all is a form of protest and then when they go out and burn stuff the left makes the dubious claim it is evil to conflate protesting with looting.
how many cnn.con videos have we seen in the last week with the "reporter" talking about peaceful protesters with big fires burning
in the background of the video image?

Boogaloos are on the right, not left. They are real. Antifa is on the left, not right. We've only seen hoaxes and false flags.

"We've only seen hoaxes and false flags."
that statement is not factual
we think you misdefined "only" or mebbe you need free eye test #5
can you spot any of the elite liberal harvard sociolgists in meester rogers neighborhood who have taught
students that impeding other peoples free movement is

I don't think that would follow with bracketing "bugaboo groups" in with "boogaloo" who he seemed to be originally claiming were causing things. Unless he's been totally facetious from the start here, idk.

To my understanding, boogaloo and antifa are convenient American labels used to explain various styles of people interested in fometing violence against a state they want to smash. The idea that rioters are just like soccer hooligans - that is, both groups are interested in violence pretty much for its own sake - seems foreign once someone is determined to frame what is often fairly senseless into a political framework. The rioters are rioting because that is what rioters do, just like soccer hooligans riot because that is what they do. The violence is inchoate, not part of anyone's particular political program or devotion to a particular team.

+1 mostly
what the rioters are doing is what elite liberal harvard sociologists have been teaching them to do for 50 years.
liberal democrats have taught students an invalid social construct- that blocking the movement of other people is
lawful peaceful protest/free speech. when anybody points that
out they shut up and look at you like you fraughted

Rioting is as old as civilization. It's not like the Nika rioters of Justinian's Constantinople needed "elite liberal Harvard sociologists" to teach them the ropes.

that is mostly silly+1
this is the funny part
elderly elite democratic liberal harvard sociologists couldn't get their ideology to work unless they fubared the definition of peaceful protest

Who are you going to believe? The Democratic supporting media or your own lying eyes? I mean, naturally all those Antifa protesters wearing black and sporting Anarchy signs are actually Trump-supporting Vets.

I guess it all makes sense to the people who thought there was any Russian collusion.

Actually the government did know where they would go since the object was to prevent government employees from getting to work for a day. There we’re detailed plans Where to go to block key intersection and bridges to create a traffic jam. Many people where I worked As a civilian employee of the military had already decided to stay home to show support for the anti war movement some even joined the demonstration

Well the anti-lockdown protestors basically had their demands met as all states are lifting lockdowns, so there was no reason to riot. The predictions of rioting were a warning to meet the protestors’ demands and ease lockdowns. If the lockdowns of early April were still in place today, maybe they would be rioting.

"Admittedly they didn't riot, and they never have rioted, but they totally would've rioted, eventually".

I mean, no. They were never gonna riot. It always gonna be the people who actually did riot that were gonna run riot, one way or the other.

But in any case, we should all remember how much this conjured up fear mongering contrasted with reality. And it wasn't because they got placated and privileged. It was because they were simply more peaceful. End of.

They didn’t riot because their demands were met. If new police accountability rules were put into place after BLM first appeared on the scene and there were no further unjustified police killings of blacks, these riots wouldn’t be happening either.

Peaceful people don’t march around so heavily armed. And any demographic can be provoked to rioting. There was rioting in Hong Kong and that’s probably one of the most peaceful demographics in the world.

This is pure unprovable speculation on your part, where it isn't claiming that non-violent, but sometimes armed protesters somehow were violent.

Alternatively, that they would riot was simply wrong and predictably wrong from the start.

Anyway, look, no one is destined to riot. The point I led with here is that prediction is tough after all.

But there are better and worse predictions. Mostly well off people who, if armed, are patriotic and peaceful and mostly want shops and businesses to continue and no one to be pushed into financial penury? Probably not gonna smash up a bunch of small businesses and attack police any time soon. The model that looked on these people as some sort of resentful threat that felt disrespected, ready to explode into violence, was a pretty bad model.

Relatively poor people who've been marinaded by the media and social media in a stew of unrealistic "information" on how they live in a dystopian racist anarcho-capitalist society that doesn't respect them or their lives? A bit more likely to burn businesses down and attack police, you'd guess.

They just see the videos of black people being killed by the police on camera. Over and over again, with nothing much changing since another black man died saying I can't breathe. Not that they need any video to know how they are personally treated by the police.

But who are African-Americans going to believe? Obviously, they cannot be trusted to know what their interactions with the police are like, compared to a well off MR commenter.

Something like *200*times* more young Black men are killed by other Black men every year than are killed by the police while unarmed. They could see those videos if they wanted - and if the Democratic party's Media wing chose to show them.

But they do not care about those deaths. No one does. Some Black Lives don't matter it seems. At least not to CNN.

They do not need any video to know how dangerous other young Black men are. That is why every Black person who can afford it does what every African who can afford it does - moves to a White neighborhood so they can be protected by White police officers.

Armed or unarmed innocent victim of the police? And of course, the police officer was acquitted, even with all the NRA protests pointing out that Castile was licensed to carry a firearm.

Who are we kidding? The NRA did not protest at all.

Well, the first mass protests against the Trump administration—against the Muslim ban—succeeded and did not devolve into rioting when the Trump administration walked back the most disruptive parts of that ban and kicked Steve Bannon out of the White House. Those protests were spearheaded by left-wing activists too (many lower-income and in the same social media environments you mention) yet did not descend into looting or rioting.

The reason these BLM protests often descend into violence is not because left-wing people are involved but because police violence, particularly but not only against blacks, seems to be an area where there is never any change. I think any group that was a political loser for decades and decades go would get a bit violent regardless of their prior dispositions (see Hong Kong).

They did not descend into violence because it was not an election year and the Democrats still hoped Mueller would do the job.

There is no evidence of an unusual amount of police violence against Blacks. There is considerable evidence that there is very little. Less so than against Whites.

There is never any change because no amount of reform of the police can change the way that young Black men are more likely to break the law. There is the problem. Blacks are hardly political losers. Indeed everyone goes out of their way to be nice to them and give them everything they want. We have entire industries (like Hollywood and academia) devoted to lying to make Blacks feel better about themselves.

BLM do not riot because people do not listen. They riot because they can and because the Democrats made it clear they could do so without consequence. They riot because people who study, work hard and obey the law have a lot of nice stuff they want. No more.

Again Race Riots do not take place in cities where there might be a robust response. They take place where there is support for the rioters. In the Sixties Blacks did not riot where they were oppressed. They rioted where the local authorities gave them a nudge and a wink. Minneapolis is hardly Bull Connor territory.

"Again Race Riots do not take place in cities where there might be a robust response. "

The whole paragraph starting with that line is just plain wrong. The LA Riots was absolutely against an LAPD that wanted to crack some black skulls. Even a sicko like Trump understands that sometimes you need to show who's boss. He tried to look tough talking about "shooting the looters" but it doesn't work when everybody knows you're cowering in the White House basement.

The looters are looters. They are not protesters. Any one spending any time watching the news can see that. BLM is not rioting.

you said
"mass protests against the Trump administration—against the Muslim ban—succeeded and did not devolve into rioting"

this is Not a factual statement

“Again Race Riots do not take place in cities where there might be a robust response. They take place where there is support for the rioters....”

And the citizens vote for it, unless someone is going to try and argue voter suppression.

What you have to watch out for is when people make the shift and they stop talking about rioters at all or even looters

It is when they say the army must clear "protesters" that we should be concerned.

And that happened this week. It happened with some very bizarre overtones. We have curious people who say that they are with the government but won't say how, who wear uniforms with no insignia.

We have national guard brought in from "loyal areas of the countryside."

Those are things I would have never even considered happening in America.

And then we have this letter from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, clearly written against some backdrop we cannot see:

If that letter appears like it's coming from "the wrong side," I think you have to review the comedy skit "are we the baddies?"

This is the problem with the young. They have no memory. No sense of history. Of course some of us older people can remember when military rule was imposed on America after Eisenhower sent the 101 Airborne to Little Rock.

Ahh, those were terrible years of dictatorship. Truly Fascism came to America. If it was not for the brave young students of Ohio State, no doubt military rule, with all its death squads and disappearances, would have continued past 1988.

We caught a lucky break there. But let's remember - it all begins with soldiers on the streets. As in the LA Riots. Or .... pretty much what every President since Eisenhower has done.

That is your answer to why men without insignia should face people singing songs in peaceful protest?

Huh? There's no "men without insignia" in the videos that you linked.

So boring. Such a trivial Google.

So useless. Go away you POS troll.

How the Bonus Army was put down by Hoover.

And a footnote - MacArthur disobeyed more than one president in his illustrious career - "Although the troops were ready, Hoover twice sent instructions to MacArthur not to cross the Anacostia bridge that night, both of which were ignored. Shortly after 9 p.m., MacArthur ordered Miles to cross the bridge and evict the Bonus Army from its encampment."

We should be really concerned about who organized this army without insignia.

Is it a president's private army?

It is hard to tell if this is delusional or a determined effort to distract attention from the Democrat's latest street thugs, antifa.

The Republicans do not put paramilitaries on the streets with the aim of intimidating. But of course the Democrats have a long history of doing just that. What are the chances?

If some guy with no insignia and just riot gear tells you what to do, how do you know he has authority?

How do you know he is not cosplay?

Who else does that?

Been busy with work, did I miss something?

Is the new insane conspiracy theory that Trump is planning a coup with the military? No insignia? What the hell are you guys taking about lmao

You are not paying attention.

according to Attorney General Barr there is a witches brew of ideological groups involved in the rioting
the above commenters are trying to shift blame
it is an obfuscatory technique taught in the academy

Watch this. Don't look away.

The bad apples are not doing much good for their departments this week.

don't do twitter.
what is it
what is your point

re: army w/o insignia hysteria
it has been reported that after the nonviolent protesters whipped up on the secret service, burned the church &injured over 100 LEO, they called in a bunch of federal marshals and bureau of prisons employees

Obama calls for police reforms, doesn't address Trump
He means no more cheap Redneck cops. We have them in Fresno, Rednecki cops. They are cheap, cheap, cheap. Did I say cheap? You will all be astounded at the cost of these new parental cops Obama wants.

Commander William Adama : There's a reason you separate military and the police. One fights the enemies of the state, the other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people.

The U.S. military's expertise, from what I can tell, is in logistics and the use of advanced weapons systems. It is a misuse of their talent and resources to use them for routine policing matters such as crowd control and enforcing laws against burglary. Local police are in the best position to know the mood of the people on the ground, what the most likely targets and gathering places are, all the side streets and alleyways people can hide in or escape through, who owns the grocery store across the street that always keeps a CCTV camera active and facing the street, etc. If they are really competent, they might already have an intelligence network in place to know who the key people are and what their next moves might be. Any lack of manpower at the local level should be supplemented by state police or local National Guard units.

I'd guess the missing part is intelligence efforts from the police. On a few weeks it will be known that riot leaders have a long story of troubles with the law. Why the police beats looters and reporters on the street instead of arresting key leaders? No idea.

The police are not going to be arresting Trump and Barr for attacking peaceful protesters. Much of the 'rioting' is the police deciding that peaceful protesters can no longer be tolerated (which may or may not be a proper decision), and then using various forms of crowd control methods to disperse the crowd. This has been far too often documented by video in multiple cities over multiple nights.

There are people looking to incite riots - see above. But most of the people protesting, and those leading such protests, have no interest in rioting.

what the elite liberal don't admit is-
the crux is often when large streets are blocked indefinitely.
the liberals have redefined forcibly blocking free movments of other people as "free speech" and "peaceful protest"
it is a postmodern scam

Interesting point. "Kettling" and blocking is OK when protestors do it, but is violence when the cops do it? Shades of traditional left wing acceptance of violence towards those that would break the picket line ('scabs')?

+1 exactly
you point that fact out to u.s. rep. j the penguin nadler
he will come up with a stupid non sequitar like
"a riot is a shoe fantasy"
todays elite liberal democrat messaging strategy is to
only talk about violence in the context of white supremacists
its a scam

Yes, peaceful protest often involves blocking streets. Civil disobedience (staying on the streets after reasonable orders to disperse) is often a part of protests. That's how they get attention. Some will stay until arrested. A common protest method.

Such activity is not rioting. It is not looting. It is protesting.

No one is staying on the streets "indefinitely". What a bogeyman comment.

I know you will never get it, but many of your comments are the definition of fascism.

+1 misdefining the word "indefinite "-(unspecified)
+1 for predictable misdiagnosis of fascism
blocking the movements of other citizens is not "peaceful"

There's a distinction between blocking other citizens trying to conduct business (which is like using a picket line to stop others working, a violence to them) and blocking the gov.

But there are even limits to blocking the gov; do so in a way that blocks police or medical activity, or creates a situation that harbours rioters, then that's causing or abetting a kind of violence, and a robust response is justified.

Aka, peacefully stand outside the local library or park and yell, no problem (I might verbally abuse you to your face for doing so, but that's free speech).

Sit ins at restaurants should cleared by the police though, let alone non-permitted marches at busy intersections used by traffic, those should all be cleared and arrested.

Your right to protest ends, when it infringes on the rights of others to conduct business and daily life.

Of course there is a bit more discretion to this, in practice, but in general, protests that aim to pressure other citizens to do what you want by interfering with their lives, not on. Those that aim to pressure the government, and do so safely in a way that does not impinge on government function to protect people or actually direct violence to the government employees, largely more OK (but totally subordinate to democracy, of course).

Look at HK, where anti-government protests were clearly both clearly directed at the government and "paused" to protect governments ability to protect citizens. Big contrast. Responsible protestors.

And using a helicopter marked with red crosses for crowd control in DC shows someone without any military expertise was in charge.

bold claim
how so?

Since the first Geneva Convention in 1864, red cross marked vehicles are not allowed to be used in any role apart from the humanitarian. A major reason being to prevent red cross marked personnel, vehicles and facilities from being attacked, as the red cross denotes activities that having nothing to do with any role in any conflict, apart from the humanitarian.

As explained in this passage - “Misuse of the red cross symbol is prohibited even during peacetime by the First Geneva Convention, to which the U.S. is a party,” said Rachel E. VanLandingham, a former Air Force attorney and professor at the Southwestern Law School in Los Angeles.

Linking the symbol with law enforcement, VanLandingham said, can weaken its “effectiveness as signifying medical and humanitarian assistance, a symbol of trust that is needed to give those vehicles with that symbol needed access where they are needed during armed conflict.”

you need an explanation
the geneva convention does not apply to riots in Washington d.c.

No, the Geneva Convention applies to any nation that is signatory. Though don't tell Trump. He'll probably pull us out of that agreement too.

doesn't a swiss army knife have a red cross on it.
if it was up to us
we would put red crosses on all our military heliocopters

You are an idiot

& we think you might be a harvard sociologist having a difficult time explaining why the left is wrecking stuff

Prof. Cowen, it's not clear from the brief text from the book if that discussion among the president, the police chief and the military was private or public while the protest was active. Or if it became public many years later after documents were declassified.

I'd guess things are different now. The discussion is made on twitter and newspapers.

Senator Cotton's guest op/ed in the NYT, pushing military intervention against the "insurrection", stands in sharp contrast to top military personnel who oppose Cotton's call to "send in the troops". What caught my attention in the op/ed are the inflammatory statements, the falsehoods, the outright lies, all to promote military action one might expect in Tiananmen Square not in America. Make no mistake, if the line is crossed in America, there's no turning back: martial law descending into chaos and dictatorship. Turning the military against Americans, exploiting the military for political purposes, will not only further divide the nation and inflame the existing conflict, it will forever end the respect and support all Americans have for our military. As Trump's incompetence and malevolence becomes increasingly apparent, even to his most ardent supporters, and his chances of re-election collapse, I expect Trump and his sycophants to resort to desperate actions, even military rule, to save their political fate even if it means destroying America.

You are exaggerating. Cotton was engaging in political theater for the law and order crowd. The rioters can be dispersed with existing forces, plus maybe the National Guard. But you have to be willing to use them. And this will is what is missing from the equation. And if nobody wants to do it then, yes, it will come to the military.

I don't think so. I think there are, and have always been, some hard right-wing authoritarians who wanted control.

There aren't very many of them, and so we treated them as comedic foils in movies like Doctor Strangelove.

But there are a few, and this is their moment. I hope it's a failed moment.

But right now, this week, they want the army to "dominate protesters."

remember those words. They aren't saying they want to stop a riot or to stop looting, they want to dominate protesters.

In the land of the free.

“People are saying”

“They want the army”

“They aren’t saying”

More stupidity. Who is this group ?

Skeptical---are you really this uninformed and stupid, or do you just play it that way on the MR blog to fit in with the other racists?

Who does this?

Why would you do that when it's safe enough for Elizabeth Warren to walk her dog among protesters?

It is probably fair to remember this quote.

Trump: “When the students poured into Tiananmen Square, the Chinese government almost blew it. Then they were vicious, they were horrible, but they put it down with strength. That shows you the power of strength.”

Cotton’s op-ed is pretty poorly timed coming as it does on the anniversary of the Tiananmen Square Massacre (technically it was June 3 here, but it was already June 4 in Asia).

More generally, the theme of 2020 has been the US government gloating at the misfortune of other countries, and then having the same thing happen here shortly thereafter. If I believed in the Gods, I might think this was punishment for hubris. Maybe we ought to stop doing that.

mebbe its not poorly timed
we don't remember tiananmen square protestors burning &looting chinese cities

We remember it for a totalitarian government crushing people protesting for more government accountability to its citizens.

Along with that image of a man stopping a column of tanks, who were just going to restore proper law and order.

the peaceful protestor narrative around the white house is looking a little sketchy. A.G. Barr says over 100 federal law enforcement peeps were injured over the weekend and that projectiles were being thrown on the way to the church (not the norm) which had been set on fire the night before.

If Tiananmen has happened in the middle of a pandemic, almost certainly spreading a disease killing people, largely by people who'd used their civil voice to argue for the opposite of the right to protest during a pandemic, with an element (however small, however unrepresentative) of open violence against the authorities and theft from the common people...

Would the PRC ever *stop* talking about it as an example against democracy? As opposed to their habitual silence at what happened then in our reality.

"Cotton’s op-ed is pretty poorly timed"

That was deliberate by the NYT I'd say.

we reckon the newyorktimes.con has a stack of "lodestar" type letters ready to go when they need one

I don't know if Cotton's op ed is poorly timed, or well-coordinated.

Certainly the NYT's controls which day an editorial is posted. So, obviously they could have been deliberately choosing the day.

Or more likely, every day is an anniversary of some event and no one bothers to track them all.

You would think that someone advocating deploying military force in the face of protests would have a tiny bit of awareness of protests successfully ended by military force. Such as the day the East Berlin uprising was crushed, or Budapest. The Prague spring is a bit easier to remember. I'm sure, as a former America Army officer, Cotton was taught those dates in one course or another at OCS.


If the NYT received the piece even earlier, that is even scarier.

newyorktimes.con just apologized for printing the cotton oped
(rushed editorial process) after readers got the vapors

Lyndon Johnson sent troops to Detroit in 1967. It's been done before and was necessary. I don't get why this is a big deal.

The scale of the issue. More than a dozen large metro areas have problems.

Which city send the troops first? What happens in the others while the first one is occupied? It's a very interesting strategic and logistic challenge. In this sense, it's nothing like 1967.

Are we arguing about the logistics/strategy behind the decision? Or whether it's the "right thing to do"? I thought it was the latter. The point is that this has been done before, and nothing bad came of it. Maybe it wouldn't work well this time, but the sheer fact that we have troops on the streets is not new, and has never been considered something 'un-American'.

Is it legal? Yes. Governor can call National Guard anytime, it's part of his duties to decide.

American/un-American? Well, the US is not an indigenous tribe ruled by customs.

Is it the right thing to do? Well, the Detroit thing ended with 40+ deaths. Most of deaths by trigger happy amateurs in the National Guard, a lot less by professional soldiers. One of the reasons to postpone this decision could be motivated by the amount of deaths resulting from military intervention. Nobody wants to make this call, it's an election year after all.

In that case, Governor Romney specifically requested the federal troops and until he did so, Johnson refused to send them. The issue of Romney's request was a very "big deal" at the time.

And nobody remembers it! So I don't really care about it being a 'big deal at the time', is it thought of as a big deal now? I don't think so.

It still is a "big deal" per the Insurrection Act. The Act stipulates the conditions under which the President can send federal troops to put down civil unrest (an "insurrection" if you will). The most commonly used conditions is met if the state requests help. If no such request is made, the President has to overcome more difficult hurdles. Read the Act. "Most people" haven't "forgotten" because they never had specific knowledge of the law. But, courts and judges don't "forget".

To add to Vivian Darkbloom's point, almost all of the cases where troops have been sent to a state without the consent of that state's governor have involved cases where the state government was actively defying or interfering with federal authority.

There is a good federalist argument for keeping it that way. Governors are free to call their respective National Guard units into service and to request assistance from the U.S. military. If they do not, it isn't clear why that is any of the federal government's business unless federal authority or the constitutional order are at stake. If the governor acts wrongly, the voters can punish him or her in the next election.

My understanding is that if a governor did call in the national guard, it would not be welcomed under the mistaken idea that this is 'un-American'. The Detroit example shows it happened before, it probably worked to calm down the riots, and can happen again. Of course, if it's carried our poorly that will be bad. But to claim that the very presence of a US serviceman on the streets is 'wrong' is not historical.

If a Republican governor requested national guard troops to be sent I find it very doubtful that all the people complaining now would be OK with it.

I don't think you understand the law in this area, or the history. The "National Guard" is already under the governor's control (with the exception of DC). What we are talking about here is sending in the Army and/or Air Force, which is under federal control. Romney had already sent in the Michigan National Guard which was not capable, on its own, to suppress the riots. After negotiations with Johnson, he specifically requested the latter to send in Army troops, which Johnson ultimately did--the 82nd and 101st Army Airborne divisions.

Twelve states -- including blue California and red Tennessee -- have already sent their respective National Guard units to stop unrest. This is about sending federal armed forces which, without the consent of a state's governor, is rightly treated as a last resort.

If a governor requests troops, them, sure, send them in. Otherwise, stand down. The rioting is subsiding on its own anyway. No reason to gin up further public outrage.

Of course, the President had, and still does have, much more authority to use federal troops in the District of Columbia than in the 50 states. The Posse Comitatus Act places restrictions on the President's use of active military personnel to restore civil order; however, the "Insurrection Act" is a major exception. It's not clear whether Trump would have the authority to use the Insurrection Act and if he did try to invoke it, it is quite possible the Army or Air Force could decline to obey such a "request' (the Posse Comitatus Act does not expressly apply to the Coast Guard or the Navy).

Interestingly, George Bush II asked for an amendment to the Insurrection Act which was enacted in 2007 but shortly thereafter repealed in 2008:

"The President may employ the armed forces ... to ... restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition ... the President determines that ... domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order ... or [to] suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such ... a condition ... so hinders the execution of the laws ... that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law ... or opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws."

To the best of my knowledge, the last President to invoke the Insurrection Act without a request from a governor or governors was Kennedy (sending troops to Mississipppi and Alabama).

I wonder what "Mad Dog" Mattis would have to say about this? Today.

This seems to be a more relevant article for our times than a look back at 1971 reminiscences.

Let's look at today and what is before us. Now.

Tyler is not particularly informed about the military, or its traditions. And many of the commenters here seem to think the American military is actually enthusiastic about getting the chance to gone down American citizens.

It isn't, and has never been. The military takes it oath to defend the Constitution much more seriously than our current president, a fact that is now being publicly discussed after that little walk across the park to church.

Or do worry, if you honestly think the American Army is less patriotic than the Cold War Polish Army that would not shoot their fellow Poles - and who would have shot at Soviet soldiers trying to do the job of putting down protests instead.

I am worried. Mattis and others do not write papers that quickly unless they know or suspect that their colleagues have been asked to review plans of or to prepare for some activity. Now, being asked to prepare or review plans is not the same as execution. But, if there has been such direction, you would expect Mattis and others would know about it and would be prepared to act quickly. The Atlantic article is quite long, and well written, and not something somebody dashed off Monday evening.

Mattis didn't write this article on his napkin Monday night. No way.

Mattis wrote it to keep Trump (more realistically, those around Trump) from thinking he can act like a king. With particular focus on the upcoming election.

The opening line of Mattis's piece reads: "I have watched this week’s unfolding events, angry and appalled." It is a long article. He had to know what others had been asked to do or prepare for. Even I do not write that fast.

Secondly, his piece is about the use of the military in domestic activities, and not simply about the upcoming election. If it were just the election, he could have been silent longer. No, I bet it is about what he heard from his colleagues re planning and preparation or review. And, we shouldn't close our eyes to that possibility. In fact, Congress should inquire about any such activity and any such directions.

"Don't worry," are you one of those old time commenters, under a new name, who has been living the "this is fine" cartoon for the last 4 years?

You were wrong, buddy. Suck it up.

The simple truth is that I have much, much more faith in the American military than you do. Mattis is about as far on the respectable right wing fringe as the officer corps gets. Yet he obviously takes his oath to the Constitution seriously, in a way that bunker baby obviously does not.

Barr might be a LARPing fascist playing with his federal LEO play action figures, but the American military is not under his control.

You are just being stubborn. You are avoiding looking directly at this:

Mattis thought he had to send that letter. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs thought he had to send his letter. The chief of operations for Europe and Africa thought he had to send a letter. The Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force thought he had to make a stand. Someone in the top of the Defense Department had to resign. And I think I missed a few.

Don't tell me "this is" fine when, *BECAUSE*, all hands are on deck.

(If they are on deck, maybe you should too.)

Or simply being realistic. The American military is proud to support the Constitution. And it was a former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, by the way - things would be very bad when the serving Chairman of the Joint Chiefs would write such a letter without resigning first.

Remember the Roosevelt? The military does - they know their commander in chief is not worth their respect. Which is a mjor reason for that stupid presidential show of force after his bunker sojourn became news. A true commander does not flee, nor do they make empty gestures to show their strength.

Something our president apparently did not learn after his stint at military school.

I am saying the time for free riding is over.

Retired Marine General John Allen today: “I’ve fought in overseas wars. I never believed the constitution to be under threat until recently.”

There's no such thing as fascism. Another lib lie.

You didn't read Mattis letter, did you?

Every word you write is a lie, including "and" and "the".

Re: There's no such thing as fascism. Another lib lie.

So Much,

I know what it is: You have covid and you can't smell the gas.

Time for Esper to testify, Pronto.

the military realizes that once it whores itself too deeply to cheap partisan stunts, it will end up like the CDC

Mattis probably should have put more effort into winning in Afghanistan when he was in command there and less writing revenge op-eds.

When you hear the truth
You call it

When is Bolton's book coming out anyway?
That could be revenge.
Or truth.
Or both.

Kek. prior_approval and anonymous trolling each other.

No one is invoking the Insurrection Act you clowns. The riots are already subsiding since there’s nothing left to steal

Just another
Empty threat
From the
Healer in Chief.

Why would
Mattis say
He was
And a threat
To our
Constitutional form of goverment?

Nixon did as fairly lousy job of defaulting.
We can do much better, but Trump will likely be even more clueless than Nixon. It is almost impossible to get it right as one ends up with a bunch of crying 'But this time was supposed to be different'. Flat earthers, it is an incurable disease in economics. That it is why it is called dismal economics, flat earthers.

Trump should wade into the crowd outside the White House and listen to what they have to say - just like Nixon did when he went to the Lincoln Memorial to meet with the protesters in 1970

Trump's idea of joining a crowd is to tear gas and beat it first.

Dude can't even listen to his own chief of staff.

If Trump gets re-elected (probably a coin flip), he will have even less constraint on his behavior. As in none at all. The Trump we see now wants to be re-elected. What happens when he doesn't have to worry about that.

He can't be impeached, he won't have to tone anything down (!) for re-election. First term was just the warmup.

Where was this tear gas used? That’s not what I read what happened.

BTW, it seems the German Interior Ministry convened a scientific panel to analyze its crisis management handling of Covid-1984 and the guy who leaked it has been suspended. The German government is covering “it’s just a report from one guy,” but it wasn’t:

The Covid19 danger was overestimated;

The people who died from Covid would have statistically died this year anyway;

When the report was written In that quarter worldwide, there were more deaths from the 1918 pandemic than From Corona (but let’s face it, the Chinese haven’t been forthcoming); and,

More are dying from delayed treatment than from the virus.

There was no Russia Collusion but a case for coordinated Treason by members of the FBI and CIA and others? 3 years of Kabuki because Orange Man Bad. Now I’m wondering if Nancy didn’t reconvene the House because she knew these riots were coming. Much better to stay home with her $24k freezers filled with expensive ice cream.

I know when I think of ostentatious displays of wealth, one of the first things that comes to mind is... ice cream in the freezer.

think harder!
try thinking about a $24,000 freezer full of gourmet ice cream in a big mansion owned by somebody who is worth over 100 million dollars

You know it's bad when your whole argument is that it's *technically* not tear gas.

It is a different commercial product.

As I say, review the comedy skit "are we the baddies?"

Yes the rioters are clearly on the moral high ground.

"are we the baddies?"

No one was rioting at the church in DC. There were multiple live video feeds of this whole event. You could watch them. The police forces came in without standard notice (usually takes about two hours to declare and enforce a dispersal order minimum).

You are posting content-free racist propaganda again and again.

that's not the whole argument. they claim that projectiles were being thrown on the way to the church after a weekend in which over
100 federal officers were injured in riots in that neighborhood

looks like new York just had another "mostly" peaceful protest where a officer got stabbed in the neck and then there was a shooting.

That was a great scene in the movie, "Nixon," starring Anthony Hopkins.

You don’t need to wade into the crowd to know more money — which is The House’s responsibility — If those voters want to vote to do away with police presence in their own communities and redirect those funds to programs, as is one of the demands, no one is stopping them. No one HAS stopped them from putting that on the ballot in these decades-long dem strongholds - why aren’t their Dem elected representatives listening? Hold a special election and vote. That is their community they can do what they wish.

As their communities have already decided that citizens can steal hundreds of $ of goods every day and not get penalized.

I can choose to vote for police in my community and choose not to visit their city. But to disband police nationwide? Then try and disarm the citizenry? Get real.

LA is stripping over $100 mil from the LAPD to put into the communities of color.

That's interesting.

Maybe they should put the police pension fund into urban renewal projects, such as owning or restoring the stores that were damaged. No violence in the neighborhood means no broken windows which as a landlord they as a landlordwould have to repair.

Or, they could put police pension money into insurance pools that would pay out city damages for police claims. If no claims, they earn more money.

I hear incentives matter all the time.

"I hear incentives matter all the time."


I remember when that Sudanese kid, Achmed, invented the clock that looked like a bomb.

From a game-theory standpoint: How will the left, if it keeps legitimizing the rioters, not get the November election handed to Trump?

Do not underestimate the effect of voters who, despite their disdain for the other side and despite agreeing with your camp's long-term position, are too disgruntled by your recent positions – and thus rather stay home (see the last UK election). I can't see how this camp will not expand in the coming months.

Indeed, thinking about some key swing voter groups for this fall's presidential election and down ballot elections, it's easy to see lots of downside for Democrats in the fall.

(1) Suburban women, generally median income or above, who are moderate or Republican-leaning but dislike Trump for the tweets, and inflammatory statements. Arguably the group of voters that resulted in Democrats taking back control of the House in 2018. (The Dem House candidates that won these districts were, by the way, largely centrists, often with backgrounds of military service.) Fundamentally a "law and order" group of voters, though not in the sense of cracking heads.

(2) Blue collar voters, often unionized construction trades or manufacturing, who historically voted for many (if not all) Democratic party candidates but are no longer Democrats due to the woke left. A particularly important group of voters in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, and a big part of Biden's electability appeal is the idea that he can do better with these voters than Hillary.

Trump is toast. You know this.

Whatever, my interest is largely analytical. If Trump wins, so be it. If Biden wins, so be it.

But, hey, if you are actually willing to contribute something useful and not just troll: explain to me how moving toward AOC on environmental issues helps Biden get the marginal votes that he needs in the marginal states that he needs to win. Seems like he and his advisors are essentially going to repeat the same mistakes as Hillary and the geniuses who ran her campaign.

Pretty good timing by Roberts, although if his book had a publication date of April 28 instead of July 28 he would've been spot on.

The stakes were higher in 1971, not only was the ongoing war more major then but protests had already had spurts of violence, from both sides be it Kent State or the Weather Underground. The most recent protests have mainly featured violence against property but we need only look back a few months to see protests that featured human conflict be it demonstrations, counter-demonstrations, and fights between alt-right and antifa types, shooting of cops, and shooting by cops, with armed bougaloos waiting in the wings. What remains to be seen is will the violence reach 1970s levels.

Comments for this post are closed