THREAD: As a former @nytimes Op-Ed editor I am reluctant to weigh in on my alma mater. But the decision to publish @SenTomCotton calling for troop deployments to quell unrest falls short of sound journalistic practice. 
It calls for “an overwhelming show of force to disperse, detain and ultimately deter lawbreakers” but offers no evidence that existing law enforcement efforts—by National Guard troops, county sheriffs, city police departments—is failing.
As @EsperDoD said today: “The option to use active duty forces in a law enforcement role should only be used as a matter of last resort—and only in the most urgent and dire of situations. We are not in one of those situations now. I do not support invoking the Insurrection Act."
So why run this op-ed? It's true that since its inception in 1970, the page has run controversial and provocative perspectives—I know, because I edited many of them, by Republican and conservative writers, from 2011-15. (Hey @BobbyJindal!)
But the Cotton piece isn't original, or even timely. it might have been 2 days ago, but Pentagon, @EsperDoD and Mattis have been clearly pushing back. The governors haven't asked for military deployments—in fact, several told Trump it would make things much worse.
It accurately describes the Insurrection Act of 1807, but it is absurd, as the accompanying photos suggest, to compare the desegregation of Ole Miss in 1962 with the use of active-duty military in our streets right now.
#TruthMatters, and I will always read @nytimes. But the richest, largest and most powerful newspaper in America needs to exercise discretion and prudence in the use of its platform. This fell far short.
One final point: Today is the 31st anniversary of the start of the #TiananmenSquareMassacre, when Chinese troops, citing "rioting," killed thousands of peaceful protesters. Is that the message we want to be sending? /END
latimes.com/world-nation/s…
latimes.com/world-nation/s…
