1/ So in this thread I'm going to point out what's wrong with that Tom Cotton piece. I'm going to start by agreeing with a couple of his points, bear with me, I'm going to get around to disagreeing.
nytimes.com/2020/06/03/opi…
nytimes.com/2020/06/03/opi…
2/ To start with, is it exaggerated? Is the level of rioting and violence the same as the 1960s? My gut says the protests have been overwhelmingly peaceful with occasional violence. 
3/ Well, Wikipedia lists 11k arrests vs. 15k arrests in the MLK assassination riots, and other sources point to roughly the same amount of damage (hundreds of millions of dollars). I suppose we won't know for months, like when insurance companies compile statistics.
4/ So I'm not sure I agree, but at the same time, I can't debunk this. If it's true, then his entire argument actually hangs together pretty well. They called in the military back then, so it's seems reasonable they call in the military now.
5/ The legal authority is the "Insurrection Act of 1807", by the way. It's all perfectly legal. The authority has been used 12 times, according to Wikipedia.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrect…
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrect…
6/ Except for the points I'm about to make below, the piece is reasonable. It's legal. It's historically precedented. It's even popular, according to polls. All the facts check out. It's a fine argument why we should call in the troops.
7/ But it doesn't actually say "call in the troops", it says "send in the troops". The piece deliberately confuses to two things, but they aren't even remotely the same. That's why there is a column for this in the chart two tweets above in this stream.
8/ Calling in the troops is when state governors/legislatures ask the federal government for help.
Sending in the troops is what happens when the state governors/legislatures are themselves effectively in revolt and must be put down, when the state government is the enemy.
Sending in the troops is what happens when the state governors/legislatures are themselves effectively in revolt and must be put down, when the state government is the enemy.
9/ If this is an op-ed suggesting governors call in the troops, then nothing is wrong with it.
If it's an op-ed justifying why the Trump administration can force troops on unwilling states, then it's a huge problem.
If it's an op-ed justifying why the Trump administration can force troops on unwilling states, then it's a huge problem.
10/ I can't conclusively prove it's the second thing. The difference between "call" and "send" is rather abstruse, and could've been by a title editor rather than Cotton himself. But the text does suggest it.
11/ One suggestion in the text is that the part Cotton quotes from the "Insurrection Act" is the part where the government forces troops on rebellious states, not the part where governors request help.
12/ He also repeats the bogus Trump exageration that Antifa is some sort of terrorist group infringing people's rights to free speech. In other words, the Act allows the federal government to send in troops to defend people's "rights".
13/ This freaks me out because it that seems to be the reason for the FBI's efforts in this tweet: they are looking for a pretext to justification invoking the Act to protect your "rights".
14/ So if Cotton means to say "call in the troops", then have a perfectly reasonable post that, while I have concerns, I'm not sure I'm even in disagreement with.
But if it's "send in the troops", we have a situation that's leading toward a constitutional crisis.
But if it's "send in the troops", we have a situation that's leading toward a constitutional crisis.
