Wall Street Journal, National Review editorials oppose federal troops on the street

[alp227]

The Wall Street Journal editorials have always been libertarian leaning. Their editorial response to Trump's Monday speech: Don’t Call in the Troops. Why?

We think this would be a mistake, though Mr. Trump has the authority. The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 generally bars troops on U.S. soil, but it has exceptions for insurrection and emergencies. President George H.W. Bush deployed troops in 1992 to stop violence in Los Angeles after the verdict in the Rodney King case.

In the current moment the sight of troops on U.S. streets would be more likely to inflame than calm. The media, which is generally discounting the violence as understandable rage at the killing of George Floyd, would say the day of the Trump dictatorship that they long predicted had arrived. They’d be wrong, since constitutional restraints still hold, but that nuance won’t make it to the streets.

U.S. soldiers are trained for combat against a foreign enemy, not for riot control against Americans. The risk of mistakes would be high, and Mr. Trump would be blamed for any bloodshed from civilian clashes with troops. In any case the soldiers aren’t needed at the moment because the National Guard are available and have more experience with domestic unrest and law-breaking. The Guard have made a difference in Minneapolis since Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz deployed them in greater numbers.

In other words, partly because the troops aren't trained to do riot control, and partly because of optics.

National Review says: We Need Law and Order, but Not Necessarily Federal Troops:

The president pretty clearly has the authority to send in the military under the Insurrection Act. It is widely believed that the Posse Comitatus Act prohibits the use of federal troops for domestic law enforcement, but this isn’t true — it prohibits such use only when there isn’t statutory authorization. If the president makes the determination that “unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages” are making it impossible to enforce the laws in a state, he can act.

Invoking this law would not constitute imposing a dictatorship or waging a war on the American people any more than when George H. W. Bush did it during the Los Angeles riots in 1992, when Lyndon Johnson did it during riots in 1968, or when Dwight Eisenhower did it to enforce federal desegregation law in 1957. There is no justice and no liberty without order and the rule of law.

That said, it’s hard to see how Trump could, as a practical matter, invoke the Insurrection Act over the objections of state and local officials. Having hostile and competing authorities trying to police the same out-of-control streets is not a formula for success. The main utility of talking of the Insurrection Act may be in prodding states to be more forceful in their response.

Minnesota called out the National Guard, and Minneapolis, the first city to get hit by these disturbances, has been relatively calm for three straight nights. New York has avoided calling the Guard, and New York City was a shameful festival of rioting and looting Monday night. Cities need to impose early curfews, vigorously enforce them, and call out the National Guard if they have any doubt that the police can’t do the job on their own.

The National Review went where the WSJ did not go: calling out Trump's photo op and the clearing out of the protesters:

If Trump’s language about “dominating” the streets is inflammatory, the basic point is correct. But the president has failed to rise to the moment with his incendiary tweets and insulting commentary on the performance of local officials.

His performance yesterday was marred by his photo-op in front of St. John’s church. We understand the impulse to show the flag at the historic church after it was set on fire over the weekend, but this jaunt should have been more carefully considered so it involved something more meaningful than waving a Bible in the air. And if it’s true that protestors were cleared away from the church simply to make way for the photo-op (there are conflicting reports about this), it was a petty and foolish use of government authority.

[Newest Reality]

1. On the photo op...

He was trying to mimic Lincoln who walked to that church nightly, without tear gas being used, to pray for guidance as he oversaw a divided nation.