hotair--2020-06-08--Minneapolis City Council prez: It's "privilege" to fear crime if we disband the police

Put yourself in the shoes of black Americans , she says .
Imagine if you caught someone breaking into your home and feared that calling the police might endanger you more than confronting the burglar yourself would .
It ’ s “ privilege ” to know that you have less to fear from the cops than the criminals .
Or so she insists .
Must be a lot of “ privileged ” nonwhite Americans out there , then .
I pointed to this result from a 2016 Cato Institute poll on policing in yesterday ’ s post but it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 10 black , white and Hispanic Americans oppose reducing the number of police officers in their community—and a third say their community needs more officers the Cato survey found.
” Here ’ s the key bit from this morning ’ s interview about Minneapolis ’ s surreal plan to disband the local PD , but it ’ s worth watching the entire interview to see how skeptical even CNN anchor Alisyn Camerota is of the proposal .
She asks Bender at one point if she ’ s worried about Trump using this against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you should be worried about Trump using this against the Democrats .
Watch , then read on .
The other striking thing about the interview is how vague Bender is about her plans for what comes next after the Minneapolis PD is abolished .
Others have scrambled to fill in those blanks for her .
A professor at Georgetown Law , writing today in WaPo about the “ defund the police ” battle cry , insists that it ’ s less about dismantling the force than outsourcing many of their duties to other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policing , we must first recognize how much we have come to over-rely on law enforcement .
We turn to the police in situations where years of experience and common sense tell us that their involvement is unnecessary , and can make things worse .
We ask police to take accident reports , respond to people who have overdosed and arrest , rather than cite , people who might have intentionally or not passed a counterfeit $ 20 bill .
We call police to roust homeless people from corners and doorsteps , resolve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alike , and arrest children for behavior that once would have been handled as a school disciplinary issue… Defunding the police means shrinking the scope of police responsibilities and shifting most of what government does to keep us safe to entities that are better equipped to meet that need .
It means investing more in mental-health care and housing , and expanding the use of community mediation and violence interruption programs .
Okay , but will any of that reduce police brutality ?
Handing off *less confrontational* situations to social-service workers means less @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but not necessarily much less force used against the public in the aggregate .
In the interview Bender mentions the case of Camden , New Jersey , which actually did disband its force in 2012 and replaced it with a new county force .
( Compton also disbanded its force in 2000 , handing policing duties over to Los Angeles County , per the AP . )
Yesterday Alex Tabarrok noted that things did improve in Camden afterward .
Cops who had been stuck working desk jobs were replaced with civilians , freeing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The collective bargaining contract with the police union was also nullified , a potentially important step in increasing officer accountability .
I wonder if the sheer radicalism of the act of abolishing the force also helped “ reboot ” the culture internally , communicating in the starkest possible way that the attitude of the police towards the city had to change drastically .
All of which is to say , I don ’ t think Bender is proposing ending the police department and replacing it with *nothing* .
There ’ s some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” right , but that sounds like a distant aspiration , something that should be strived for in the knowledge that it ’ ll never be truly possible .
Surely even the wokest leftist grasps that we ’ ll always have degenerates with us looking to prey on the innocent , and that we ’ ll need someone around to intercede physically when necessary .
Surely .
…But I wouldn ’ t bet my life savings on it .
The woke left is capable of some impressive self-delusions .
And I ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it : I ’ m only half-kidding when I say I hope they really are crazy enough to try to govern the city with no police , even for just a few days .
Speaking as someone who doesn ’ t live in Minnesota , it ’ d be fascinating to watch .
( Sorry , Ed ! )
Have all residents arm up and let a thousand self-defense flowers bloom .
Half the population will move out , to be replaced by thousands of criminals eager for easy pickings and thousands of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ll ever get to true anarchy .
Minneapolis would be a bizarre amalgam of the old west and the wokest city in America .
In lieu of an exit question , here ’ s a stark reminder that Minneapolis PD really does need a cultural “ reboot ” urgently .
Strong language here .

Put yourself in the shoes of black Americans, she says. Imagine if you caught someone breaking into your home and feared that calling the police might endanger you more than confronting the burglar yourself would.
It’s “privilege” to know that you have less to fear from the cops than the criminals. Or so she insists.
Must be a lot of “privileged” nonwhite Americans out there, then. I pointed to this result from a 2016 Cato Institute poll on policing in yesterday’s post but it’s worth repeating: “9 in 10 black, white and Hispanic Americans oppose reducing the number of police officers in their community—and a third say their community needs more officers the Cato survey found.”
Here’s the key bit from this morning’s interview about Minneapolis’s surreal plan to disband the local PD, but it’s worth watching the entire interview to see how skeptical even CNN anchor Alisyn Camerota is of the proposal. She asks Bender at one point if she’s worried about Trump using this against the Democrats, which is journalist-speak for you should be worried about Trump using this against the Democrats. Watch, then read on.
CAMEROTA: "What if in the middle of the night my home is broken into. Who do I call?" BENDER: "Yes, I hear that loud and clear from a lot of my neighbors. And I know — and myself, too, and I know that that comes from a place of privilege." pic.twitter.com/WhubQ9yJIf — Eddie Zipperer (@EddieZipperer) June 8, 2020
The other striking thing about the interview is how vague Bender is about her plans for what comes next after the Minneapolis PD is abolished. Others have scrambled to fill in those blanks for her. A professor at Georgetown Law, writing today in WaPo about the “defund the police” battle cry, insists that it’s less about dismantling the force than outsourcing many of their duties to other, less aggressive agencies:
To fix policing, we must first recognize how much we have come to over-rely on law enforcement. We turn to the police in situations where years of experience and common sense tell us that their involvement is unnecessary, and can make things worse. We ask police to take accident reports, respond to people who have overdosed and arrest, rather than cite, people who might have intentionally or not passed a counterfeit $20 bill. We call police to roust homeless people from corners and doorsteps, resolve verbal squabbles between family members and strangers alike, and arrest children for behavior that once would have been handled as a school disciplinary issue… Defunding the police means shrinking the scope of police responsibilities and shifting most of what government does to keep us safe to entities that are better equipped to meet that need. It means investing more in mental-health care and housing, and expanding the use of community mediation and violence interruption programs.
Okay, but will any of that reduce police brutality? Handing off *less confrontational* situations to social-service workers means less of a police presence on the streets but not necessarily much less force used against the public in the aggregate.
In the interview Bender mentions the case of Camden, New Jersey, which actually did disband its force in 2012 and replaced it with a new county force. (Compton also disbanded its force in 2000, handing policing duties over to Los Angeles County, per the AP.) Yesterday Alex Tabarrok noted that things did improve in Camden afterward. Cops who had been stuck working desk jobs were replaced with civilians, freeing up more officers to hit the streets. The collective bargaining contract with the police union was also nullified, a potentially important step in increasing officer accountability. I wonder if the sheer radicalism of the act of abolishing the force also helped “reboot” the culture internally, communicating in the starkest possible way that the attitude of the police towards the city had to change drastically.
All of which is to say, I don’t think Bender is proposing ending the police department and replacing it with *nothing*. There’s some gassy rhetoric about a “police-free future,” right, but that sounds like a distant aspiration, something that should be strived for in the knowledge that it’ll never be truly possible. Surely even the wokest leftist grasps that we’ll always have degenerates with us looking to prey on the innocent, and that we’ll need someone around to intercede physically when necessary. Surely.
…But I wouldn’t bet my life savings on it. The woke left is capable of some impressive self-delusions. And I’m not the only one worried about it:
And I’ll say this too: I have never met a person outside of Twitter who identifies as black and who sincerely thinks differently. This is another reason why Joe Biden is the nominee for president. — Thomas Chatterton Williams 🌍 🎧 (@thomaschattwill) June 7, 2020
I’m only half-kidding when I say I hope they really are crazy enough to try to govern the city with no police, even for just a few days. Speaking as someone who doesn’t live in Minnesota, it’d be fascinating to watch. (Sorry, Ed!) Have all residents arm up and let a thousand self-defense flowers bloom. Half the population will move out, to be replaced by thousands of criminals eager for easy pickings and thousands of libertarians eager to experience the closest they’ll ever get to true anarchy. Minneapolis would be a bizarre amalgam of the old west and the wokest city in America.
In lieu of an exit question, here’s a stark reminder that Minneapolis PD really does need a cultural “reboot” urgently. Strong language here.


hotair--2020-06-08--Here's three examples of why public trust in the scientific community is waning

The protests over the death of George Floyd have brought to the surface a good example of why so many in the general public no longer trust what public health professionals are saying about the coronavirus pandemic .
The information being given to us is confusing and ever-changing .
Now the information is being filtered through the lens of social justice activism .
Many in the medical and scientific community have publicly come out in support of Black Lives Matter and the protests dominating the news .
It ’ s a free country , that ’ s their right to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ another thing for their personal opinions to affect public health recommendations .
Last week I wrote about White Coats for Black Lives in Houston and members of the Texas Medical Centers joining in on the BLM march .
At the time , the mayor ’ s spokeswoman offered up an interesting opinion – the death of a black man in police custody is “ a public health crisis.
” The talking points have been established .
Protesting during a pandemic is doable if the cause is righteous , that ’ s the message @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by 1,300 epidemiologists and public health experts says that “ protests against systemic racism , which fosters the disproportionate burden of COVID-19 on Black communities and also perpetuates police violence , must be supported.
” These professionals specifically say that their support of racial injustice protests does not mean they endorse other gatherings – you know , like protests about stay-at-home orders .
The open letter actually says that “ COVID-19 among black patients is yet another lethal manifestation of white supremacy.
” Wow .
Take that , white people .
Staying at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ masking are effective at minimizing the spread of COVID-19 .
To the extent possible , we support the application of these public health best practices during demonstrations that call attention to the pervasive lethal force of white supremacy .
However , as public health advocates , we do not condemn these gatherings as risky for COVID-19 transmission .
We support them as vital to the national public health and to the threatened health specifically of Black people in the United States .
We can show that support by facilitating safest protesting practices without @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and demand change .
This should not be confused with a permissive stance on all gatherings , particularly protests against stay-home orders .
Those actions not only oppose public health interventions , but are also rooted in white nationalism and run contrary to respect for Black lives .
Protests against systemic racism , which fosters the disproportionate burden of COVID-19 on Black communities and also perpetuates police violence , must be supported .
Apparently the science changes if a protest is for the right cause .
My question is a simple one – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ greater numbers than others , as the data shows due mostly to underlying medical conditions , why would the professionals be encouraging protests comprised in large numbers of black people ?
Does that make sense ?
Example two is one of the scientists from the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative ( CZI ) .
They , too , have written a letter .
Scientists from the philanthropic organization funded by Zuckerberg but separate from Facebook are none too pleased that the evil Orange Man is allowed to post freely on Facebook without censorship .
They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policy enforcement ) to be taken against the President of the United States because he spreads “ inaccurate information and incendiary language contrary to CZI ’ s mission to “ build a healthier , just , and more inclusive future.
” I bet you can guess which statement , in particular , offended them the most .
The list of signatories includes professors from more than 60 leading research institutions , including Harvard University , Stanford University , and University of California San Francisco ( UCSF ) , as well as one Nobel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are dedicated to investigating ways to better our world , ” the letter says .
“ The spread of deliberate misinformation and divisive language is directly antithetical to this goal and we are therefore deeply concerned at the stance Facebook has taken , ” on policing content .
The letter calls out one policy stance in particular : Zuckerberg ’ s decision to allow President Trump to post , “ when the looting starts , the shooting starts , ” on Facebook ’ s platform , a reference to the protests around the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Minneapolis police custody .
The scientists argue that the message clearly flouts the company ’ s rules against inciting violence .
“ Thus , like many , we were disconcerted to see that Facebook has not followed their own policies in regards to President Trump , ” the letter says .
A third example comes from Dr. Fauci and the CDC .
Separately they have sent messages that large protests will likely produce a spike in coronavirus cases .
Fauci said Friday that protests are “ the perfect set-up ” for spreading @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into his warning that the protesters have a constitutional right to do so “ because the reasons for demonstrating are valid.
” Thanks , Doc .
Validity doesn ’ t override the danger to the public though , does it ?
Also , he mentions that tear gas and pepper spray make people cough and sneeze , thus increasing the possibility of transmitting the virus .
Fauci emphasized that while demonstrators have both a constitutional right and a good reason to protest , he noted that people gathering in close proximity , shouting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to tear gas or pepper spray – crowd-controlling irritants that make people cough , sneeze , and rub their eyes — increases the risk of transmitting the virus .
“ There certainly is a risk , I would say that with confidence , when you see the congregation of crowds , ” he said , “ particularly in a situation where you have a lot of confusion and a little bit of chaos , people running back and forth , taking their masks off , being close in proximity , that does pose @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CDC told a House panel Thursday that “ I do think there is a potential , unfortunately , for this to be a seeding event.
” So , there we are .
Public trust is eroding because the story is constantly changing and public health officials are picking winners and losers on the subject of protests .
Who can blame folks that protested on behalf of small business owners and church members for being angry that they were penalized while mass protests take over cities across the country ?
Why did a choice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over economic and personal freedom issues and those seeking social justice ?

The protests over the death of George Floyd have brought to the surface a good example of why so many in the general public no longer trust what public health professionals are saying about the coronavirus pandemic. The information being given to us is confusing and ever-changing. Now the information is being filtered through the lens of social justice activism.
Many in the medical and scientific community have publicly come out in support of Black Lives Matter and the protests dominating the news. It’s a free country, that’s their right to individually do so but it is quite another thing for their personal opinions to affect public health recommendations. Last week I wrote about White Coats for Black Lives in Houston and members of the Texas Medical Centers joining in on the BLM march. At the time, the mayor’s spokeswoman offered up an interesting opinion – the death of a black man in police custody is “a public health crisis.” The talking points have been established.
Protesting during a pandemic is doable if the cause is righteous, that’s the message being sent. An open letter signed by 1,300 epidemiologists and public health experts says that “protests against systemic racism, which fosters the disproportionate burden of COVID-19 on Black communities and also perpetuates police violence, must be supported.” These professionals specifically say that their support of racial injustice protests does not mean they endorse other gatherings – you know, like protests about stay-at-home orders. The open letter actually says that “COVID-19 among black patients is yet another lethal manifestation of white supremacy.” Wow. Take that, white people.
Staying at home, social distancing, and public masking are effective at minimizing the spread of COVID-19. To the extent possible, we support the application of these public health best practices during demonstrations that call attention to the pervasive lethal force of white supremacy. However, as public health advocates, we do not condemn these gatherings as risky for COVID-19 transmission. We support them as vital to the national public health and to the threatened health specifically of Black people in the United States. We can show that support by facilitating safest protesting practices without detracting from demonstrators’ ability to gather and demand change. This should not be confused with a permissive stance on all gatherings, particularly protests against stay-home orders. Those actions not only oppose public health interventions, but are also rooted in white nationalism and run contrary to respect for Black lives. Protests against systemic racism, which fosters the disproportionate burden of COVID-19 on Black communities and also perpetuates police violence, must be supported.
Apparently the science changes if a protest is for the right cause. My question is a simple one – if COVID-19 affects the black community in greater numbers than others, as the data shows due mostly to underlying medical conditions, why would the professionals be encouraging protests comprised in large numbers of black people? Does that make sense?
Example two is one of the scientists from the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative (CZI). They, too, have written a letter. Scientists from the philanthropic organization funded by Zuckerberg but separate from Facebook are none too pleased that the evil Orange Man is allowed to post freely on Facebook without censorship. They long for some authoritarian action (stricter policy enforcement) to be taken against the President of the United States because he spreads “inaccurate information and incendiary language contrary to CZI’s mission to “build a healthier, just, and more inclusive future.” I bet you can guess which statement, in particular, offended them the most.
The list of signatories includes professors from more than 60 leading research institutions, including Harvard University, Stanford University, and University of California San Francisco (UCSF), as well as one Nobel laureate. “As scientists, we are dedicated to investigating ways to better our world,” the letter says. “The spread of deliberate misinformation and divisive language is directly antithetical to this goal and we are therefore deeply concerned at the stance Facebook has taken,” on policing content. The letter calls out one policy stance in particular: Zuckerberg’s decision to allow President Trump to post, “when the looting starts, the shooting starts,” on Facebook’s platform, a reference to the protests around the country following the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis police custody. The scientists argue that the message clearly flouts the company’s rules against inciting violence. “Thus, like many, we were disconcerted to see that Facebook has not followed their own policies in regards to President Trump,” the letter says.
A third example comes from Dr. Fauci and the CDC. Separately they have sent messages that large protests will likely produce a spike in coronavirus cases. Fauci said Friday that protests are “the perfect set-up” for spreading COVID-19. Fauci was sure to put into his warning that the protesters have a constitutional right to do so “because the reasons for demonstrating are valid.” Thanks, Doc. Validity doesn’t override the danger to the public though, does it? Also, he mentions that tear gas and pepper spray make people cough and sneeze, thus increasing the possibility of transmitting the virus.
Fauci emphasized that while demonstrators have both a constitutional right and a good reason to protest, he noted that people gathering in close proximity, shouting and chanting, and possibly being exposed to tear gas or pepper spray – crowd-controlling irritants that make people cough, sneeze, and rub their eyes — increases the risk of transmitting the virus. “There certainly is a risk, I would say that with confidence, when you see the congregation of crowds,” he said, “particularly in a situation where you have a lot of confusion and a little bit of chaos, people running back and forth, taking their masks off, being close in proximity, that does pose a risk.”
The director of the CDC told a House panel Thursday that “I do think there is a potential, unfortunately, for this to be a seeding event.”
So, there we are. Public trust is eroding because the story is constantly changing and public health officials are picking winners and losers on the subject of protests. Who can blame folks that protested on behalf of small business owners and church members for being angry that they were penalized while mass protests take over cities across the country? Why did a choice have to be made between those protesting over economic and personal freedom issues and those seeking social justice?


hotair--2020-06-08--Minneapolis moves to disband their "toxic" police department

As Allahpundit discussed yesterday , the Mayor of Minneapolis wasn ’ t willing to discuss defunding the police .
He wound up slinking away from a crowd of protesters after he was booed off the stage .
But as it turns out , defunding wasn ’ t enough for the City Council so they ’ re just ignoring him anyway .
They ’ re moving to eliminate the police department entirely .
Remember when # AbolishICE was all the rage on the left ?
Well , now we ’ ve moved from defunding to # AbolishThePolice .
And yes , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ traffic on Twitter .
( NBC News ) A majority of the Minneapolis City Council agreed Sunday to dismantle the city ’ s police department after the in-custody killing of George Floyd , a council member said .
In an interview with NBC News , Councilman Jeremiah Ellison said the council would work to disband the department in its “ current iteration.
” “ The plan has to start somewhere , ” he said .
“ We are not going to hit the eject button without a plan , so today was the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Speaking earlier during a community meeting , council President Lisa Bender called the city ’ s relationship with the department “ toxic ” and vowed to “ re-create systems of public safety that actually keep us safe.
” Take a close look at that final statement from the President of the City Council .
Calling the police department “ toxic ” is obviously just some red meat for the protesters .
But she ’ s apparently speaking seriously of abolishing the police department as it now exists and “ recreating systems of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they want to create something new that replaces the need for a police department .
Does anyone have a guess as to what that would look like ?
If you don ’ t have anyone arresting criminals perhaps you ’ ll establish a squad of “ Karens ” to publicly scold people who are seen committing crimes .
In lieu of jail time , offenders could receive a series of strongly worded letters .
When Bender was talking to CNN she said , “ the idea of having no police department is certainly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but that clearly implies that the idea is on the table in the long term .
And the idea was pitched before the Council has held a single meeting to discuss what might replace the cops in the long term .
Can any of you think of a single thing that Democrats around the country could do to more effectively get Donald Trump elected to a second term ?
For those of you who may have missed it over the weekend , let ’ s take another look at that YouGov poll that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the recent protests have resonated to a certain degree with a broad spectrum of Americans , at least in terms of police accountability .
Additional training for the cops was a no-brainer .
Body cameras ?
I ’ ve supported those myself for a long time .
In the majority of cases , they will actually help the good cops by disproving claims made against them by suspects .
Banning the use of neck restraints is a bit dodgier , particularly in cases where the police may be coming down to no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ significant number of people are willing to vote for it , however .
But the idea of abolishing or even significantly defunding the police has no measurable support outside of a very small fringe element .
Everyone knows this is insane .
As I suggested yesterday on Twitter , if Joe Biden can be goaded into saying the words “ defund the police ” on camera just one time , the Trump campaign will have the only advertisement it needs between now and November .
There ’ s a surge of gun sales @ @ @ @ @ @ @ driven by people who are unsure if the entire social fabric is going to hold together .
Even the suggestion of anything that vaguely resembles weakening police protection will send them scurrying for the doors .
The Democrats are playing with dynamite here .
And while it ’ s probably an uncomfortable analogy to choose during a time of unrest , the fuse is lit .

As Allahpundit discussed yesterday, the Mayor of Minneapolis wasn’t willing to discuss defunding the police. He wound up slinking away from a crowd of protesters after he was booed off the stage. But as it turns out, defunding wasn’t enough for the City Council so they’re just ignoring him anyway. They’re moving to eliminate the police department entirely. Remember when #AbolishICE was all the rage on the left? Well, now we’ve moved from defunding to #AbolishThePolice. And yes, that’s drawing a lot of traffic on Twitter. (NBC News)
A majority of the Minneapolis City Council agreed Sunday to dismantle the city’s police department after the in-custody killing of George Floyd, a council member said. In an interview with NBC News, Councilman Jeremiah Ellison said the council would work to disband the department in its “current iteration.” “The plan has to start somewhere,” he said. “We are not going to hit the eject button without a plan, so today was the announcement of the formulation of that plan.” Speaking earlier during a community meeting, council President Lisa Bender called the city’s relationship with the department “toxic” and vowed to “re-create systems of public safety that actually keep us safe.”
Take a close look at that final statement from the President of the City Council. Calling the police department “toxic” is obviously just some red meat for the protesters. But she’s apparently speaking seriously of abolishing the police department as it now exists and “recreating systems of public safety.” This would imply that they want to create something new that replaces the need for a police department. Does anyone have a guess as to what that would look like? If you don’t have anyone arresting criminals perhaps you’ll establish a squad of “Karens” to publicly scold people who are seen committing crimes. In lieu of jail time, offenders could receive a series of strongly worded letters.
When Bender was talking to CNN she said, “the idea of having no police department is certainly not in the short term.” Okay… but that clearly implies that the idea is on the table in the long term. And the idea was pitched before the Council has held a single meeting to discuss what might replace the cops in the long term.
Can any of you think of a single thing that Democrats around the country could do to more effectively get Donald Trump elected to a second term? For those of you who may have missed it over the weekend, let’s take another look at that YouGov poll that AP referenced.
It’s obvious that the recent protests have resonated to a certain degree with a broad spectrum of Americans, at least in terms of police accountability. Additional training for the cops was a no-brainer. Body cameras? I’ve supported those myself for a long time. In the majority of cases, they will actually help the good cops by disproving claims made against them by suspects. Banning the use of neck restraints is a bit dodgier, particularly in cases where the police may be coming down to no other choices besides lethal force. A significant number of people are willing to vote for it, however.
But the idea of abolishing or even significantly defunding the police has no measurable support outside of a very small fringe element. Everyone knows this is insane. As I suggested yesterday on Twitter, if Joe Biden can be goaded into saying the words “defund the police” on camera just one time, the Trump campaign will have the only advertisement it needs between now and November. There’s a surge of gun sales going on at the moment, primarily driven by people who are unsure if the entire social fabric is going to hold together. Even the suggestion of anything that vaguely resembles weakening police protection will send them scurrying for the doors.
The Democrats are playing with dynamite here. And while it’s probably an uncomfortable analogy to choose during a time of unrest, the fuse is lit.


hotair--2020-06-08--Lt. Tim McMillan on the handling of the George Floyd case and police reform

This week we welcome back Lt. Tim McMillan ( ret ) who we interviewed on a very different subject last year .
( I talked to Tim extensively about his career in law enforcement at that time if you missed it . )
McMillan is a career law enforcement officer who worked in Georgia before joining a national task force to examine best ( and worst ) practices in police agencies around the country after he retired .
He ’ s seen some of the ways police departments can really excel and , in other cases , where problems exist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ part of that task force , Tim was involved in examining the Minneapolis Police Department back in 2016/2017 .
And as you ’ ll hear in this interview , the group found numerous problems there , long before the death of George Floyd .
He also talks about his work in the law enforcement community in Georgia and those involved in the shooting death of Ahmaud Arbery .
He goes on to discuss some of the best practices and ways that police can work more closely with law-abiding community members while still maintaining @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a large group of present and former LEOs , the Law Enforcement Action Partnership , that signed a letter offering recommendations for how to address the current issues causing unrest across the country .
We discuss some of those guidelines in the interview , but you can read the full list at the link .
Some other links and notes from the interview : Details about the first African-American Police Chief in Minneapolis , appointed in 2017 , and the challenges he has faced there .
Tim ’ s website , where you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his current work as an investigative reporter .
And with that , let ’ s get on with the interview .
I hope you find it as engaging and informative as I did .

This week we welcome back Lt. Tim McMillan (ret) who we interviewed on a very different subject last year. ( I talked to Tim extensively about his career in law enforcement at that time if you missed it.) McMillan is a career law enforcement officer who worked in Georgia before joining a national task force to examine best (and worst) practices in police agencies around the country after he retired. He’s seen some of the ways police departments can really excel and, in other cases, where problems exist and they come up short. As part of that task force, Tim was involved in examining the Minneapolis Police Department back in 2016/2017. And as you’ll hear in this interview, the group found numerous problems there, long before the death of George Floyd.
He also talks about his work in the law enforcement community in Georgia and those involved in the shooting death of Ahmaud Arbery. He goes on to discuss some of the best practices and ways that police can work more closely with law-abiding community members while still maintaining proper order. Tim was part of a large group of present and former LEOs, the Law Enforcement Action Partnership, that signed a letter offering recommendations for how to address the current issues causing unrest across the country. We discuss some of those guidelines in the interview, but you can read the full list at the link.
Some other links and notes from the interview:
Details about the first African-American Police Chief in Minneapolis, appointed in 2017, and the challenges he has faced there.
Tim’s website, where you can catch up on his background and his current work as an investigative reporter.
And with that, let’s get on with the interview. I hope you find it as engaging and informative as I did.


hotair--2020-06-08--A.G. Barr: "They're not peaceful protesters, that's a big lie promoted by the media"

The attorney general says what we are thinking – when the media insists that the protesters are peaceful , it is a lie .
Many of them have been violent , enough to wreak havoc and destruction on cities across the country .
Tell the small business owners without insurance who had their storefront windows broken and their merchandise looted that it was just peaceful protesters upset about the death of George Floyd .
What about all the injuries and hospitalizations and even some deaths that have been the result of protests ?
Attorney General Barr sat down for an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Margaret Brennan which aired Sunday morning .
Addressing the protests of Sunday night a week ago , Barr said he was told by police officials that it was the most violent night in the last 30 years in D.C .
He denies being the person who ordered Lafayette Park cleared so that a path was made for President Trump to walk over to St. John ’ s Church on Monday .
When he was asked if he signed off on active military moving into the city he answered that no he didn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the White House on Monday morning and options were discussed .
He wasn ’ t aware that the president intended to walk over to the church that had been burned by protesters until Monday afternoon .
I came over on- on Monday morning for a meeting .
The night before had been the most violent , as one of the police officials told us , the D.C. police , it was the most violent day in Washington in 30 years , something that the media has not done a very good job @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a riot right along Lafayette Park .
I was called over and asked if I would coordinate federal civil agencies and that the Defense Department would provide whatever support I needed or we needed to protect federal property at the White House , federal personnel .
The decision was made to have at the ready and on hand in the vicinity some regular troops .
But everyone agreed that the use of regular troops was a last resort and that as long as matters can be controlled with other resources , they should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Secretary of Defense felt , we had adequate resources and wouldn ’ t need to use federal troops .
But in case we did , we wanted them nearby .
Brennan was intent on getting Barr to admit something he was not going to do – that Trump wanted 10,000 troops on the street to deal with protesters .
Barr explained that some troops were put on standby in the vicinity but not deployed .
For example , some 82nd Airborne military police were brought into the area but not into D.C .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Esper , and General Milley , all were on the same page – the military should only be deployed as a last resort .
Barr confirmed the president has the right to overrule governors and send in military troops if necessary .
During the second part of the interview , the focus was on the events in Lafayette Park .
Barr took the media to task for not reporting on the looting and violence that occurred Sunday night – including breaking into the Treasury Department .
Brennan was busy telling Barr that three @ @ @ @ @ @ @ say that tear gas was used to clear the crowd .
He makes a distinction between pepper balls and tear gas , which he explained .
He also insisted that three warnings were given to the crowd before law enforcement took matters into their own hands .
They were not peaceful protesters .
And that ’ s one of the big lies that the- the media is- seems to be perpetuating at this point .
There were three warnings given .
But let ’ s get back to why we took that action @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , OK , there were violent riots in- at Lafayette Park where the park police were under constant attack at the- behind their bike rack fences .
On Sunday , things reached a crescendo .
The officers were pummeled with bricks .
Crowbars were used to pry up the pavers at the park and they were hurled at police .
There were fires set in not only St. John ’ s Church , but a historic building at Lafayette was burned down .
Margaret Brennan was surprised to learn that the Treasury Department @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there .
It just goes to show the lack of real journalistic coverage of all that is going on , even in the nation ’ s capital .
Barr said that park police decided “ on their own ” Sunday night to push back the perimeter in Lafayette Park – to push it back one block .
He agreed with that decision on Monday morning .
“ It was communicated to all the police agencies , including the Metropolitan Police at 2:00 p.m. that day.
” He said Monday the park police said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ non-compliant crowd of protesters , hurling projectiles at law enforcement .
Brennan insisted her three colleagues told her differently but Barr simply said , “ I was there .
They were thrown .
I saw them thrown.
” That stopped her insistence that he was wrong .
And , he said again the media is getting the story wrong – it was an operation to move the perimeter , not to do crowd control .
He said tear gas was used Sunday night to make way for the fire department to put out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Church but pepper balls were used Monday in Lafayette Square .
One more time Barr corrected Brennan about the so-called peaceful protesters and the media ’ s incorrect narrative of the events on the ground .
Perhaps this interview was to clear up questions about if Barr did or did not order the police action against the crowd to move the perimeter .
While the White House press secretary told reporters that it was Barr ’ s decision , he is saying it was the park police who made the plan and were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was beginning to look like some in the White House were trying to throw Barr under the bus .
Instead of truthfully reporting about violence and looting , the press focused on Trump ’ s walk over to the historic church that protesters burned and blasted him for holding up a Bible while he was there .
Funny , I never heard such sanctimonious criticism of President Clinton when he held up his Bible while walking past the press as he exited a church , which he frequently did .
I don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a prop back then by the Horndog-in-Chief .
2020 is one crazy year .

The attorney general says what we are thinking – when the media insists that the protesters are peaceful, it is a lie. Many of them have been violent, enough to wreak havoc and destruction on cities across the country. Tell the small business owners without insurance who had their storefront windows broken and their merchandise looted that it was just peaceful protesters upset about the death of George Floyd. What about all the injuries and hospitalizations and even some deaths that have been the result of protests?
Attorney General Barr sat down for an interview with Face the Nation‘s Margaret Brennan which aired Sunday morning. Addressing the protests of Sunday night a week ago, Barr said he was told by police officials that it was the most violent night in the last 30 years in D.C. He denies being the person who ordered Lafayette Park cleared so that a path was made for President Trump to walk over to St. John’s Church on Monday. When he was asked if he signed off on active military moving into the city he answered that no he didn’t. He went to a meeting at the White House on Monday morning and options were discussed. He wasn’t aware that the president intended to walk over to the church that had been burned by protesters until Monday afternoon.
I came over on- on Monday morning for a meeting. The night before had been the most violent, as one of the police officials told us, the D.C. police, it was the most violent day in Washington in 30 years, something that the media has not done a very good job of covering. And there had been a riot right along Lafayette Park. I was called over and asked if I would coordinate federal civil agencies and that the Defense Department would provide whatever support I needed or we needed to protect federal property at the White House, federal personnel. The decision was made to have at the ready and on hand in the vicinity some regular troops. But everyone agreed that the use of regular troops was a last resort and that as long as matters can be controlled with other resources, they should be. I felt, and the Secretary of Defense felt, we had adequate resources and wouldn’t need to use federal troops. But in case we did, we wanted them nearby.
Brennan was intent on getting Barr to admit something he was not going to do – that Trump wanted 10,000 troops on the street to deal with protesters. Barr explained that some troops were put on standby in the vicinity but not deployed. For example, some 82nd Airborne military police were brought into the area but not into D.C. He said he, Defense Secretary Mark Esper, and General Milley, all were on the same page – the military should only be deployed as a last resort.
Barr confirmed the president has the right to overrule governors and send in military troops if necessary.
The- under the anti- Insurrection Act, the- the president can use regular troops to suppress rioting. The Confederate- the Confederacy in our country opposed the use of federal troops to restore order and suppress an insurrection. So the federal government sometimes doesn’t listen to governors in certain circumstances.
During the second part of the interview, the focus was on the events in Lafayette Park. Barr took the media to task for not reporting on the looting and violence that occurred Sunday night – including breaking into the Treasury Department. Brennan was busy telling Barr that three of her colleagues on the ground Monday say that tear gas was used to clear the crowd. He makes a distinction between pepper balls and tear gas, which he explained. He also insisted that three warnings were given to the crowd before law enforcement took matters into their own hands.
They were not peaceful protesters. And that’s one of the big lies that the- the media is- seems to be perpetuating at this point. There were three warnings given. But let’s get back to why we took that action. On Friday, Saturday and Sunday, OK, there were violent riots in- at Lafayette Park where the park police were under constant attack at the- behind their bike rack fences. On Sunday, things reached a crescendo. The officers were pummeled with bricks. Crowbars were used to pry up the pavers at the park and they were hurled at police. There were fires set in not only St. John’s Church, but a historic building at Lafayette was burned down.
Margaret Brennan was surprised to learn that the Treasury Department was broken into and officers were injured there. It just goes to show the lack of real journalistic coverage of all that is going on, even in the nation’s capital. Barr said that park police decided “on their own” Sunday night to push back the perimeter in Lafayette Park – to push it back one block. He agreed with that decision on Monday morning. “It was communicated to all the police agencies, including the Metropolitan Police at 2:00 p.m. that day.” He said Monday the park police said they were dealing with a rowdy, non-compliant crowd of protesters, hurling projectiles at law enforcement. Brennan insisted her three colleagues told her differently but Barr simply said, “I was there. They were thrown. I saw them thrown.” That stopped her insistence that he was wrong. And, he said again the media is getting the story wrong – it was an operation to move the perimeter, not to do crowd control. He said tear gas was used Sunday night to make way for the fire department to put out the fire at St. John’s Church but pepper balls were used Monday in Lafayette Square. One more time Barr corrected Brennan about the so-called peaceful protesters and the media’s incorrect narrative of the events on the ground.
All I heard- all I heard was comments about how peaceful protesters were. I didn’t hear about the fact that there were 150 law enforcement officers injured and many taken to the hospital with concussions. So it wasn’t a peaceful protest. We had to get control over Lafayette Park, and we had to do it as soon as we were able to do that.
Perhaps this interview was to clear up questions about if Barr did or did not order the police action against the crowd to move the perimeter. While the White House press secretary told reporters that it was Barr’s decision, he is saying it was the park police who made the plan and were in charge of doing it. It was beginning to look like some in the White House were trying to throw Barr under the bus. Instead of truthfully reporting about violence and looting, the press focused on Trump’s walk over to the historic church that protesters burned and blasted him for holding up a Bible while he was there. Funny, I never heard such sanctimonious criticism of President Clinton when he held up his Bible while walking past the press as he exited a church, which he frequently did. I don’t remember talk of using the Bible as a prop back then by the Horndog-in-Chief. 2020 is one crazy year.


hotair--2020-06-08--Blue Lives Matter website to be shut down because shut up, they said

Cancel culture remains on the march .
Barring any sort of intervention , it appears that the next victim will be the website Blue Lives Matter , dedicated to highlighting assaults on police officers and offering support for their families .
You might be wondering what anyone would find so offensive about a site specializing in that sort of content .
Well , you actually probably aren ’ t wondering if you ’ ve been following all of the protests in the news lately .
All cops are bad now .
And some people working at other publications owned by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( Defense Maven ) noticed the existence of BLM and expressed their “ embarrassment and horror ” at realizing their employer published such claptrap .
They immediately demanded that the site be shut down .
( NY Post ) Employees of a media company that owns Sports Illustrated and Maxim want the publisher to shut down a pro-police website .
The call to pull the plug on Defense Maven , a website also known as Blue Lives Matter , came during a staff meeting Friday where Maven Media Brands announced an across-the-board 15 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ losses in advertising revenue triggered by the coronavirus , the Daily Beast reported , citing sources at the meeting .
The workers pointed to the nationwide George Floyd protests as the reason behind their demand , Daily Beast reported .
In a chat that took place simultaneously , the Daily Beast said , workers used the words “ embarrassing , ” “ a disgrace ” and “ horrible ” to describe the Blue Lives Matter website and criticized lax editorial restrictions that they said allow readers to make racist comments “ with no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are a couple of bits of irony to note in this story .
The workers who complained about how embarrassing , disgraceful and horrible the Blue Lives Matter site is work for Maxim and Sports Illustrated .
( Both fine publications to be sure , but the woke crowd who worries about feminist ideals might not be so wild about Maxim nor the annual Sports Illustrated swimsuit edition . )
But somehow , reporting on news about attacks on police officers and honoring the fallen is… disgraceful .
So what were their specific @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
The only thing they could cite were entries from the comments section .
Apparently they dredged up one comment where a reader had suggested that snipers and armed drones be deployed to shoot looters to “ set an example for the world to see.
” Notice that the commenter didn ’ t even say “ protesters.
” They specifically said “ looters.
” Now , that ’ s not something the police are going to do for property crimes , but it ’ s also just somebody in the comments section .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ questionable comments and I ’ ll show you a site without a comment section .
Defense Maven ’ s CEO and founder , James Heckman , apparently engaged in an Olympic level flip-flop on this subject .
He initially acknowledged the concerns of the workers about the “ tone ” of the site , but stressed their belief in their “ mission to promote an open dialogue and break down ideological bubbles with different perspectives.
” Upon receiving complaints from the liberal media , however , that position only lasted for a couple @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and said that he would ask the Board of Directors to remove the site .
Maybe it ’ s just me , but I would have guessed that the publisher of Maxim would have a bit more spine than that .
But in any event , Blue Lives Matter will presently be without a home it seems .
I should really drop a note to Salem and see if they want to pick up a new outlet .
I think they would find a fine home here .

Cancel culture remains on the march. Barring any sort of intervention, it appears that the next victim will be the website Blue Lives Matter, dedicated to highlighting assaults on police officers and offering support for their families. You might be wondering what anyone would find so offensive about a site specializing in that sort of content. Well, you actually probably aren’t wondering if you’ve been following all of the protests in the news lately. All cops are bad now. And some people working at other publications owned by the media company responsible for the site (Defense Maven) noticed the existence of BLM and expressed their “embarrassment and horror” at realizing their employer published such claptrap. They immediately demanded that the site be shut down. (NY Post)
Employees of a media company that owns Sports Illustrated and Maxim want the publisher to shut down a pro-police website. The call to pull the plug on Defense Maven, a website also known as Blue Lives Matter, came during a staff meeting Friday where Maven Media Brands announced an across-the-board 15% salary cut to counter the deep losses in advertising revenue triggered by the coronavirus, the Daily Beast reported, citing sources at the meeting. The workers pointed to the nationwide George Floyd protests as the reason behind their demand, Daily Beast reported. In a chat that took place simultaneously, the Daily Beast said, workers used the words “embarrassing,” “a disgrace” and “horrible” to describe the Blue Lives Matter website and criticized lax editorial restrictions that they said allow readers to make racist comments “with no monitoring” and no fact-checking.
There are a couple of bits of irony to note in this story. The workers who complained about how embarrassing, disgraceful and horrible the Blue Lives Matter site is work for Maxim and Sports Illustrated. (Both fine publications to be sure, but the woke crowd who worries about feminist ideals might not be so wild about Maxim nor the annual Sports Illustrated swimsuit edition.) But somehow, reporting on news about attacks on police officers and honoring the fallen is… disgraceful.
So what were their specific complaints about the content on the site? The only thing they could cite were entries from the comments section. Apparently they dredged up one comment where a reader had suggested that snipers and armed drones be deployed to shoot looters to “set an example for the world to see.” Notice that the commenter didn’t even say “protesters.” They specifically said “looters.” Now, that’s not something the police are going to do for property crimes, but it’s also just somebody in the comments section. Show me a site that never has questionable comments and I’ll show you a site without a comment section.
Defense Maven’s CEO and founder, James Heckman, apparently engaged in an Olympic level flip-flop on this subject. He initially acknowledged the concerns of the workers about the “tone” of the site, but stressed their belief in their “mission to promote an open dialogue and break down ideological bubbles with different perspectives.” Upon receiving complaints from the liberal media, however, that position only lasted for a couple of hours. He later came out and said that he would ask the Board of Directors to remove the site.
Maybe it’s just me, but I would have guessed that the publisher of Maxim would have a bit more spine than that. But in any event, Blue Lives Matter will presently be without a home it seems. I should really drop a note to Salem and see if they want to pick up a new outlet. I think they would find a fine home here.


hotair--2020-06-08--WSJ editorial: Cancel culture and identity politics now dominates journalism and American culture

The Wall Street Journal published an editorial Monday evening arguing that recent firings at two news outlets suggest that journalism has been taken over by identity politics and cancel culture : The long-time editor of the Philadelphia Inquirer , who ’ d seen the publication through difficult times , was pushed out over a headline , “ Buildings Matter , Too.
” It was atop a piece by architecture critic Inga Saffron , who worried that buildings damaged by violence could “ leave a gaping hole in the heart of Philadelphia.
” Staff members deemed the headline an offense to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and no amount of apologizing or changes to the headline were enough .
Editor Stan Wischnowski didn ’ t last the week .
At the New York Times , editorial page editor James Bennet resigned Sunday after a staff uproar over an op-ed by a U.S .
Senator .
Arkansas Republican Tom Cotton wrote that military troops should be sent to restore public order in American cities when the police are overwhelmed .
A staff revolt deemed the piece fascist , unconstitutional , and too offensive for adults to read and decide for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to which American journalism is now dominated by the same moral denunciation , “ safe space ” demands , and identity-politics dogmas that began in the universities .
The agents of this politics now dominate nearly all of America ’ s leading cultural institutions—museums , philanthropy , Hollywood , book publishers , even late-night talk shows .
On matters deemed sacrosanct—and today that includes the view that America is root-and-branch racist—there is no room for debate .
You must admit your failure to appreciate this orthodoxy and do penance , or you will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ connection to campus politics is correct .
What happened at Evergreen State College three years ago was like a trial run for the protests taking place nationwide now .
Then as now protesters wanted to disband the police , claiming they were afraid the force ( total size : six officers ) were a threat to black lives .
Then as now the mob demanded that anyone who disagreed with their social justice demands be denounced as a racist and summarily fired .
Then as now the mob wasn ’ t interested in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the knee is a perfect symbolic expression of this movement .
Three years ago the protesters found a willing ally in President George Bridges .
Now protesters have found city councils and mayors who are willing to immediately accede to their demands , including to defund police , without any real public discussion of the issue .
Los Angeles has already cut funding for the police and Minneapolis is working on a plan to disband them entirely .
There has been a longstanding cottage industry on the left claiming that the far left @ @ @ @ @ @ @ terribly important .
All of those pieces were wrong .
We ’ re living through the national version of the Evergreen campus takeover right now .
Cancel culture has graduated and is now in charge of the culture .
This is likely to be with us even longer than the coronavirus .
Addendum : Here ’ s former Evergreen student Benjamin Boyce ’ s video dealing with the response to campus police Chief Stacy Brown .

The Wall Street Journal published an editorial Monday evening arguing that recent firings at two news outlets suggest that journalism has been taken over by identity politics and cancel culture:
The long-time editor of the Philadelphia Inquirer, who’d seen the publication through difficult times, was pushed out over a headline, “Buildings Matter, Too.” It was atop a piece by architecture critic Inga Saffron, who worried that buildings damaged by violence could “leave a gaping hole in the heart of Philadelphia.” Staff members deemed the headline an offense to Black Lives Matter. They protested, and no amount of apologizing or changes to the headline were enough. Editor Stan Wischnowski didn’t last the week. At the New York Times, editorial page editor James Bennet resigned Sunday after a staff uproar over an op-ed by a U.S. Senator. Arkansas Republican Tom Cotton wrote that military troops should be sent to restore public order in American cities when the police are overwhelmed. A staff revolt deemed the piece fascist, unconstitutional, and too offensive for adults to read and decide for themselves… All of this shows the extent to which American journalism is now dominated by the same moral denunciation, “safe space” demands, and identity-politics dogmas that began in the universities. The agents of this politics now dominate nearly all of America’s leading cultural institutions—museums, philanthropy, Hollywood, book publishers, even late-night talk shows. On matters deemed sacrosanct—and today that includes the view that America is root-and-branch racist—there is no room for debate. You must admit your failure to appreciate this orthodoxy and do penance, or you will not survive in the job.
The connection to campus politics is correct. What happened at Evergreen State College three years ago was like a trial run for the protests taking place nationwide now. Then as now protesters wanted to disband the police, claiming they were afraid the force (total size: six officers) were a threat to black lives. Then as now the mob demanded that anyone who disagreed with their social justice demands be denounced as a racist and summarily fired. Then as now the mob wasn’t interested in debate only compliance. The bending of the knee is a perfect symbolic expression of this movement.
Three years ago the protesters found a willing ally in President George Bridges. Now protesters have found city councils and mayors who are willing to immediately accede to their demands, including to defund police, without any real public discussion of the issue. Los Angeles has already cut funding for the police and Minneapolis is working on a plan to disband them entirely.
There has been a longstanding cottage industry on the left claiming that the far left campus protests were not very widespread or terribly important. All of those pieces were wrong. We’re living through the national version of the Evergreen campus takeover right now. Cancel culture has graduated and is now in charge of the culture. This is likely to be with us even longer than the coronavirus.
Addendum: Here’s former Evergreen student Benjamin Boyce’s video dealing with the response to campus police Chief Stacy Brown.


hotair--2020-06-08--Minneapolis City Council prez: We don't have all the answers on who'll be responding to crime once w

Minneapolis City Council prez: We don't have all the answers on who'll be responding to crime once we disband the police

Does she have some of the answers ?
I mean , it ’ d be good to have a few answers lined up before outright dissolving law enforcement .
This is the second time in less than 12 hours that a CNN anchor has asked her an eminently predictable question about how she plans to keep civilized society from breaking down in a city of 400,000 people only to have her punt .
At least she admitted here that she doesn ’ t know ; this morning her response was to mumble some dorm-room cant about how dialing 911 is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ me laugh that the entire national Democratic establishment is having to scramble to counterprogram this idiot and her colleagues on the City Council because they took their woke radicalism a little too seriously .
The nominee did it : One of his new shortlisters for VP did it : Another shortlister for VP danced around the issue , making the case for moving some of the police ’ s funding to social services , mental-heath agencies , and so , but stopping well short of abolition : The Speaker of the House also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ progressives by slamming the idea while also clearly not wanting to antagonize the other 90 percent of the country by endorsing it : Trump ended up converting the turnover by the City Council into an easy lay-up during one of his own appearances today : CNN reported yesterday that early last week he wanted 10,000 active-duty troops deployed to American cities .
To put that in perspective , by next month we ’ ll be down to 8,600 in Afghanistan .
Trump and Mark Milley reportedly had “ tense words ” about the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ violence was already in decline at the time : “ A second defense official said Milley strongly felt the threshold — informally described as dire circumstances — for calling in active duty troops could not be met , opening the door to whether such a potential presidential order would be legal.
” By Friday public support for using regular troops to supplement police had dropped from 55/30 the week before to 42/48 , although a second poll found support at 52/47 for using the military against violent protests .
A fascinating what-if : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump had deployed the troops over Milley ’ s resistance ?
Bear in mind that the protests were more peaceful last week .
If they had remained that way during a deployment , Trump would have said his show of force had scared the rioters straight .
Maybe his polls would have soared .
Or maybe a show of “ soft ” martial law would have antagonized protesters , leading to more unrest .
Or maybe the public would have found the gesture scary and heavy-handed notwithstanding the pacifying effect it had .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ was the right call .
I ’ m glad Trump listened to his advisors .
We ’ re not going to disband or defund the police ( outside Minneapolis , I mean ) but reform is a whole other question .
Some of these departments do need reform .
Lots of it .
I ’ ll leave you with these two clips .

Does she have some of the answers?
I mean, it’d be good to have a few answers lined up before outright dissolving law enforcement.
This is the second time in less than 12 hours that a CNN anchor has asked her an eminently predictable question about how she plans to keep civilized society from breaking down in a city of 400,000 people only to have her punt. At least she admitted here that she doesn’t know; this morning her response was to mumble some dorm-room cant about how dialing 911 is a form of privilege.
CNN’s Wolf Blitzer stumps Minneapolis City Council President Lisa Bender: “we don't have all the answers" on who responds to violent crime without police pic.twitter.com/8jXo91uXZL — Steve Guest (@SteveGuest) June 8, 2020
It makes me laugh that the entire national Democratic establishment is having to scramble to counterprogram this idiot and her colleagues on the City Council because they took their woke radicalism a little too seriously. The nominee did it:
Do you support defunding the police?@JoeBiden: "No, I don't support defunding the police. I support conditioning federal aid to police based on whether or not they meet certain basic standards of decency and honorableness." pic.twitter.com/HjaNymKdZu — Norah O'Donnell 🇺🇸 (@NorahODonnell) June 8, 2020
One of his new shortlisters for VP did it:
In the wake of cries for police reform following the killing of George Floyd, Atlanta Mayor @KeishaBottoms says defunding and dismantling the police force is not "the solution in Atlanta." https://t.co/JKPOHzCOOj pic.twitter.com/9OqGkULAPn — CNN (@CNN) June 8, 2020
Another shortlister for VP danced around the issue, making the case for moving some of the police’s funding to social services, mental-heath agencies, and so, but stopping well short of abolition:
Sen. @KamalaHarris says “we need to reimagine how we are achieving public safety” because “we have confused the idea that to achieve safety, you put more cops on the street instead” of allocating resources to other services such as education and housing. https://t.co/mjKRxEI2Yb pic.twitter.com/mRBMqt292J — The View (@TheView) June 8, 2020
The Speaker of the House also danced away, not wanting to antagonize progressives by slamming the idea while also clearly not wanting to antagonize the other 90 percent of the country by endorsing it:
On if they support Defund the Police movement, @speakerpelosi and @RepKarenBass don’t say directly but say they have more legislation coming that deals with “jobs and justice” Pelosi says they need to “rebalance some of our funding” and have those debates at the local level — Leigh Ann Caldwell (@LACaldwellDC) June 8, 2020
Trump ended up converting the turnover by the City Council into an easy lay-up during one of his own appearances today:
President Trump: "We won't be defunding our police. We won't be dismantling our police. We won't be disbanding our police. We won't be ending our police force in a city." Full video here: https://t.co/QPMU46TZvy pic.twitter.com/reFF89rRbG — CSPAN (@cspan) June 8, 2020
CNN reported yesterday that early last week he wanted 10,000 active-duty troops deployed to American cities. To put that in perspective, by next month we’ll be down to 8,600 in Afghanistan. Trump and Mark Milley reportedly had “tense words” about the need for regular troops given that the violence was already in decline at the time: “A second defense official said Milley strongly felt the threshold — informally described as dire circumstances — for calling in active duty troops could not be met, opening the door to whether such a potential presidential order would be legal.” By Friday public support for using regular troops to supplement police had dropped from 55/30 the week before to 42/48, although a second poll found support at 52/47 for using the military against violent protests.
A fascinating what-if: How would it have played politically if Trump had deployed the troops over Milley’s resistance? Bear in mind that the protests were more peaceful last week. If they had remained that way during a deployment, Trump would have said his show of force had scared the rioters straight. Maybe his polls would have soared. Or maybe a show of “soft” martial law would have antagonized protesters, leading to more unrest. Or maybe the public would have found the gesture scary and heavy-handed notwithstanding the pacifying effect it had. Whatever the answer, not deploying them was the right call. I’m glad Trump listened to his advisors.
We’re not going to disband or defund the police (outside Minneapolis, I mean) but reform is a whole other question. Some of these departments do need reform. Lots of it. I’ll leave you with these two clips.
Some protesters, news crews, and medics in Minneapolis found themselves stranded after recent protests: The tires of their cars had been slashed. Many assumed protesters were to blame. But videos reveal a different culprit: the police. https://t.co/SGYS5nXPFq pic.twitter.com/HH6uygLgoI — Mother Jones (@MotherJones) June 8, 2020


hotair--2020-06-09--Sharpton tells NFL at George Floyd's funeral: Give Colin Kaepernick his job back

Sharpton isn ’ t the first activist to mention Kaepenick this week .
Malcolm Jenkins is a member of the New Orleans Saints , well-known for his activism and conspicuous recently for having slammed teammate Drew Brees harder than anyone else in the league for saying that he thought it was disrespectful to kneel during the national anthem .
The Brees flap was somewhat smoothed over a few days later when a group of black NFL players asked the league in a viral video to admit that it had been wrong when it tried to stop players from peacefully protesting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , in those express terms .
But there was something missing from Goodell ’ s response — and the players ’ video — that made that admission of wrongdoing easier for the NFL than it might otherwise have been .
Colin Kaepernick was never named .
Goodell didn ’ t single him out for an apology .
And the players didn ’ t single him out in asking for an apology , interestingly enough .
Gayle King noticed and asked Jenkins about it today .
Jenkins had noticed too .
I understand why @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It ’ s one thing to admit error in the abstract , it ’ s another to concede that a particular person with whom you ’ ve been battling legally and politically for years , with the president of the United States hooting at you from the sidelines not to wimp out all the while , actually had the better of the argument .
What I don ’ t understand is why the players didn ’ t pressure Goodell to do that , knowing that political momentum is on their side right now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to them before they released their video that he ’ d be willing to capitulate on protests during the anthem so long as they didn ’ t make him eat sh*t on Kaepernick ?
If he did , why did they cut him that break ?
Like I say , given the politics of the moment , he probably would have had to cave and comply with them anyway .
Meanwhile , Trump is doing his best to insert himself into the league ’ s internal politics , tweeting this two days ago… @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about that at New York mag today .
It ’ s not just that political momentum has shifted towards Kaepernick ’ s position , it ’ s that political momentum has shifted away from Trump , and not just on issues of race and police brutality .
At a moment when his reelection has never looked more doubtful , his enemies are freer than ever to just ignore him .
It ’ s not as if there ’ s much evidence that Trump ’ s threats to the NFL ever held a lot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It ’ s true that the NFL ’ s two lowest-rated recent years for television — forever the barometer for the league — were in fact when Trump was going after them the most .
But many , many , many studies showed that the reasons for that had nothing to do with Trump or his supporters .
The ratings only declined slightly anyway , and they ’ ve rocketed up the last two years , again , for reasons that have nothing to do with Trump or politics… How is the league @ @ @ @ @ @ @ turn this into a wedge issue once again ?
I think Goodell and the NFL are going to just ignore him .
The players have shown the power they have in this situation , and their willingness to wield it .
The fan base has shown it isn ’ t actually going to stop watching football because of Trump ’ s perpetual culture war .
And the owners and the league itself haven ’ t lost a dime in the past because of Trump ’ s various attempts to mess with their business @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wonder , for the rest of this summer and fall , if this strategy will become a bit of a modus operandi with Trump every time he tries to start some sh*t for his own purposes .
Railing on Amazon because of the Washington Post ?
Yelling at some television network ?
Trying to put pressure on an individual reporter ?
The proper response , it ’ s becoming increasingly clear , is to either pretend he doesn ’ t exist — or maybe even to actively defy him .
He ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The movement and the people are more powerful than he is , and they always were .
Roger Goodell knows that now .
The NFL knows that now .
Maybe , now , we all do .
It would be a bad outcome for the president in September , two months out from the election , if the league resumes play and the players all kneel in unison during the anthem and he freaks out and … nothing happens .
Ratings are likely to be solid , driven by fans famished for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the grassroots backlash may be muted .
If Trump makes a stink anyway , the media will drive him batty with stories about how he ’ s lost his grip on the culture and might soon lose his grip on his job as well .
There is some risk to him in demanding that the league choose between him and the flag on the one hand and Kaepernick and the players on the other .
Anyway , here ’ s Sharpton demanding justice for Kaepernick at today ’ s funeral service for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s move .

Sharpton isn’t the first activist to mention Kaepenick this week. Malcolm Jenkins is a member of the New Orleans Saints, well-known for his activism and conspicuous recently for having slammed teammate Drew Brees harder than anyone else in the league for saying that he thought it was disrespectful to kneel during the national anthem. The Brees flap was somewhat smoothed over a few days later when a group of black NFL players asked the league in a viral video to admit that it had been wrong when it tried to stop players from peacefully protesting. Which commissioner Roger Goodell immediately did, in those express terms.
But there was something missing from Goodell’s response — and the players’ video — that made that admission of wrongdoing easier for the NFL than it might otherwise have been. Colin Kaepernick was never named. Goodell didn’t single him out for an apology. And the players didn’t single him out in asking for an apology, interestingly enough.
Gayle King noticed and asked Jenkins about it today. Jenkins had noticed too.
“I still don’t think they got it right. Until they apologize specifically to Colin Kaepernick or assign him to a team, I don’t think they will end up on the right side of history.” — @MalcolmJenkins on Roger Goodell and the @NFL pic.twitter.com/mXlqLtuhBj — CBS This Morning (@CBSThisMorning) June 9, 2020
I understand why Goodell didn’t mention Kaepernick. It’s one thing to admit error in the abstract, it’s another to concede that a particular person with whom you’ve been battling legally and politically for years, with the president of the United States hooting at you from the sidelines not to wimp out all the while, actually had the better of the argument. What I don’t understand is why the players didn’t pressure Goodell to do that, knowing that political momentum is on their side right now. Did Goodell somehow get a message to them before they released their video that he’d be willing to capitulate on protests during the anthem so long as they didn’t make him eat sh*t on Kaepernick?
If he did, why did they cut him that break? Like I say, given the politics of the moment, he probably would have had to cave and comply with them anyway.
Meanwhile, Trump is doing his best to insert himself into the league’s internal politics, tweeting this two days ago…
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1269840254871142400
…but Will Leitch makes an apt point about that at New York mag today. It’s not just that political momentum has shifted towards Kaepernick’s position, it’s that political momentum has shifted away from Trump, and not just on issues of race and police brutality. At a moment when his reelection has never looked more doubtful, his enemies are freer than ever to just ignore him.
It’s not as if there’s much evidence that Trump’s threats to the NFL ever held a lot of power in the first place. It’s true that the NFL’s two lowest-rated recent years for television — forever the barometer for the league — were in fact when Trump was going after them the most. But many, many, many studies showed that the reasons for that had nothing to do with Trump or his supporters. The ratings only declined slightly anyway, and they’ve rocketed up the last two years, again, for reasons that have nothing to do with Trump or politics… How is the league going to deal with Trump trying to turn this into a wedge issue once again? I think Goodell and the NFL are going to just ignore him. The players have shown the power they have in this situation, and their willingness to wield it. The fan base has shown it isn’t actually going to stop watching football because of Trump’s perpetual culture war. And the owners and the league itself haven’t lost a dime in the past because of Trump’s various attempts to mess with their business. You can’t help but wonder, for the rest of this summer and fall, if this strategy will become a bit of a modus operandi with Trump every time he tries to start some sh*t for his own purposes. Railing on Amazon because of the Washington Post? Yelling at some television network? Trying to put pressure on an individual reporter? The proper response, it’s becoming increasingly clear, is to either pretend he doesn’t exist — or maybe even to actively defy him. He’s not the Trump of three years ago. The movement and the people are more powerful than he is, and they always were. Roger Goodell knows that now. The NFL knows that now. Maybe, now, we all do.
It would be a bad outcome for the president in September, two months out from the election, if the league resumes play and the players all kneel in unison during the anthem and he freaks out and … nothing happens. Ratings are likely to be solid, driven by fans famished for the return of sports after lockdowns, and the grassroots backlash may be muted. If Trump makes a stink anyway, the media will drive him batty with stories about how he’s lost his grip on the culture and might soon lose his grip on his job as well. There is some risk to him in demanding that the league choose between him and the flag on the one hand and Kaepernick and the players on the other.
Anyway, here’s Sharpton demanding justice for Kaepernick at today’s funeral service for George Floyd. It’s Goodell’s move.


hotair--2020-06-09--Confirmed: "Defund the police" is too far left for Bernie Sanders

Only he knows if this is his honest view or if he ’ s just being a good soldier for Biden by using his influence over progressives to try to get them to clam up about this inane , frightening idea .
Either way , it can now be said : “ Defund the police ” is officially too weird for socialism .
And you need to be pretty weird to be too weird for socialism .
Then again , it ’ s not like socialist states are known to be anti-police .
To the contrary .
Do I think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ America ?
No , I don ’ t .
There ’ s no city in the world that does not have police departments .
What you need are—I didn ’ t call for more money for police departments .
I called for police departments that have well-educated , well-trained , well-paid professionals .
And , too often around this country right now , you have police officers who take the job at very low payment , don ’ t have much education , don ’ t have much training—and I want to change @ @ @ @ @ @ @ transformation of police departments into—understanding that many police departments and cops deal every day with issues of mental illness , deal with issues of addiction , and all kinds of issues which should be dealt with by mental-health professionals or others , and not just by police officers .
I think we want to redefine what police departments do , give them the support they need to make their jobs better defined .
So I do believe that we need well-trained , well-educated , and well-paid professionals in police departments .
Anyone who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ departments in America , I don ’ t agree .
That ’ s the standard line this week from mainstream Democrats when asked about the “ defund ” push .
Whatever radicals may have in mind when they talk about the subject ( and even they don ’ t know for sure ) , establishment Dems say they want to see tasks that are currently performed by the police but are capable of being performed by other agencies offloaded to those agencies .
Whether that ’ ll do anything to meaningfully reduce police @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ll certainly help pad the budgets of social services .
Alex Tabarrok offers an alternate slogan to police reformers : Instead of “ defund the police , ” which is a total political nonstarter , how about unbundling the police ?
Don ’ t use a hammer if you don ’ t need to pound a nail .
Road safety does not require a hammer .
The responsibility for handing out speeding tickets and citations should be handled by a unarmed agency .
Put the safety patrol in bright yellow cars and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gasoline and jumper cables to help stranded motorists as part of their job–make road safety nice .
Highways England hires traffic officers for some of these tasks ( although they are not yet authorized to issue speeding tickets ) .
Similarly , the police have no expertise in dealing with the mentally ill or with the homeles–jobs like that should be farmed out to other agencies .
Notice that we have lots of other safety issues that are not handled by the police .
Restaurant inspectors , for example , do over a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t investigate murder or drug charges and they are not armed .
Perhaps not coincidentally , restaurant inspectors are not often accused of inspector brutality , “ Your honor , I swear I thought he was reaching for a knife….
” .
Sounds like Bernie ’ s all for it — although he also emphasized that cops should be “ well-paid ” not once but twice in the excerpt above .
Presumably that ’ s a nudge to attracting higher caliber officers and instilling a more professional culture , but it seems @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about him wanting more resources for the police in the past .
Why not just , you know , defund the police ?
Charles Fain Lehman looked at the polling on that question over many years and , uh , here ’ s why you don ’ t demand that we defund the police .
Not if you ’ re a semi-serious political movement that ’ s semi-seriously trying to win elections .
Despite their longstanding complaints about the police , even black Americans don ’ t get to 20 percent support on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ defunding departments .
Say what you like about Bernie , at least he can read a poll .
By the way , Axios has a sneak peek at the Senate Republican bill on police reform that ’ s in the works , spearheaded by Tim Scott .
What ’ s there right now seems underwhelming — various incentives for states to be more transparent about police abuses but not much pressure on them to implement specific reforms .
The bill would also create a commission to study police reform , which is practically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
A commission ’ s what you set up when you don ’ t want to do much of anything and aren ’ t in a hurry to do it .
A more interesting possibility , though , is the idea of state review boards to scrutinize incidents involving police that may involve unnecessary force or racial profiling .
Mitt Romney mentioned that yesterday ; Axios notes that it ’ s in the mix for the GOP bill but apparently not included right now .
Probably doesn ’ t matter .
Senate Dems @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , believing that they might have total control of government just seven months from now and expecting that they can use the GOP ’ s reluctance to pass aggressive police reform against the party on the stump this fall .
Trump probably won ’ t compromise either , convinced as he is that his base alone can get him to 270 electoral votes and not wanting to risk alienating them by supporting a package that ’ s seen as “ anti-police.
” Senate Republicans may as well be bold in their package , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law and they can tell swing voters , “ Hey , we tried.
” Here ’ s the doofus on the Minneapolis City Council admitting last night that a “ police-free future ” is her aspiration , whether or not it ’ s an aspiration that can be realized .
As of this moment , the most shocking police reform to happen this week in the United States is probably the cancellation of the show “ Cops.
” Where will I go now to get my weekly peek at the squalid underbelly of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , right .

Only he knows if this is his honest view or if he’s just being a good soldier for Biden by using his influence over progressives to try to get them to clam up about this inane, frightening idea.
Either way, it can now be said: “Defund the police” is officially too weird for socialism. And you need to be pretty weird to be too weird for socialism.
Then again, it’s not like socialist states are known to be anti-police. To the contrary.
Do I think we should not have police departments in America? No, I don’t. There’s no city in the world that does not have police departments. What you need are—I didn’t call for more money for police departments. I called for police departments that have well-educated, well-trained, well-paid professionals. And, too often around this country right now, you have police officers who take the job at very low payment, don’t have much education, don’t have much training—and I want to change that. I also called for the transformation of police departments into—understanding that many police departments and cops deal every day with issues of mental illness, deal with issues of addiction, and all kinds of issues which should be dealt with by mental-health professionals or others, and not just by police officers. I think we want to redefine what police departments do, give them the support they need to make their jobs better defined. So I do believe that we need well-trained, well-educated, and well-paid professionals in police departments. Anyone who thinks that we should abolish all police departments in America, I don’t agree.
That’s the standard line this week from mainstream Democrats when asked about the “defund” push. Whatever radicals may have in mind when they talk about the subject (and even they don’t know for sure), establishment Dems say they want to see tasks that are currently performed by the police but are capable of being performed by other agencies offloaded to those agencies. Whether that’ll do anything to meaningfully reduce police violence is an open question but it’ll certainly help pad the budgets of social services. Alex Tabarrok offers an alternate slogan to police reformers: Instead of “defund the police,” which is a total political nonstarter, how about unbundling the police?
Don’t use a hammer if you don’t need to pound a nail. Road safety does not require a hammer. The responsibility for handing out speeding tickets and citations should be handled by a unarmed agency. Put the safety patrol in bright yellow cars and have them carry a bit of extra gasoline and jumper cables to help stranded motorists as part of their job–make road safety nice. Highways England hires traffic officers for some of these tasks (although they are not yet authorized to issue speeding tickets). Similarly, the police have no expertise in dealing with the mentally ill or with the homeles–jobs like that should be farmed out to other agencies. Notice that we have lots of other safety issues that are not handled by the police. Restaurant inspectors, for example, do over a million restaurant inspectors annually but they don’t investigate murder or drug charges and they are not armed. Perhaps not coincidentally, restaurant inspectors are not often accused of inspector brutality, “Your honor, I swear I thought he was reaching for a knife….”.
Sounds like Bernie’s all for it — although he also emphasized that cops should be “well-paid” not once but twice in the excerpt above. Presumably that’s a nudge to attracting higher caliber officers and instilling a more professional culture, but it seems that some of his fans have grumbled about him wanting more resources for the police in the past. Why not just, you know, defund the police?
Charles Fain Lehman looked at the polling on that question over many years and, uh, here’s why you don’t demand that we defund the police. Not if you’re a semi-serious political movement that’s semi-seriously trying to win elections.
Despite their longstanding complaints about the police, even black Americans don’t get to 20 percent support on cutting police funding, let alone completely defunding departments. Say what you like about Bernie, at least he can read a poll.
By the way, Axios has a sneak peek at the Senate Republican bill on police reform that’s in the works, spearheaded by Tim Scott. What’s there right now seems underwhelming — various incentives for states to be more transparent about police abuses but not much pressure on them to implement specific reforms. The bill would also create a commission to study police reform, which is practically a punchline when it comes to government. A commission’s what you set up when you don’t want to do much of anything and aren’t in a hurry to do it. A more interesting possibility, though, is the idea of state review boards to scrutinize incidents involving police that may involve unnecessary force or racial profiling. Mitt Romney mentioned that yesterday; Axios notes that it’s in the mix for the GOP bill but apparently not included right now.
Probably doesn’t matter. Senate Dems will be in no mood to compromise, believing that they might have total control of government just seven months from now and expecting that they can use the GOP’s reluctance to pass aggressive police reform against the party on the stump this fall. Trump probably won’t compromise either, convinced as he is that his base alone can get him to 270 electoral votes and not wanting to risk alienating them by supporting a package that’s seen as “anti-police.” Senate Republicans may as well be bold in their package, then. It won’t become law and they can tell swing voters, “Hey, we tried.”
Here’s the doofus on the Minneapolis City Council admitting last night that a “police-free future” is her aspiration, whether or not it’s an aspiration that can be realized. As of this moment, the most shocking police reform to happen this week in the United States is probably the cancellation of the show “Cops.” Where will I go now to get my weekly peek at the squalid underbelly of the American dream? Oh, right, right.


hotair--2020-06-09--Chinese re-education camps ask detainees to pick a crime off a list before holding a sham trial

Yesterday German outlet Deutsche Welle published an exclusive story based on interviews with four former detainees at Chinese re-education camps in the western province of Xinjiang .
All four described a day , after months of incarceration and propaganda , when officials handed them a list of crimes and told them to choose the ones to which they wanted to confess .
One prisoner was in a hospital wing inside a camp , suffering from tuberculosis he had contracted during his stay , when he was given the list .
The man speaks and reads little Chinese , so fellow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Uighur language .
Another was handed the paper by a teacher through the bars in the camp ’ s classroom that separated the teaching staff from the students guarded by armed officers sporting stun guns .
“ They threatened us : ‘ if you don ’ t pick anything , that means you did not confess your crime .
If you don ’ t confess , you will stay here forever.
’ That ’ s why we picked one crime , ” one female detainee who was imprisoned in March 2018 told @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” contained about 70 possible choices , some of which were for things like travel outside the country but most of which had to do with practicing the Muslim faith .
For instance , daily prayer was one of the more serious items on the list .
After selecting the crime they wished to “ confess ” there was a sham trial held .
The exactly procedure seemed to differ depending on the camp , but none of the detainees had legal representatives or witnesses .
They were convicted and a sentence was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were forced to pick a crime and sign the list , one detainee told DW , officials started calling people out one by one .
She was , she said , so terrified that she fainted and was taken back to her room .
She was sentenced in absentia .
“ I was given 2 years for traveling abroad .
I started feeling very sad , but still , compared to other people , my sentence was the lightest .
Some people were given six years , 10 years even.
” The longer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out for religious acts , such as praying regularly .
The detainees who received the lengthy prison terms , she says “ started sobbing and crying .
I felt really sorry for them.
” The inmates who received longer sentences would disappear shortly after their trials , often marched away at night .
DW reports there appears to be an effort by China to clear out some of the camps by forcing people to confess and then sending them to prisons instead .
That way all of the people being held aren ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ One of the four detainees DW spoke with described something even worse .
On a nightly basis she was asked to round up other female detainees and take them to the showers .
She said she was too scared to ask the women what was happening but she believed it was obvious they were being raped by the guards .
An estimated 1 million Uighurs have been forced into the camps since 2016 .
This is just one more facet of China ’ s crackdown on human rights under Xi Jinping .
Here @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

Yesterday German outlet Deutsche Welle published an exclusive story based on interviews with four former detainees at Chinese re-education camps in the western province of Xinjiang. All four described a day, after months of incarceration and propaganda, when officials handed them a list of crimes and told them to choose the ones to which they wanted to confess.
One prisoner was in a hospital wing inside a camp, suffering from tuberculosis he had contracted during his stay, when he was given the list. The man speaks and reads little Chinese, so fellow inmates had to translate for him into the Uighur language. Another was handed the paper by a teacher through the bars in the camp’s classroom that separated the teaching staff from the students guarded by armed officers sporting stun guns. “They threatened us: ‘if you don’t pick anything, that means you did not confess your crime. If you don’t confess, you will stay here forever.’ That’s why we picked one crime,” one female detainee who was imprisoned in March 2018 told DW.
The list of “crimes” contained about 70 possible choices, some of which were for things like travel outside the country but most of which had to do with practicing the Muslim faith. For instance, daily prayer was one of the more serious items on the list. After selecting the crime they wished to “confess” there was a sham trial held. The exactly procedure seemed to differ depending on the camp, but none of the detainees had legal representatives or witnesses. They were convicted and a sentence was issued:
A few days after they were forced to pick a crime and sign the list, one detainee told DW, officials started calling people out one by one. She was, she said, so terrified that she fainted and was taken back to her room. She was sentenced in absentia. “I was given 2 years for traveling abroad. I started feeling very sad, but still, compared to other people, my sentence was the lightest. Some people were given six years, 10 years even.” The longer sentences, she says, were meted out for religious acts, such as praying regularly. The detainees who received the lengthy prison terms, she says “started sobbing and crying. I felt really sorry for them.”
The inmates who received longer sentences would disappear shortly after their trials, often marched away at night. DW reports there appears to be an effort by China to clear out some of the camps by forcing people to confess and then sending them to prisons instead. That way all of the people being held aren’t just involuntary detainees but convicts.
One of the four detainees DW spoke with described something even worse. On a nightly basis she was asked to round up other female detainees and take them to the showers. She said she was too scared to ask the women what was happening but she believed it was obvious they were being raped by the guards.
An estimated 1 million Uighurs have been forced into the camps since 2016. This is just one more facet of China’s crackdown on human rights under Xi Jinping. Here’s the video report from DW.