Connect with us

Politics

Trump’s Executive Order on Police Reforms Falls Short of Protesters’ Demands

Published

on

Source: Yahoo! News

  • President Donald Trump signed an executive order to address police reform, which among other changes, will create a national registry of officers with credible allegations of excessive use-of-force against them.
  • The order encourages local departments to send in mental health professionals with armed officers to respond to non-violent crimes.
  • It also bans the use of chokeholds, unless an officer’s life is threatened, a caveat that some have said lacks meaningful change.
  • But critics say the order does not meet the demands of protesters, who have called for major police reform, including defunding or abolishing police departments.

Trump Executive Order

President Donald Trump signed an executive order Tuesday in response to recent and massive calls from protesters to defund the police; however, Trump’s order falls far short of their demands. 

The order is shaped by several measures, including setting financial incentives for police departments to meet certain standards on the use of force. If those departments meet those standards, they’ll be given access to federal grant money.

It will create a national registry for tracking officers with credible abuses so that those officers don’t simply go from one department to the next. This will be meant to track officers with multiple instances of excessive use-of-force.

It encourages mental health professionals to be utilized by departments and sent on some nonviolent calls. That provision is largely geared toward calls relating to mental health, homelessness, and addiction. Unlike many protesters’ calls, social workers would not handle those situations on their own; rather, they would be sent along with uniformed police officers.

Trump also said that his order would specifically ban police chokeholds unless an officer’s life was in danger. That provision has been met with criticism, with people like Reverend Al Sharpton, who argued that police officers who use chokeholds already justify them by saying their lives were threatened.

In addition to Sharpton’s criticism, others have noted that Trump’s order does not address larger concerns about systemic racism and racial profiling within law enforcement. In fact, in his address prior to signing the order, Trump dismissed the idea of defunding or abolishing police.

“I strongly oppose the radical and dangerous efforts to defund, dismantle and dissolve our police departments…” he said. “Americans know the truth: Without police, there is chaos. Without law, there is anarchy. And without safety, there is catastrophe.”

Following that comment, Trump praised police, calling the “vast majority” of officers “selfless and courageous public servants.”

“Nobody is more opposed to the small number of bad policers—and you have them, they are very tiny—but nobody wants to get rid of them more than the overwhelming number of really good and great police officers.” 

Trump’s order is meant to serve as a precursor for more changes expected to be enacted by Congress, though it is likely Trump and Republicans will butt heads with Democrats on how drastically to enact changes.

Some Democrats, including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, have said Trump’s order does not go far enough.

House Democrats have proposed a sweeping reform package that is soon expected to hit the main floor. That bill would ban police chokeholds, ease qualified immunity laws that prevent victims of police violence from suing officers and departments, create a national database of police misconduct, and require police to report data on the use of force.

Meanwhile, Congressional Republicans are encouraging local departments to ban chokeholds rather than outright banning them nationally. The issue of qualified immunity will also likely be a red line in the sand for Republicans.

On Sunday, Senator Tim Scott (R-S.C.) said that ending qualified immunity is “off the table,” adding that “any poison pill in legislation means we get nothing done.” 

U.S. Cities Announce Police Reforms

In a local scope, several cities across the country have already begun to enact or propose legislation that would lead to police reform. In many cases, those proposals have directly protesters’ calling for defunding or abolishing police departments. 

On June 7, Minneapolis’ city council voted to dismantle the city’s police department and make a new system for public safety. Last Thursday, Louisville’s city council unanimously voted to ban “no-knock” warrants, also requiring city police to wear body cameras when serving warrants.

Monday night in Baltimore, the city council voted to slash next year’s police budget by $22 million dollars. That’s now headed to the mayor’s desk.

The New York City Council has unveiled a list of proposals that would slash $1 billion from the NYPD’s $6 billion dollar budget. Among those proposals include eliminating overtime, removing the School Safety Division from the NYPD’s purview, and reducing uniform headcount

NYPD Disbands Anti-Crime Units

Also in New York City, Police Commissioner Dermot Shea announced Monday that he would be disbanding the NYPD’s anti-crime units. 

Those units are made up of plainclothes teams that target violent crime, but notably, they have been involved in some of the city’s most notorious police shootings.

Because of that, Shea said these plainclothes units were part of an outdated policing mode, saying they too often pitted officers against their communities. He also called them a remnant of the city’s stop-and-frisk policies, which had disproportionately affected people of color. 

Shea went on to say that because the NYPD now depends more on intelligence gathering and technology to fight crime, it “can move away from brute force.”

Regarding the roughly 600 officers who serve in those units, Shea said they will be immediately reassigned to other duties such as the detective bureau and the department’s neighborhood policing initiative; however,  plainclothes units that work in the city’s transit system will remain, as well as plainclothes units in other divisions of the NYPD.

Still, many said the NYPD needed to continue to go further with its changes. 

“For this change to have any meaningful impact on how communities experience policing in N.Y.C., these former anti-crime officers will need to change the way they police communities of color, and nothing the commissioner said gives me any confidence that the N.Y.P.D. has a plan to make sure that happens,” Darius Charney, a staff lawyer with the Center for Constitutional Rights, said. 

Others such as Patrick Lynch, the president of the Police Benevolent Association, criticized this move in general, saying:

“Anti-crime’s mission was to protect New Yorkers by proactively preventing crime, especially gun violence. Shooting and murders are both climbing steadily upward, but our city leaders have clearly decided that proactive policing isn’t a priority anymore.” 

Albuquerque To Add New Safety Department

In Albuquerque, New Mexico, Mayor Tim Keller on Monday announced plans to create a new city department to focus on community safety.

That department is designed to be an alternative option to dispatching police or firefighters and paramedics if someone calls 911. It would be made up of social workers and other civilian professionals who would focus on situations involving violence prevention, mental health, and homelessness.

The idea of the new agency is to dispatch the right resources depending on the nature of the call. For example, police officers would be dispatched for a reported violent crime, while social workers would be dispatched to handle non-violent crimes and social needs.

The idea of having mental health professionals respond to calls like this has actually been one of the big rallying points for protesters, with many arguing that police should not be responding to those types of calls.

“It is fascinating that given all the challenges in America over the last 100 years on a number of fronts, when it comes to public safety we still just think there’s two departments—police and fire—in every city,” Keller told the Associated Press. “I think fundamentally this could be a new model for how we look at public safety response in cities across the country.”

Still, Keller’s plan has faced pushback because it’s still unknown exactly where the money is coming from to fund this new department or how much will be needed.

According to The Washington Post, city staff will review budgets for multiple departments, including the police, to find “tens of millions of dollars” to fund the new agency. In fact, the city’s already identified 10% of the city’s $300 million public safety budget, two-thirds of which goes to the police department. 

However, Keller has promised that he won’t take money away from core police work or court-mandated reforms already underway. 

Keller also said this new department won’t change “any of our approach with respect to addressing crime from all sides, and that also including hiring more officers. We have to do that.” 

That’s why some, including a senior policy strategist with the ACLU of New Mexico, have said that this plan isn’t really a mission to defund the police. 

“While we appreciate the efforts of the mayor to set up a system where it decreases the likelihood of armed police officials responding to calls, how is it going to be funded and will it have a strong mechanism of accountability?” that strategist, Barron Jones, said.

Three Major California Police Unions Propose Reforms

In California, police unions for the cities of San Francisco, Los Angeles, and San Jose have unveiled plans for a reform agenda.

Notably, that would include finding racist police officers to “root those individuals out of the law enforcement profession.”

Their plan also calls for the creation of a national database of former police officers who were fired for gross misconduct to keep other agencies from hiring them.

Among other things, those unions are calling for ongoing and frequent training of police officers as well as the creation of a national use-of-force standard.

Within these cities themselves, San Francisco Mayor London Breed has proposed major changes to SFPD’s responsibilities, saying she wants them to stop responding to issues like disputes between neighbors, reports about homeless people, and school discipline interventions. 

Breed has also directed the police department to write a policy banning the use of military-grade weapons against unarmed civilians. For example, weapons like tear gas, bayonets, and tanks.

The city has also recently banned choke holds and required officers to intervene if they see other officers engaging in excessive force.

In LA, the city council is actually expected to meet today to discuss a proposal that would slash $100 to $150 million from the LAPD’s budget for next fiscal year.

See what others are saying: (KOAT) (Axios) (The Washington Post)

Advertisements

Politics

White House Turns on Dr. Fauci as Coronavirus Cases Surge

Published

on

  • Over the last week, Dr. Fauci has ramped up his criticisms of the coronavirus situation in the U.S. and disputed claims made by President Trump.
  • In response, the Trump administration sent out a list of remarks Fauci made early on in the pandemic that have since proven to be wrong.
  • Many condemned the move, pointing out that Trump has continued to push false narratives about the virus to this day even as Fauci has backtracked on past comments he made that turned out to be incorrect after more cohesive information came out.
  • Meanwhile, cases are surging all over the country, and Florida reported the single highest new cases ever recorded in a day in any state.

Fauci Ramps Up Warnings

President Donald Trump’s administration has launched a concerted effort to undermine Dr. Anthony Fauci, a leading expert on the White House Coronavirus Task Force and key public figure in the fight against the virus.

According to reports, the White House has blocked Dr. Fauci from his planned televised appearances in recent weeks. Some White House aides have said that is because TV interviewers often try to push Fauci into criticizing Trump and his administration’s approach to the virus. One senior official told the Washington Post that the doctor is not always good at “staying on message.”

But another person familiar with the matter also told CNN that Fauci has been making fewer TV appearances because the president is “annoyed by his public statements.” 

Fauci himself seemed to hint at a similar reason in an interview with the Financial Times last week, saying, “I have a reputation, as you probably have figured out, of speaking the truth at all times and not sugar-coating things. And that may be one of the reasons why I haven’t been on television very much lately.”

In the same interview, Fauci also said that he had not seen Trump in person since June 2, and he has not briefed the president in two months. Despite the apparent limitations, Fauci has still been putting his message out.

During a Facebook Live event with Sen. Doug Jones (D-AL) on Tuesday, the top expert disputed the president’s claim that a lower death rate showed the United States’ progress in the fight against the coronavirus which he called “a false narrative.”

“Don’t get yourself into false complacency,” he warned.

The White House responded by canceling some of Fauci’s televised appearances scheduled for later in the week, according to the Post

But Fauci still continued to contradict remarks made by Trump, faulting states for opening too soon and emphasize the seriousness of the situation in the U.S. During a podcast interview with FiveThirtyEight on Thursday, Fauci disputed the president’s frequent claim that the U.S. is “doing great.”

“As a country, when you compare us to other countries, I don’t think you can say we’re doing great,” he said. “I mean, we’re just not.”

Trump Administration Response

Trump, for his part, has responded by publicly undermining and contradicting the top public health expert.

During a Fox News interview Thursday, he said that Fauci “is a nice man, but he’s made a lot of mistakes.” 

During another interview earlier in the week, when asked about Fauci’s claim that, in his expert opinion, the U.S. was in a bad place, Trump responded, “I think we are in a good place. I disagree with him.”

However, the tension between Trump and Fauci escalated significantly on Saturday when aides to the president circulated a list of remarks made by Dr. Fauci to numerous media outlets that the administration said had later proved to be wrong.

That list, which multiple outlets have said resembled opposition research on a political opponent, was accompanied by a statement from a White House official who that “several White House officials are concerned about the number of times Dr. Fauci has been wrong on things” and noted about a dozen of those remarks.

According to reports, the list consisted of several instances early on in the pandemic where Fauci appeared to downplay the virus, including comments he made in January where he said the coronavirus was “not a major threat,” as well as reassurances he made in February where he minimized asymptomatic spread and argued that “at this moment, there is no need to change anything that you’re doing on a day-by-day basis.”

Response & Backlash

The list was a highly unusual move as it represented a direct attack by the Trump administration on one of its own members.

In response, many condemned Trump and praised Dr. Fauci, and the topic trended on Twitter. Some pointed out that the statements the White House had flagged were made by Dr. Fauci early on before there was more cohesive information about the coronavirus, and that he has since backtracked on those remarks.

But Trump, by contrast, has repeatedly downplayed the virus and actively made false claims about it as well as the use of face coverings. 

White House officials told reporters that their intent with the list was not to discredit Fauci, but to show that everyone should listen to a wide range of doctors. Others, however, said that it was incredibly hypocritical to send out this list of statements Fauci made months ago that later turned out to be wrong when Trump still touts some to this day.

The White House attempt to sideline and undermine Fauci also comes as the U.S. is seeing just massive spikes. On Sunday, Florida reported the highest amount of new cases in a single day in any state with more than 15,000.

On Monday, the New York Times reported that COVID cases are now officially rising in 39 states.

Trump continued to downplay the virus Monday morning, re-tweeting a post by Chuck Woodley where the conservative former game show host wrote that “Everyone is lying” about the coronavirus, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and doctors.

See what others are saying: (The New York Times) (The Washington Post) (NBC News)

Advertisements
Continue Reading

Politics

Mueller Will Be Invited to Testify Before Senate Judiciary Committee Following Roger Stone Commutation

Published

on

  • On Friday, President Donald Trump commuted the 40-month sentence of Roger Stone, who was found guilty of seven felonies including: obstruction, witness tampering, and making false statements.
  • The same day, former Special Counsel Robert Mueller defended his office’s prosecution of Stone, noting that Stone is still a convicted felon despite the commutation.
  • On Sunday, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said he will allow Mueller to be invited to testify before his Congressional committee. Graham defended Stone’s commutation, saying this was a “non-violent, first-time offense.”
  • Because Stone is a longtime friend of Trump, the move was condemned over the weekend by multiple Democrats and some Republicans, including Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT) and Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA).

Trump Commutes Stone

President Donald Trump’s commutation of Roger Stone had led to a flurry of responses, and it could even lead to former Special Counsel Robert Mueller testifying before Congress.

On Friday, Trump handed down the commutation to Stone, his longtime friend and former campaign adviser. For decades, Stone has been a figure of immense controversy, but increasing scrutiny in 2015 prompted him to leave the campaign team. 

Stone later found himself a subject in the Mueller investigation, which was conducting a probe into potential ties between the Trump campaign and Russia. In January 2019, Mueller’s office arrested Stone in relation to that investigation.

In November, Stone was convicted of all seven crimes he was accused of: witness tampering, obstructing a congressional investigation, and five counts of making false statements. In February, he was sentenced to 40 months in prison.

Though he had managed to get a two-week extension, Stone would have reported to prison on Tuesday. Leading up to that, Stone repeatedly and openly asked for his sentence to be commuted, arguing that he could die in prison because of the current COVID-19 pandemic. 

“[Trump] knows I was under enormous pressure to turn on him. It would have eased my situation considerably,” Stone told journalist Howard Fineman just hours before his commutation. “But I didn’t.”

Even though Trump has commuted and pardoned a number of controversial figures, this is the first time he’s done so for someone directly connected to his campaign.

“Mr. Stone was charged by the same prosecutors from the Mueller Investigation tasked with finding evidence of collusion with Russia,” the White House said in a statement. “Because no such evidence exists, however, they could not charge him for any collusion-related crime. 

“Instead, they charged him for his conduct during their investigation,” that statement went on to say. “The simple fact is that if the Special Counsel had not been pursuing an absolutely baseless investigation, Mr. Stone would not be facing time in prison.” 

The White House statement also pushed the argument regarding Stone’s health, saying, “Mr. Stone is a 67-year-old man, with numerous medical conditions, who had never been convicted of another crime.”

“Mr. Stone would be put at serious medical risk in prison,” it said.

While the statement asserts that Stone was “charged by overzealous prosecutors pursing a case that never should have existed,” it never once says that Stone is innocent of the seven crimes he was convicted of—just that his crimes stemmed from the investigation.

“The president has saved my life,” Stone later said on Friday, “and he’s given me the opportunity to fight for vindication, to fight for my exoneration.” 

Mueller Publishes Op-Ed

Also that same day, Mueller published an op-ed in The Washington Post where he defended Stone’s conviction and noted that the commutation does not overturn his status as a convicted felon.

“I feel compelled to respond both to broad claims that our investigation was illegitimate and our motives were improper, and to specific claims that Roger Stone was a victim of our office,” Mueller said. “The Russia investigation was of paramount importance. Stone was prosecuted and convicted because he committed federal crimes. He remains a convicted felon, and rightly so.”

In the op-ed, Mueller called Stone a “central figure” in the investigation for two reasons. The first was that in 2016, Stone reportedly communicated “with individuals known to us to be Russian intelligence officers.” The second is that he “claimed advance knowledge” of the Wiki-leaks release of then-candidate Hillary Clinton’s emails by those Russian intelligence officers.

“When a subject lies to investigators, it strikes at the core of the government’s efforts to find the truth and hold wrongdoers accountable. It may ultimately impede those efforts,” Mueller said. 

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) responded to Mueller’s op-ed on Sunday, indicating that he will now allow a Democratic request to allow Mueller to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Graham had previously blocked that request for months. 

“Apparently Mr. Mueller is willing – and also capable – of defending the Mueller investigation through an oped in the Washington Post,” Graham said.

“Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee have previously requested Mr. Mueller appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee to testify about his investigation. That request will be granted.”

Democrats Promise Investigation and Some Republicans Speak Out

Following Stones’ commutation, a wave of Democrats called the move an abuse of presidential power, saying it undermines the justice system. 

For example, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) called the move an example of “staggering corruption.” Representative Adam Schiff (D-CA) said Trump had engaged in an “impeachable offense.” Representative Jerry Nadler (D-NY) also promised to launch an investigation in the House Judiciary Committee. 

While many Republicans have been quiet on the commutation, some like Senator Mitt Romney (R-UT), have spoken out, saying on Saturday, “Unprecedented, historic corruption: an American president commutes the sentence of a person convicted by a jury of lying to shield that very president.”

Senator Pat Toomey (R-PA) also criticized the president for commuting Stone.

“While I understand the frustration with the badly flawed Russia-collusion investigation, in my view, commuting Roger Stone’s sentence is a mistake,” Toomey said.  “He was duly convicted of lying to Congress, witness tampering and obstruction of a congressional investigation conducted by a Republican-led committee.”

Toomey also noted that as recently as last week, Attorney General Bill Barr defended Stone’s conviction as “righteous.” Barr has also called Stone’s nearly three-and-a-half-year prison sentence“fair.”

Not all Republicans have vocally criticized the president for commuting Stone. In fact, Toomey and Romney have been directly targeted by Trump, who called them “Republicans in name only.”

Graham, on the other hand, has supported Trump’s move by citing Stone’s age and pointing out that this “was a non-violent, first-time offense.”

See what others are saying: (NBC News) (Politico) (The Washington Post)

Advertisements
Continue Reading

Politics

Top Military General Pushes for a “Hard Look” at Confederate-Named Bases, Disavows Their Namesakes as Treasonous

Published

on

  • Top military Gen. Mark A. Milley said before the House Armed Services Committee on Thursday that the military must take a “hard look” at Army bases named after Confederate officers.
  • “The Confederacy… was an act of rebellion,” he said. “It was an act of treason at the time against the Union, against the Stars and Stripes, against the U.S. Constitution, and those officers turned their back on their oath.”
  • Milley’s comments are an escalation in a recent tone shift by the military to disavow Confederate tributes that are rampant within the Armed Forces. 
  • It’s also being reported that the Defense Department is drafting a new policy that would ban the display of the Confederate flag from any of its buildings.

Milley Disavows Confederate Namesakes

A month after the U.S. Army said it was open to holding a “bipartisan conversation” on reviewing nearly a dozen major bases named after Confederate leaders, the military’s top officer has now said that the Armed Forces must take a “hard look” at that process. 

“The Confederacy… was an act of rebellion,” General Mark A. Milley, who is also Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said before the House Armed Services Committee Thursday. “It was an act of treason at the time against the Union, against the Stars and Stripes, against the U.S. Constitution, and those officers turned their back on their oath.”

“The way we should do it matters as much as that we should do it. So we need to have, I’ve recommended, a commission of folks to take a hard look at the bases, the statues, the names, all of this stuff, to see if we can have a rational, mature discussion.”

During that meeting, Milley also said that about one in every five members of the Army is Black.

“For those young soldiers that go onto a base—a Fort Hood, a Fort Bragg or a fort wherever named after a Confederate general—they can be reminded that that general fought for the institution of slavery that may have enslaved one of their ancestors,” Milley said.

While the phrase “this should not be a political issue” has become increasingly common vernacular in U.S. politics in recent years, Milley asserted that his decision was political and that the renaming of those bases will need to be political, as well. 

Any move to change those bases’ names will likely be met with a substantial amount of resistance, including from President Donald Trump. Just two days after Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy and Defense Secretary Mark Esper announced they were willing to hold talks on renaming 10 Army bases, Trump denounced the idea on Twitter.

“It has been suggested that we should rename as many as 10 of our Legendary Military Bases, such as Fort Bragg in North Carolina, Fort Hood in Texas, Fort Benning in Georgia, etc,” Trump said on June 10. “These Monumental and very Powerful Bases have become part of a Great American Heritage, and a history of Winning, Victory, and Freedom.”

The United States of America trained and deployed our HEROES on these Hallowed Grounds, and won two World Wars. Therefore, my Administration will not even consider the renaming of these Magnificent and Fabled Military Installations.”

“Our history as the Greatest Nation in the World will not be tampered with. Respect our Military!”

Trump has vowed to veto any defense bill that includes proposals to initiate renaming proceedings. Still, both Democrats and Republicans in Congress have backed the idea of renaming bases. A House version of an annual defense bill would explicitly ban displaying the Confederate flag on Defense Department property. Another pair of bills in the House even seek to tie funding to a renaming process.

In 2017, the Army refused to change the names of the bases in question, calling any attempt to rename them “controversial and divisive.” In February, McCarthy again said there were no plans to rename the bases.

However, McCarthy has now indicated that he has the power to change those bases’ names but will need input from the White House, Congress, and local officials. 

Banning the Confederate Flag

On Monday, it was also reported that leaders at the Pentagon are currently considering a ban on the Confederate flag at all bases. Notably, any such ban would extend to the whole of the Department of Defense.

CNN, which first reported the news, said it obtained the information from an official within the Pentagon. That official spoke on the condition of anonymity, as the move to ban Confederate flags would currently be classified as internal deliberations.

Thursday, Esper told the House that he’s initiated a process to begin examining “substantive and symbolic” issues. 

“We want to take a look at all those things,” Esper said. “There is a process underway by which we affirm… what types of flags are authorized on U.S. military bases.”

The announcement came roughly a month after two branches of the military—the Marines followed by the Navy—banned Confederate flags on their bases. Those bans include the flag itself, as well as iconography displayed on shirts and bumper stickers. They did not ban historical uses of the flag, such as in scenes depicting Civil War battles.

Still, calls to remove Confederate tributes from the U.S. military have not stopped with only installation names and Confederate flags. Many also want the military to disavow the names of ships and buildings with Confederate namesakes.

Why Were U.S. Military Bases Named After Confederates?

The concept behind naming U.S. military installations after leaders of an army that committed treason against the United States is (to say the least) a bit of an oxymoron, even if it has only recently come into mainstream purview thanks largely to wide-scale protests over racial injustice.

Notably, each of those 10 installations are all in former Confederate States—Louisiana, Georgia, North Carolina, Virginia, Texas, and Alabama. Most of them were founded in the early 1940’s following the U.S. joining World War II because of an immediate need for large areas of land on which to build Army bases. They then gained their namesakes from influential local residents.

Not only were these bases named during the Jim Crow era, two were also named after self-avowed white supremacists. Fort Benning—located near Columbus, Georgia—is named after Brigadier General Henry Benning, who directly cited the preservation slavery as a reason for secession during the Virginian secession convention of 1861.

“If things are allowed to go on as they are, it is certain that slavery is to be abolished,” Benning said in his explicitly racist speech. “By the time the North shall have attained the power, the Black race will be in a large majority, and then we will have Black governors, Black legislatures, Black juries, Black everything. Is it to be supposed that the white race will stand for that?”

“We will be completely exterminated, and the land will be left in the possession of the blacks, and then it will go back to a wilderness and become another Africa,” Benning later added in that speech.

The other base, Fort Bragg, carries the namesake of General Braxton Bragg. Ironically, Bragg is considered one of the worst generals in the Civil War, and most of his battles led to defeat. In fact, his losses were so devastating that he is commonly cited as one of the main reasons the Confederacy lost the war. 

Though it’s not the case for all the bases Milley is looking to rename, both Benning and Bragg have ties to the states where their bases sit. 

Besides the 10 bases in question, several other bases with Confederate namesakes still exist and currently have no plans of being renamed. That includes Camp Pendleton in Virginia, as well as Camp Maxey in Texas. Both are national guard posts. 

While not named after an officer, Fort Belvoir in Fairfax County, Virginia, is named after a slave plantation. Funnily enough, it didn’t gain that name until 1935 when it was changed from Camp A. A. Humphreys. What’s more, A. A. Humphreys was a Union General during the Civil War. Because of that, some have renewed criticism over the fort’s current name, arguing that it propagates a nostalgic vision of the Antebellum South. 

See what others are saying: (The Washington Post) (Politico) (CNN)

Advertisements
Continue Reading