logo
American Service Members Are Getting Real Sharing Their Thoughts On The Marines Being Sent Into LA

American Service Members Are Getting Real Sharing Their Thoughts On The Marines Being Sent Into LA

Yahooa day ago

As the protests in Los Angeles against ICE continue, the Trump administration announced it would be sending in 2,000 additional National Guard soldiers as well as 700 active duty Marines. According to Reuters, they will "protect federal personnel and property" as the administration carries out "even more operations to round up suspected immigration violators."
Governor Gavin Newsom has filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, claiming that the president did not have the legal authority to call in the National Guard, as well as requested a temporary restraining order to stop the use of the National Guard and active Marines "for law enforcement purposes."
This is the first time that active duty military members have been called up to assist with law enforcement since 1992, and unsurprisingly, many of them (as well as veterans) have thoughts on the topic. NotSlayerOfDemons asked, "Those in the American Armed Forces, how do you feel about troops being used to quell unrest in-country?" and service members, both active and former, did not hold back in these 28 responses:
1."Former Army. Unrest is when the citizens are trying to send a message to the government. Using troops against your citizens is the government's way of not listening."
—cobra7
2."Marine here. (Once a Marine, always.) Iraq vet. I definitely do not agree with using the Marines. Hopefully, they used MPs with riot training, but using infantry to do police work is not smart. It's like trying to use a trained attack dog to herd sheep. What do you think those teenagers are going to do when someone starts throwing rocks at them?"
—Nevada_Lawyer
3."USAF veteran. We swear an oath to the Constitution. Not to any regime, party, or person."
—chiksahlube
4."Trump is creating his Reichstag fire. Take the time to look this up if you aren't familiar with it."
—RuralMNGuy
(The Reichstag fire was a fire that burned down the Reichstag building, which housed the German parliament, in 1933. The origins of the fire remain unclear, but it became propaganda for Hitler's Nazi government, and he used it to issue the Reichstag Fire Decree, restricting free speech, freedom of the press, and allowing him to begin arresting members of the opposition parties.)
5."As a Marine vet, this fucking sucks. These kids are 18–22 years old and don't know shit about what the Constitution allows or what the Posse Comitatus Act is. They are taught enough not to harm an unarmed civilian, but decades of training for combating guerrilla warfare makes people jumpy. If protesters start throwing Molotov cocktails, or god forbid shooting, then shit gets real for these kids quick. I am afraid that if anything happens, it's going to put a black eye on the Corps that will never be forgotten by the American public."
—Maikudono
6."As a vet, I will say it comes across as totalitarian. There is no reason to use active duty military against your own citizens. There's a great quote from Battlestar Galactica: 'The police and the military have always been separate for a reason. One serves and protects the people, the other fights enemies of the state. When the military does both, the enemies of the state tend to become the people.'"
—Ok-Student7803
7."Army veteran and a SoCal native of 30 years here. Glad to see the president not allowing California to burn to the ground. Everyone knows the governor wasn't going to intervene."
—ChinMuscle
8."Man, that makes me think of the saying 'When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.' That's the really scary part of having the military do the policing, isn't it?"
—kkeiper1103
Related: "Honestly Speechless At How Evil This Is": 26 Brutal, Brutal, Brutal Political Tweets Of The Week
9."Telling soldiers to stand on the street with weapons drawn doesn't quell unrest. It provokes unrest."
—timf3d
10."Honorably discharged Army veteran here (Gulf War era). I can say that I and my fellow vet friends think that these troop deployments are fucking terrible. Horrifying, actually."
—PSadair
11."This is what the National Guard is for. Putting active duty military personnel on the streets of America to play policeman is a mistake."
—RC10B5M
12."I served in the Marines, and I'm glad I don't have to sit there and think, 'Question the legality of this and get an NJP [Non-Judicial Punishment], or go and potentially be put in a situation where they'll have me on trial in The Hague in a few years…'"
"Sooner or later, for everyone, the uniform comes off, and those guys are going to have a hell of a time integrating back into civilian society, even if they end up doing nothing while there."
—Bureaucratic_Dick
13."I'm not active, but former military. I think it's wrong. It's an overreach on presidential power. Plus, it's hard enough getting the everyday American to support our troops these days without deploying them to attack our own civilians."
—crash218579
Related: AOC's Viral Response About A Potential Presidential Run Has Everyone Watching, And I'm Honestly Living For It
14."Retired Marine here. There are units in the military trained for this. Active duty infantry units are not those units. They can say all they want that they are trained in de-escalation, but in reality, it's maybe one to two days of training a year and maybe some rapid last-minute refreshers as soon as they found out they were getting sent to LA. The bulk of their training and instincts are to destroy the enemy. This will not go well."
—RonWill79
15."Former Army here — it's complete bullshit. Let law enforcement enforce the law, let the military do military operations. To be honest, they were waiting for any reason to do this because they want to 'send a message,' but the message that's sent isn't what they think it is. I feel sorry for those soldiers sleeping on the hard floor with no plan of provisions for water/food, not abroad in a war zone, but in downtown fucking LA."
—mcstevied
16."Former Marine, from Los Angeles, from immigrant parents. Fuck this administration. I hope those troops remember their oath to the US Constitution and to the people of the nation. I'm so disappointed with this whole situation."
—Tacos_and_Yut
17."I think following the orders of a 34-count felon who is responsible for attacking the Capitol of the USA is reprehensible. I sincerely regret my service to the USA and wish I could take it back. It will not happen again."
—TheDwellingHeart
18."I don't support violent protests. I also don't support Marines being used to quell said protests. Marines are a tool you use to destroy an area or group of people, not to peacefully resolve it. The guard makes more sense here, but the best answer is just keeping it at the police level."
—Well__shit
19."GWOT [Global War on Terrorism] veteran here. This shit is absolutely wack. The United States has used the National Guard MANY times throughout its history, albeit for civil unrest or not. The National Guard does an impeccable job at this, and to hear the National Guard is being utilized isn't too concerning."
"The VERY large, stomach-churning moment is the president giving the green light to utilize 2/7 out of Twentynine Palms. These are not 'peacekeepers.' Their motto is fucking literally 'First to Fight.' They have a long history of intense combat operations from WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm, and GWOT. This is a highly decorated combat unit within the US military's arsenal.
Pitting young, war-fighting men against the people they thought they were protecting is going to be a disastrous clusterfuck."
—NSTalley
20."I support the National Guard being used to protect federal buildings and to quell riots and obstruction to the enforcement of federal law."
—Bravelakes
21."Served in the Navy from '09–'13. The bulk of these guys have never deployed, which is a badge of honor. Young, untested 18–22 year olds with guns seems like a really bad idea to me."
—anthonyajh
22."As a veteran I am pissed that I spent four years defending this country only to have some idiots vote for and support a Christo-fascist government and despite all evidence still believe this is going to be a 'good' thing."
—MediocreDecking
23."Retired Navy here and also a former Marine. Sending an infantry battalion (2/7) to assist the LAPD and the National Guard is the wrong move. There are whole-ass battalions of military police who are specifically trained for this scenario. Why weren't they sent? Every active duty/veteran I know is against this."
—Baker_Kat68
24."It's a complicated issue. Most service members take their oath to defend the Constitution seriously, which includes the rights of Americans to protest. Using the military for domestic unrest should be an absolute last resort, not the go-to option. We're trained to engage enemies, not fellow citizens."
"Many of us feel deep discomfort at the idea of turning our training inward. Peace, order, and public safety are crucial, but so is trust between the people and their government! And nothing erodes that faster than boots on home soil in situations that call for dialogue, not force."
—Emotional_Ticket_357
25."Marine here, many of the brothers and sisters I served with came from immigrant families and communities in LA or ones just like them. I'm sure there's a few Marines who are on board with this crap, but many are really struggling with this, I can guarantee you."
—skamatiks671
26."Nobody likes the idea that this administration is attempting to politicize the military. It's awkward for us. The way the Secretary of Defense talks is vile, unprofessional, and embarrassing. Recruiting and retention will plummet."
—220solitusma
27."It's an accident waiting to happen."
—kozmo30
28.And finally, "Real take, most of them don't particularly care and just want to do their job and go home, regardless of the situation. Marines are people and lean slightly right — so you do have people who are giddy about 'enforcing order' — but nobody wants to be dressed up in full kit in LA summer heat."
—HerrArado
What do you think? Let us know in the comments.
Comments have been edited for length and clarity.
Also in In the News: JD Vance Shared The Most Bizarre Tweet Of Him Serving "Food" As Donald Trump's Housewife
Also in In the News: A NSFW Float Depicting Donald Trump's "MAGA" Penis Was Just Paraded Around Germany, And It's...Something
Also in In the News: This Senator's Clap Back Fully Gagged An MSNBC Anchor, And The Clip Is Going Viral

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

3 killed and scores injured as Russia targets Ukraine with new attacks
3 killed and scores injured as Russia targets Ukraine with new attacks

San Francisco Chronicle​

time28 minutes ago

  • San Francisco Chronicle​

3 killed and scores injured as Russia targets Ukraine with new attacks

KYIV, Ukraine (AP) — Russian forces have pummeled Ukraine with drones and other weapons, killing three people and injuring scores of others despite international pressure to accept a ceasefire, officials said Thursday. According to the Ukrainian air force, Russia launched a barrage of 63 drones and decoys at Ukraine overnight. It said that air defenses destroyed 28 drones while another 21 were jammed. Ukraine's police said two people were killed and six were injured over the past 24 hours in the eastern Donetsk region, the focus of the Russian offensive. One person was killed and 14 others were also injured in the southern Kherson region, which is partly occupied by Russian forces, police said. The head of the Kharkiv region, Oleh Syniehubov, said that 15 people, including four children, were injured by Russian drone attacks overnight. Kharkiv city mayor Ihor Terekhov said Russian drones targeted residential districts, educational facilities, kindergartens and other civilian infrastructure. 'Kharkiv is holding on. People are alive. And that is the most important thing,' Terekhov said. The Russian military has launched waves of drones and missiles in recent days, with a record bombardment of almost 500 drones on Monday and a wave of 315 drones and seven missiles overnight on Tuesday. The recent escalation in aerial attacks has come alongside a renewed Russian battlefield push along eastern and northeastern parts of the more than 1,000-kilometer (over 600-mile) front line. While Russian missile and drone barrage have struck regions all across Ukraine, regions along the front line have faced daily Russian attacks with short-range exploding drones and glide bombs. Ukraine hit back with drone raids. Russia's Defense Ministry said that air defenses downed 52 Ukrainian drones early Thursday, including 41 over the Belgorod region that borders Ukraine. Regional Gov. Vyacheslav Gladkov said three people were injured by Ukrainian attacks Thursday. The attacks have continued despite discussions of a potential ceasefire in the war. During their June 2 talks in Istanbul, Russian and Ukrainian negotiators traded memorandums containing sharply divergent conditions that both sides see as nonstarters, making any quick deal unlikely. Speaking at a meeting of leaders of southeast European countries in Odesa, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy urged the European Union to toughen its latest package of sanctions against Russia. He argued that lowering the cap on the price of Russian oil from $60 to $45 as the bloc has proposed isn't enough. 'Real peace comes with a $30 cap -– that's the level that will truly change thinking in Moscow,' Zelenskyy said. German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius arrived in Kyiv Thursday on an unannounced visit, noting that the stepped-up Russian attacks on Ukraine send a message from Moscow that it has 'no interest in a peaceful solution at present,' according to German news agency dpa. 'Of course this will also be about how the support of Germany and other Europeans will look in future – what we can do, for example, in the area of industrial cooperation, but also other support,' he said.

Live Updates: Court Will Consider Trump's Use of Troops as Immigration Protests Spread
Live Updates: Court Will Consider Trump's Use of Troops as Immigration Protests Spread

New York Times

time29 minutes ago

  • New York Times

Live Updates: Court Will Consider Trump's Use of Troops as Immigration Protests Spread

California liberals welcomed Gov. Gavin Newsom's speech condemning President Trump, but some remained skeptical of the governor. Republicans, meanwhile, saw his address as opportunistic and blamed him for the state's turmoil. For months, Californians weren't sure what to make of Gov. Gavin Newsom. There was the new podcast on which he interviewed right-wing influencers and said he felt trans athletes shouldn't participate in women's sports. There was the meeting in February with President Trump in the White House. And there were occasional snipes at Republicans, but nothing like those Mr. Newsom had dished out in years past. Then came a blistering nine-minute speech on Tuesday in which Mr. Newsom warned Americans that Mr. Trump was destroying democracy and acting as an authoritarian who would eventually send the military to states across the country. Many liberals in California cheered Mr. Newsom, finally seeing in him the leader of the resistance that they had been missing. Those feeling confused and fearful since Mr. Trump started his second term were looking for someone to stick up for them and said they appreciated Mr. Newsom's forcefulness. 'In a time of rising fear and growing threats to democracy, he spoke not just as a governor, but as a moral leader,' said Representative Lateefah Simon, Democrat of California. 'He named the danger plainly.' But others, while supportive of his message, were not entirely convinced. They said testing the political climate ahead of a potential run for president. 'Even if you're late to the party, you know, welcome to the fight,' said Hugo Soto-Martinez, a progressive City Council member in Los Angeles, who appreciated what Mr. Newsom said but wished the governor had stood up to the president sooner. Adrian Tirtanadi, executive director of Open Door Legal, a nonprofit which provides free legal representation for immigrants and others, said he liked all of the words in Mr. Newsom's speech. But, he said, he wondered why the governor was not backing up the rhetoric with more financial support for immigration lawyers who could fight deportation. Big talk without much action, Mr. Tirtanadi said, is often the California way. Still, others appreciated that Mr. Newsom had demanded that Mr. Trump stop workplace raids and filed lawsuits seeking to block the deployment of National Guard troops and Marines in Southern California. That has given some hope to immigrants who have felt powerless. When David Campos was 14, he and his family traveled by foot and by bus, across deserts and over mountains, to California from their home in Guatemala. They scurried under a border fence and settled in South Central Los Angeles without legal papers. The family eventually obtained citizenship through his father's carpentry job. Mr. Campos went on to Stanford University and Harvard Law School, served on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors and is now the vice chairman of the California Democratic Party. Mr. Campos said he was glad that Mr. Newsom, the former San Francisco mayor with whom he sometimes clashed, took a defiant stance toward Mr. Trump. 'I'm glad he's rising to this moment,' Mr. Campos, 54, said in an interview. 'The governor reminded us that if the president can do this in California, he can do it anywhere in this country. That's how a democracy can die.' Republicans in California, many of whom have aligned with President Trump, said they were decidedly unimpressed with the governor's speech. Senator Brian Jones, the State Senate minority leader, said that the governor seemed to have been filming an early campaign commercial with his speech, from the way the flags were set in his backdrop to the suit he was wearing. 'It doesn't do anything to lower tensions in L.A.,' Mr. Jones said. 'When he says we all need to stand up, is he encouraging more people to show up to the riots and participate?' James Gallagher, the Republican leader of the California State Assembly, called the governor's address 'self-righteous political posturing.' Mr. Gallagher said California's policy of preventing local law enforcement from working with federal immigration officials created the current tension. He said he found it funny that Mr. Newsom was accusing Mr. Trump of being authoritarian when the governor ordered Californians to close their businesses, stay home from church, attend school on Zoom, wear masks and get vaccinated during the Covid-19 pandemic. 'He was a total tyrant, and he has no business talking about authoritarianism because he is exhibit A,' Mr. Gallagher said. Mr. Newsom's speech, as well as his sharp-tongued retorts to Republicans on social media this week, won some plaudits from younger influencers. Dwayne Murphy, Jr., a 34-year-old content creator who lives in Downey, Calif., and said he votes Democrat, said he appreciated that the governor 'seems to be hyper-focused on standing up for this state at a time like this, and I feel like that's what people are very encouraged by.' Inkiad Kabir, 20, a pop culture content creator who lives in the Inland Empire region of California, said that Mr. Newsom was the rare Democrat willing to go on the attack, calling him 'basically liberal Trump, in a way.' Mr. Kabir created a popular TikTok video this week in which he called the governor 'Daddy Newsom' and likened the governor to a 'toxic ex that you promise you're not going to go back to, but you always go back to.' For now, it seems, Mr. Kabir has gone back.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store