Latest news with #ReichstagFireDecree
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
American Service Members Are Getting Real Sharing Their Thoughts On The Marines Being Sent Into LA
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 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' Also in In the News: This Senator's Clap Back Fully Gagged An MSNBC Anchor, And The Clip Is Going Viral
Buzz Feed
2 days ago
- Politics
- Buzz Feed
American Servicemembers Share Thoughts On Marines In LA
As the protests in Los Angeles against ICE continue, the Trump administration announced it would be sending in 2000 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 servicemembers, both active and former, did not hold back in these 28 responses: "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 "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?" "USAF veteran. We swear an oath to the Constitution. Not to any regime, party, or person." "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.) "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." "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.'" "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 "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?" "Telling soldiers to stand on the street with weapons drawn doesn't quell unrest. It provokes unrest." "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 "This is what the National Guard is for. Putting active duty military personnel on the streets of America to play policeman is a mistake." "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…'" "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 "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 1-2 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." "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." "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 "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." "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." "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 young, war-fighting, men against the people the thought they were protecting is going to be a disastrous clusterfuck."—NSTalley "I support the National Guard being used to protect federal buildings and to quell riots and obstruction to the enforcement of federal law." "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." "As a Veteran I am pissed that I spent 4 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 "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." "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." "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 "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." "It's an accident waiting to happen." —kozmo30 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." What do you think? Let us know in the comments.
Yahoo
27-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Opinion - What we can still learn from the Reichstag fire
I'm always troubled when politicians or commentators attempt to link the authoritarianism of the Trump administration to 1930s Germany. The years that led to the Holocaust were unique in modern history, a systematic plan imposed by Hitler's government to identify, persecute, segregate, impoverish, expunge and ultimately annihilate an entire group of people based on underlying racial laws. There are however, specific and isolated events during that period that can warn us today. One such occurred in Berlin, exactly 92 years ago: the Reichstag fire of Feb. 27, 1933. The fire served as a convenient crisis for Hitler's government to declare a state of emergency and begin dismantling what had been a constitutional democracy. And similar events have been frequently replicated in the authoritarian playbook. Almost a month after Hitler was installed as chancellor, an arson attack engulfed the Reichstag building, home of the German parliament. Firefighters and police found and arrested Marinus van der Lubbe, a Dutch communist. That night, Hermann Goring told Hitler, 'This is a communist outrage!' Hitler called the fire a 'sign from God.' The head of the Berlin fire department later presented evidence suggesting Nazi Party involvement in the fire. He was arrested, imprisoned, strangled and killed in prison. The day after the fire, President Paul von Hindenburg signed the Reichstag Fire Decree, which suspended most civil liberties in Germany and banned media considered unfriendly to Hitler. Despite van der Lubbe's own claims that he had acted alone, Hitler pushed the narrative of a widespread attack against the nation. Nazi party media outlets ignored overwhelming evidence to the contrary and amplified the claim. Many Germans who had enjoyed liberal democracy consequently supported draconian measures to keep them safe, including the arrests of thousands of communists and the suppression of legitimate opposition parties in the parliament. In the elections one week later, the Nazi Party increased its share of the vote in the Reichstag from 33 percent to 44 percent. Then came the second blow to democracy. On March 23, the parliament, where meaningful opposition to Hitler had been eliminated, effectively neutered itself by approving the Enabling Act, which allowed Hitler to rule by decree. Since then, historians have argued whether the Reichstag fire was a conspiracy caried out by Nazi stormtroopers to justify Hitler's rollback of legal protections. Wiliam Shirer called van der Lube 'a dupe of the Nazis' who had been encouraged by them to set the building on fire. Still others, including Ian Kershaw, have argued that van der Lube acted alone, but that the emergency was exploited by Hitler. Either way, the fire itself was what Hitler needed to terrify a population already buffeted by economic and social crises after World War I. In the name of national security, which hadn't actually been threatened, the German people surrendered their rights. In a recent New York Review of Books essay, 'The Making of Emergencies,' Caroline Elkins reminds us of the long history of invoking emergency powers, in and outside of the U.S.. Since 1976, American presidents have declared national emergencies more than 80 times. President Trump however, has come closer to the voices we heard in 1933 than any of his predecessors. He speaks of enemies within; he has repeatedly threatened to jail his political opponents (just Google 'Trump' and 'jail opponents' and choose from the multitude of links). Vice President JD Vance has argued that judges can't control Trump's legitimate power, leaving the interpretation of 'legitimate' rather vague. And Trump himself recently posted on social media, 'He who saves his Country does not violate any Law.' I repeat, explicitly: the totality of events in Germany, starting 92 years ago, have no parallel with the totality of policies and social media posts today. But both the left and the right have learned how easy it is for people to toss away their freedoms when the fire alarm sounds. Steve Israel represented New York in the House of Representatives for eight terms and was chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee from 2011 to 2015. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
27-02-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
What we can still learn from the Reichstag fire
I'm always troubled when politicians or commentators attempt to link the authoritarianism of the Trump administration to 1930s Germany. The years that led to the Holocaust were unique in modern history, a systematic plan imposed by Hitler's government to identify, persecute, segregate, impoverish, expunge and ultimately annihilate an entire group of people based on underlying racial laws. There are however, specific and isolated events during that period that can warn us today. One such occurred in Berlin, exactly 92 years ago: the Reichstag fire of Feb. 27, 1933. The fire served as a convenient crisis for Hitler's government to declare a state of emergency and begin dismantling what had been a constitutional democracy. And similar events have been frequently replicated in the authoritarian playbook. Almost a month after Hitler was installed as chancellor, an arson attack engulfed the Reichstag building, home of the German parliament. Firefighters and police found and arrested Marinus van der Lubbe, a Dutch communist. That night, Hermann Goring told Hitler, 'This is a communist outrage!' Hitler called the fire a 'sign from God.' The head of the Berlin fire department later presented evidence suggesting Nazi Party involvement in the fire. He was arrested, imprisoned, strangled and killed in prison. The day after the fire, President Paul von Hindenburg signed the Reichstag Fire Decree, which suspended most civil liberties in Germany and banned media considered unfriendly to Hitler. Despite van der Lubbe's own claims that he had acted alone, Hitler pushed the narrative of a widespread attack against the nation. Nazi party media outlets ignored overwhelming evidence to the contrary and amplified the claim. Many Germans who had enjoyed liberal democracy consequently supported draconian measures to keep them safe, including the arrests of thousands of communists and the suppression of legitimate opposition parties in the parliament. In the elections one week later, the Nazi Party increased its share of the vote in the Reichstag from 33 percent to 44 percent. Then came the second blow to democracy. On March 23, the parliament, where meaningful opposition to Hitler had been eliminated, effectively neutered itself by approving the Enabling Act, which allowed Hitler to rule by decree. Since then, historians have argued whether the Reichstag fire was a conspiracy caried out by Nazi stormtroopers to justify Hitler's rollback of legal protections. Wiliam Shirer called van der Lube 'a dupe of the Nazis' who had been encouraged by them to set the building on fire. Still others, including Ian Kershaw, have argued that van der Lube acted alone, but that the emergency was exploited by Hitler. Either way, the fire itself was what Hitler needed to terrify a population already buffeted by economic and social crises after World War I. In the name of national security, which hadn't actually been threatened, the German people surrendered their rights. In a recent New York Review of Books essay, ' The Making of Emergencies,' Caroline Elkins reminds us of the long history of invoking emergency powers, in and outside of the U.S.. Since 1976, American presidents have declared national emergencies more than 80 times. President Trump however, has come closer to the voices we heard in 1933 than any of his predecessors. He speaks of enemies within; he has repeatedly threatened to jail his political opponents (just Google 'Trump' and 'jail opponents' and choose from the multitude of links). Vice President JD Vance has argued that judges can't control Trump's legitimate power, leaving the interpretation of 'legitimate' rather vague. And Trump himself recently posted on social media, 'He who saves his Country does not violate any Law.' I repeat, explicitly: the totality of events in Germany, starting 92 years ago, have no parallel with the totality of policies and social media posts today. But both the left and the right have learned how easy it is for people to toss away their freedoms when the fire alarm sounds.
