theweek.com/...
In February 1933, an arsonist set fire to the Reichstag, the German parliament building. When a young communist was arrested for the crime, Adolf Hitler, who had become chancellor one month before, declared that it was part of a communist plot to overthrow the government. The next day, a law was signed essentially suspending all civil liberties, and Hitler quickly purged his political opponents from government and consolidated the Nazi Party's grip on power.
Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting that President Trump is going to turn the United States into a genocidal dictatorship. But we should understand that eventually, there will be some kind of terrorist attack on U.S. soil — perhaps one that fails, or one that succeeds in killing a few Americans, or more than a few. While we have been remarkably safe from terrorism since September 11 — fewer than 100 of us killed by jihadi terrorists over those 15 years — such attacks do happen from time to time. And when the first one of Trump's presidency occurs, he will probably move quickly to take advantage of it. In fact, I'd be surprised if Stephen Bannon and Stephen Miller aren't already working on a plan for what to do when they get the chance.
"If Trump loses in court he credibly will say to the American people that he tried and failed to create tighter immigration controls. This will deflect blame for the attack. And it will also help Trump to enhance his power after the attack."
What precisely might Trump do? We know that unlike President Obama, he won't try to calm people down or remind them of how safe we are. He'll do exactly the opposite: ramp up people's fear and anger, using the attack (now matter how minor it might have been) as justification for a range of policy moves.
A terrorist attack on the homeland as an excuse to take us closer to a literal dictatorship might be up there as one of the single greatest threats we face as a nation right now. We are kidding ourselves if we dismiss this danger or underestimate its chances of happening. Think about it this way: If you lived in California, shouldn’t you have a plan for earthquakes ready to go at a moment’s notice? Same for living in Oklahoma and dealing with tornadoes. Or the Northeast or the upper Midwest and dealing with blizzards. (Californians and their earthquake threat might be the closest analogy here, because unlike the other natural disasters, there still doesn’t exist a way to predict precisely when and where earthquakes will strike. They could happen at any time.)
Let’s be very clear right now that we need that plan formulated BEFORE such an attack happens. Trump has made no secret of the fact that he wants to move with ramming speed to get things done. You think that the time between an attack on the homeland and Trump’s and Bannon’s destroying of what civil liberties we have left would be as short as a few days? Oh no. Worst-case scenario—which we must collectively prepare for—try a few hours. Because all that this president would need to do would be to declare martial law, either in a select few areas, over a select few groups of people (hint, hint), or over the nation as a whole, and bam, it’s done. Do not put it past him to do that.
Is this article, and am I, exaggerating? If you think so, let me ask this: Suppose that tomorrow, if you got in a car (or bus or whatever vehicle) and rode around, say, to work, you had a 5% of dying a horrible death, would you take that ride? I. Don’t. Think. So. What about a 1% chance? Not if you know what’s best for you. So even if Trump’s chances of taking actions that would directly threaten citizens’ civil liberties are “only” on the order of 1-2%, that is still way, way too high. And a chance for which we must have a nonviolent collective plan of action ready to go on a moment’s notice.