Gen. Franks Doubts Constitution Will Survive WMD Attack
From a right-wing source
Gen. Franks Doubts Constitution Will Survive WMD Attack
John O. Edwards, NewsMax.com
Friday, Nov. 21, 2003
Gen. Tommy Franks says that if the United States is hit with a weapon of mass destruction that inflicts large casualties, the Constitution will likely be discarded in favor of a military form of government.
Franks, who successfully led the U.S. military operation to liberate Iraq, expressed his worries in an extensive interview he gave to the men’s lifestyle magazine Cigar Aficionado.
In the magazine’s December edition, the former commander of the military’s Central Command warned that if terrorists succeeded in using a weapon of mass destruction (WMD) against the U.S. or one of our allies, it would likely have catastrophic consequences for our cherished republican form of government.
Discussing the hypothetical dangers posed to the U.S. in the wake of Sept. 11, Franks said that “the worst thing that could happen” is if terrorists acquire and then use a biological, chemical or nuclear weapon that inflicts heavy casualties.
If that happens, Franks said, “... the Western world, the free world, loses what it cherishes most, and that is freedom and liberty we’ve seen for a couple of hundred years in this grand experiment that we call democracy.”
Franks then offered “in a practical sense” what he thinks would happen in the aftermath of such an attack.
“It means the potential of a weapon of mass destruction and a terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event somewhere in the Western world – it may be in the United States of America – that causes our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event. Which in fact, then begins to unravel the fabric of our Constitution. Two steps, very, very important.”
Franks didn’t speculate about how soon such an event might take place.
Already, critics of the U.S. Patriot Act, rushed through Congress in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, have argued that the law aims to curtail civil liberties and sets a dangerous precedent.
But Franks’ scenario goes much further. He is the first high-ranking official to openly speculate that the Constitution could be scrapped in favor of a military form of government.
The usually camera-shy Franks retired from U.S. Central Command, known in Pentagon lingo as CentCom, in August 2003, after serving nearly four decades in the Army.
Franks earned three Purple Hearts for combat wounds and three Bronze Stars for valor. Known as a “soldier’s general,” Franks made his mark as a top commander during the U.S.’s successful Operation Desert Storm, which liberated Kuwait in 1991. He was in charge of CentCom when Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda attacked the United States on Sept. 11.
Franks said that within hours of the attacks, he was given orders to prepare to root out the Taliban in Afghanistan and to capture bin Laden.
Originally posted by Yoepus
hmm it just might be me, but maybe we should try to prevent the United States from being hit with a weapon of mass destruction, no?
Just like we've been trying to keep the drugs out for how many years now?
If they REALLY wanted to sneak a WMD into the country, all they'd have to do is smuggle it in a bail of marijuana, don't you think?
Dec-22-2003 06:20
trancaholic
Danish Prophet of Doom
Registered: Oct 2000
Location: Aalborg
Re: Gen. Franks Doubts Constitution Will Survive WMD Attack
quote:
Originally posted by Trancer-X
“It means the potential of a weapon of mass destruction and a terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event somewhere in the Western world – it may be in the United States of America – that causes our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event.
To me it seems like this assumption is the crux of the matter. Personally, I believe it is a pretty naive idea of civilian society - I guess most people, even uneducated masses, would prefer liberty at some risk rather than totalitarian rule with smaller risk.
But you from the US should be the ones capable of answering that: Are you more inclined to homeland military rule after the Oklahoma, WTC, US. Cole, etc.?
Dec-22-2003 09:55
Dopey
Palestinian Pornstar
Registered: Dec 2003
Location: Ramallah
quote:
Originally posted by Trancer-X
Just like we've been trying to keep the drugs out for how many years now?
If they REALLY wanted to sneak a WMD into the country, all they'd have to do is smuggle it in a bail of marijuana, don't you think?
haha first thing ive read all day that made me laugh, thank you (no sarcasm intended)
personally, I think that acquiring the WMD is the harder part for the bin ladens. instead of fingerprinting every person comming into the country, they should put that money into tracking down the people that can make viruses and chemical compunds. how many ppl out there know how to make a strain of ebola that havent been schooled in it (just an example, please no comments from bio majors). if theyve been schooled in it, there are records of that education, and they should be kept under surveillence, not random arabs.
Dec-22-2003 10:11
occrider
Traveladdict
Registered: Oct 2000
Location: New York
Re: Re: Gen. Franks Doubts Constitution Will Survive WMD Attack
quote:
Originally posted by trancaholic
To me it seems like this assumption is the crux of the matter. Personally, I believe it is a pretty naive idea of civilian society - I guess most people, even uneducated masses, would prefer liberty at some risk rather than totalitarian rule with smaller risk.
But you from the US should be the ones capable of answering that: Are you more inclined to homeland military rule after the Oklahoma, WTC, US. Cole, etc.?
Well, if the basic precepts of the constitution survived during the height of the Cold War and the commie scare, I think it should do just fine even in the event of a wmd attack against the US (assuming it's not a full-blown nuclear warhead that takes out dc or new york killing millions). At worst, I think you would see a complete shut down of borders until a more effective means of border control can be devised.
___________________
Retro ...
Dec-22-2003 14:04
rizo
rizoholic
Registered: Apr 2003
Location: sf south bay
quote:
Originally posted by Dopey
personally, I think that acquiring the WMD is the harder part for the bin ladens. instead of fingerprinting every person comming into the country, they should put that money into tracking down the people that can make viruses and chemical compunds. how many ppl out there know how to make a strain of ebola that havent been schooled in it (just an example, please no comments from bio majors). if theyve been schooled in it, there are records of that education, and they should be kept under surveillence, not random arabs.
its called redundancy. im sure we track a few people that have the knowledge on the construction of WMDs but its not full proof, especially when other governments slackoff or dont fully cooperate
Dec-22-2003 20:11
Spin Doctor
Supreme tranceaddict
Registered: Jul 2001
Location: Outside Over There
Re: Gen. Franks Doubts Constitution Will Survive WMD Attack
quote:
Originally posted by Trancer-X
From a right-wing source
Gen. Franks Doubts Constitution Will Survive WMD Attack
John O. Edwards, NewsMax.com
Friday, Nov. 21, 2003
Gen. Tommy Franks says that if the United States is hit with a weapon of mass destruction that inflicts large casualties, the Constitution will likely be discarded in favor of a military form of government.
Called emergency powers.
Dec-22-2003 23:02
Trancer-X
mutatis mutandis
Registered: Jul 2001
Location: Shambhala
Re: Re: Gen. Franks Doubts Constitution Will Survive WMD Attack
quote:
Originally posted by Spin Doctor
Called emergency powers.
how about all the proposed internment camps for U.S. citizens?
Originally posted by rizen
its called redundancy. im sure we track a few people that have the knowledge on the construction of WMDs but its not full proof, especially when other governments slackoff or dont fully cooperate
first, "full proof" isn't anything.
second, you don't need much cooperation from governments. more money needs to put into intelligence. into recruiting and training american arabs, indians, and asian college grads. even putting them through college if need be.
Dec-23-2003 03:54
Yoepus
Neo-condimist
Registered: Jan 2002
Location: Ketchup fields, Texas
quote:
Originally posted by Dopey
first, "full proof" isn't anything.
second, you don't need much cooperation from governments. more money needs to put into intelligence. into recruiting and training american arabs, indians, and asian college grads. even putting them through college if need be.
umm well that didn't seem to work with the drug trade....
___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!
