Gen. Franks Doubts Constitution Will Survive WMD Attack

News Max.Com ^ | 11-21-03

[Lady Eileen]

I have read everything you have posted on this thread and have found nothing offensive, instead it has motivated and inspired me.

[ezo4]

"My guess is that they would not mess with the 2nd Amendment following a WMD attack"

read it to me again please. I just want to hear one more time just to make sure Im right?

[ASOC]

Large number of interesting posts.

Some other folks have given this a lot of thought
Try reading-
Kerney. 00Nuclear War Survial Skills (on line these days)

O Scott Card --wrote a good book on the "6 rocket war" Very chilling

RA Hienlein --had several good ones, the least of which was Franhams Freehold - who knew he was writing survialist fiction?

And for fun, the Fox Fire series, I still need to track down #2 to complete my collection.

Read and enjoy on a long winters night.

[billbears]

Constitution? That's the document politicians now use as a catchphrase whenever they want to do something completely unconstitutional isn't it? The Constitution hasn't been leading this nation for well over a hundred years

[Travis McGee]

Franks was just "what-iffing" a worst case scenario, to get the thinking juices flowing. I admire him for it. I expect that thousands of officers like Franks would do all in their power to ensure the legit succession of the presidency, unless the country was shattered. Say, smallpox rampant and unchecked, computers attacked and useless, anthrax on top, etc. In that case, you must put order ahead of anarchy, or there will be no constitution to come back to when the lights come back on and the highways are opened again.

[DarthVader]

Yes and arrest all traitors and those who give aid and comfort to the enemy.

[lafroste]

Ah, East Halls. I had two memorable experiences there (I never lived there, just caroused there a few times). Both were really funny. How many PSU freepers are there anyway?

[geopyg]

Franks said: "...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.”

I think he sees it as "the people" wanting the protection - allowing the militarization - not a bunch of Generals just taking over. But wanting the government to take over and protect us the "best" way possible could NEVER happen in America. (Unless it might affect Social Security, Blue Cross Health, Welfare checks, .....) ;-)

[billbears]

Every two-hundred-year-old nation is entitled to at least one patriot-dictator. I'd rather lose the Constitution temporarily than permanently

No thanks. Already had one of those for a little over four years

[Centurion2000]

“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.

IF we as a population should ever do this the rest of the planet should take a huge step back from fear.

World War 2 style total militarization in the United States would make total world conquest feasable for the first time in history. And this time we might start imposing Carthaginian style peace on our enemies.

Kill 1-10 million Americans and the rest are going to be out for BLOOD and VENGEANCE.

[Centurion2000]

Besides, when you have no job, you won't have the money to buy the milk and bread anyway. And forget your credit cards and cash, they won't be worth the paper/plastic they're printed on

Keep a few hundred dollars in pre-1964 coins .... I promise you that a local farmer is going to eventually take it in trade.

[section9]

It is true. Franks was just "what iffing", like any good War College graduate.

But we would not need to suspend the Constitution, save for a declaration of martial law in the affected city or cities and a federalization of the state National Guard. Why?

Franks makes the mistake of assuming that we would hunker down, suspend the Constitution, and militarize ourselves to prevent a second attack.

We would not need to. We shall make an example of several Arab cities and large swaths of the Islamic heartland in return. We will only need to demonstrate the power of real, live thermonuclear weapons once, weapons that will dwarf the yield of the small tactical warhead the terrorists will use. When we are done, no one will dream of killing our citizens again.

We will be hated. But we will also be feared.

That will make all the difference.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[Myrddin]

Sir, I think you have forgotten what percentage (probably 80+%) of our citizens would rather hand over their rights for temporary security.

I recall that only about 5% need to actively participate to get the job done. I would be thrilled if 20% actually had the fortitude to step up and ensure that our country doesn't devolve into a military dictatorship.

[Centurion2000]

"The day we stop believing in democracy is the day we lose it." -Queen Jamilla

And just how the heck does a Queen get elected and have a set term of office ????

One of the more stupid points that AOTC had in it. :-)

[Lurker]

General Franks presupposes that the US Constitution is actually still operative. It's not.

L

[abigkahuna]

Jeff, if you remember there are a series of EOs dealing with post nuclear society. Most date from the Kennedy administration when we relly thought we were on the brink...

Little things like the postman is the local government spy/agent to determine who at what address is able to attend work detail, etc, etc, etc....Food, fuel and what not is not to be hoarded, all of that and more is contained in the EOs.]

If you think about it, it makes sense. I think martial law would be declared regionally as determined by the threat. The constitution would be severely strained.

As this is a "Newsmax" story, I would have to see t original to understand just what the context was in TOmmy Franks remarks...

[MattAMiller]

I don't really see the mechanism by which this would happen. I guess you could have some parts of the military attempt to seize power. But they'd have difficulty receiving recognition from the citizenry and the bureaucracy, not to mention the rest of the military. If Congress tried to buck Constitutional procedure and install a new government they'd face the same problems.

[Hazzardgate]

This is just below The Day After or Threads level

Easy now

[Empireoftheatom48]

Me too GWB a hero for our time!!

[GOPJ]

Oh My God bump