Gen. Franks Doubts Constitution Will Survive WMD Attack

News Max.Com ^ | 11-21-03

[TSgt]

"When it happens here, it'll be chaos like you can't imagine."

You are absolutely correct my friend.

Just look at how Americans act after finding out that a major snowstorm or other weather event is coming. Can you imagine the chaos if people couldn't go to their local store to buy hotdogs or duct tape?

Americans today, except for the very old, have always been able to get what they need when they need it.

I'm not a whacko, tinfoil, conspiracy survivalist. I'm just a young man, 27, who sees the big picture and meticulously follows current events.

And damn those who don't think we are in a holy war because we are.

[Cautor]

Sorry, but I simply don't accept your view that we could survive a WMD attack and maintain our current view of the "Constitution." The fact is that today, the west is already incapable of doing what it must to beat terrorism. We're too soft--just look at the left-wingers in this country, in the media, in Europe. You can't convince them to do what is really necessary. A WMD will put the west into a dark age in which only the strongest will survive, and I don't mean the professors and lawyers.

[Rebelbase]

"It'll be over."

Society is only five meals away from chaos.

Bio weapon quarantines shutting down interstate travel for a month would shut down the grocery stores in a week, which would be chaos for the boob-tube, prime-time masses.

The more self-reliant types will endure with less discomfort.

[Monty22]

Look how crazy everything got with a few DAYS of power loss from the blackout.

Imagine that.. everywhere basically, forever.

And people on this thread are all going 'oh, it can't get that bad'.

ignorance.

[oceanview]

you mean because people buy bread and milk before a snowstorm comes, that means we will decend into anarchy after a WMD attack?

[Ramius]

So what's so scary? The Constitution makes room for states of emergency and martial law under certain circumstances. And rightfully so.

[Jeff Head]

All of the bad things you infer as regards the impact of such an attack will happen should one be pulled off...but it is not so dire as you imagine and the worst thing we could do...and what myself and millions of others will fight to prevent, is a discarding of the constitution.

See my post 65. The armed forces and the politicians and every other government employee have taken an oath to protect, defend and bear true faith and allegiance to that document. They day they discard it is the day they become the enemy themselves.

As hard as it may be, we can get through such a scenario without that, we can survive it. What we will not survive is a discarding of the constitution...at least not until it it restored.

[NittanyLion]

Don't be a fool. If you think a substantial portion of the food supply would be irradiated, you don't grasp the true nature of a nuclear attack. While terrible, the impacted area would be quite small relative to the entire US. The vast majority of folks wouldn't be impacted directly at all aside from losing money in their 401k.

[oceanview]

there was no panic at all during the blackout, and I'm in NY, right in the middle of it.

[desertcry]

Those are words from a Soldier's General. Character indeed out ranks any other attributes of an effective leader.

[Jeff Head]

Mind your knot...and your six.

[winker]

Martial Law could come about for much less significant issues than a WMD attack. It was very close to happening during the localized L.A. riot.

[11B3]

I think that if a WMD mass casualty event happens here in the US we will see a military government much like the Revolutionary War years - not the Clintonoid FEMA JBTs rounding up the populace and putting us into camps. More likely those of us of fighting age would be drafted into immediate service.

The military wouldn't be out to get our guns away - as the military would be us. I wouldn't want to be of middle eastern origins in that scenario, as their survival rate would be very small indeed - worldwide.

The most likely target of a WMD attack would be Israel - the Islamonazis would prize that above any other target, even Washington DC. The results of that would be swift indeed. Goodbye Arabia. The best route - no, the only route - for the muslim world now is to root out the radicals, and bring them to justice themselves or give them to us in a preemptive show of solidarity against terrorism. Right now, Afghanistan, Turkey, and Iraq would be spared IMO. Bets are off for the rest of Islam, however.

[oceanview]

especially if the weapon is detonated at ground level.

[Jeff Head]

You're wrong...wrong about me, and wrong about millions of others.

[Orangedog]

that's quite an exaggeration, there would not be "anarchy" except perhaps in the immediate area of the attack. why would people in Ohio stop paying rent if Manhattan were nuked? We could have an earthquake in LA tomorrow that would do more damage then a small nuclear weapon, would we have anarchy everywhere in the US as a result?

Try explaining that to the people seeing news footage of a mushroom cloud over an American city on every TV station. The banks would have to be shut down to keep people from yanking out all their money and crashing the system. Grocery stores would have their shelves stripped in short order. Untold numbers of people will flee the larger cities for fear of another imminent nuclear bombing. Freeways in major population centers will be clogged with traffic jams worse than even the worst rush hour in LA.

Never underestimate the power of millions of frightened people.

[Monty22]

No, I meant people fleeing the cities. What they don't directly nuke, they'll probably dirty bomb.. I'd expect few nukes due to logistics, lots of dirty bombs.. A lot of land would be uninhabitable.

I didn't mean the food/water.. Just the space.

[Monty22]

What, how am I wrong?

You'll be concerned about the smoldering ashes of the copy of the constitution that'll be burned up in DC with the rest of the place?

No, you'll be more worried about living day to day.

[AGreatPer]

"We are going to have fight them. We can fight them here or there."

Well said. That is why every Democrap that does not support our effort now is aiding the enemy.

I get so angry when they say they want our troops home now. Why, so we can fight them here among our civilian casualties?

[jwalsh07]

From Ex-Parte Milligan:

"If, in foreign invasion or civil war, the courts are actually closed, and it is impossible to administer criminal justice according to law, then, on the theatre of active military operations, where war really prevails, there is a necessity to furnish a substitute for the civil authority, thus overthrown, to preserve the safety of the army and society; and as no power is left but the military, it is allowed to govern by martial rule until the laws can have their free course. As necessity creates the rule, so it limits its duration; for, if this government is continued after the courts are reinstated, it is a gross usurpation of power. Martial rule can never exist where the courts are open, and in the proper and unobstructed exercise of their jurisdiction. It is also confined to the locality of actual war."

IMHO, martial law would be a necessity in "the locality of acutal war".

But martial law is nuanced. Civilian control with the military providing security in America is indeed martial law.

General Franks got a bit hyperbolic but in the advent of a nuke or biolgical weapon in a major city, the military would not only be advisable, it would be necessary.