1911Forum banner
1 - 17 of 17 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
29 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/art...20/185048.shtml

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.

Franks offered his assessment on a number of topics to Cigar Aficionado, including:

President Bush: “As I look at President Bush, I think he will ultimately be judged as a man of extremely high character. A very thoughtful man, not having been appraised properly by those who would say he’s not very smart. I find the contrary. I think he’s very, very bright. And I suspect that he’ll be judged as a man who led this country through a crease in history effectively. Probably we’ll think of him in years to come as an American hero.”

On the motivation for the Iraq war: Contrary to claims that top Pentagon brass opposed the invasion of Iraq, Franks said he wholeheartedly agreed with the president’s decision to invade Iraq and oust Saddam Hussein.

“I, for one, begin with intent. ... There is no question that Saddam Hussein had intent to do harm to the Western alliance and to the United States of America. That intent is confirmed in a great many of his speeches, his commentary, the words that have come out of the Iraqi regime over the last dozen or so years. So we have intent.

“If we know for sure ... that a regime has intent to do harm to this country, and if we have something beyond a reasonable doubt that this particular regime may have the wherewithal with which to execute the intent, what are our actions and orders as leaders in this country?”

The Pentagon’s deck of cards: Asked how the Pentagon decided to put its most-wanted Iraqis on a set of playing cards, Franks explained its genesis. He recalled that when his staff identified the most notorious Iraqis the U.S. wanted to capture, “it just turned out that the number happened to be about the same as a deck of cards. And so somebody said, ‘Aha, this will be the ace of spades.’”

Capturing Saddam: Franks said he was not surprised that Saddam has not been captured or killed. But he says he will eventually be found, perhaps sooner than Osama bin laden.

“The capture or killing of Saddam Hussein will be a near term thing. And I won’t say that’ll be within 19 or 43 days. ... I believe it is inevitable.”

Franks ended his interview with a less-than-optimistic note. “It’s not in the history of civilization for peace ever to reign. Never has in the history of man. ... I doubt that we’ll ever have a time when the world will actually be at peace.”
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,480 Posts
So what? Last I heard, Franks was not a Constitutional lawyer, nor has he ever being in charge of martial law for a democratic country, nor involved in previous matters of implementing martial law in the US or an allie. He is a fine soldier and all that good stuff, but he is just a person like the rest of us and with an opinion on a civil, not military matter. Once martial law went into effect, if it did, not doubt he would be the go-to man for opinion.

Everyone has opinions. This just is not his area of specialty on which to be giving opinion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,072 Posts
"Franks, who successfully led the U.S. military operation to liberate Iraq."
So his plans would be to disarm the U.S. citizens like they tried in Iraq?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
983 Posts
The US constitution couldn't even survive Franklin Delano Roosevelt - I think his comments on a WMD attack were kind of moot.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
27,692 Posts
Hey, it didn't survive Lincoln either. He decided to suspend parts of it. Of course the SC decided later that he was wrong, but by then it was too late.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,480 Posts
Um, so isn't crashing airliners into buildings as happened on 9/11 a WMD attack? Does this mean we don't have a Constitution since we had a WMD attack? D'uh!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
399 Posts
This just is not his area of specialty on which to be giving opinion.
Well, I'm sure he's been privvy to a number of scaled down disasters in other countries which led to such states (of being).

Why so defensive, btw? Sounds like the article struck a nerve. Many current trends in this country are harsh and disturbing; such is reality.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,304 Posts
Double Naught Spy,

Having a Constitution in print, on display in museums, paid lipservice to, etc - and actually having it 100% exercized are not necessarily one and the same.

I suppose a single torpedo could be described as a "weapon of mass destruction" in the newspeak. Funny how this "WMD" stuff has been adopted by people who should know better in our government. But this no longer surprizes me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
956 Posts
LAK said:
Double Naught Spy,

I suppose a single torpedo could be described as a "weapon of mass destruction" in the newspeak. Funny how this "WMD" stuff has been adopted by people who should know better in our government. But this no longer surprizes me.
Double Naught Spy[/i] [B] Um said:
acquire and then use a biological, chemical or nuclear weapon that inflicts heavy casualties.
The "weapons of mass destruction" or "WMD" used to be called NBC or "Nuclear, Biological & Chemical" weapons. The new term seems to only confuse the press and many people who are new to the term / concept. Any other use or description is wrong and misleading just as terming a semi-automatic AK-47 as an "assault weapon."

I think Gen. Franks remarks go towards the event of another similar 9/11 attack that causes mass casualties. I think he has a valid point that the constitution could be unraveled, it would certainly start with martial law. Especially, if congress has another 'knee jerk' reaction like they did after 9/11.

However, for a WMD event to occur I'd think it would have to be a Nuclear event rather than a biological / chemical just because delivery would be much more difficult to perfect with the latter than with a nuclear event.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,101 Posts
LAK said:
Double Naught Spy,

Having a Constitution in print, on display in museums, paid lipservice to, etc - and actually having it 100% exercized are not necessarily one and the same.
Right. Its actually closer to idolatry at this point than the highest secular law of the land as its supposed to be.

Difranco said:
The "weapons of mass destruction" or "WMD" used to be called NBC or "Nuclear, Biological & Chemical" weapons. The new term seems to only confuse the press and many people who are new to the term / concept. Any other use or description is wrong and misleading just as terming a semi-automatic AK-47 as an "assault weapon."
I agree. NBC is a much better acronym. Maybe NBC the TV Network objected to its use?

;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
228 Posts
I don't think that NBC plays to the common man as well as weapons of mass destruction.

Those of us with military backgrounds understand NBC quite well, but it does not have the same panache as weapons of mass destruction.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
956 Posts
Whofan said:
I don't think that NBC plays to the common man as well as weapons of mass destruction.

Those of us with military backgrounds understand NBC quite well, but it does not have the same panache as weapons of mass destruction.
LOL

Ahhh yes I forgot how important having panache is when reporting the news and selling a war.



:rolleyes:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
226 Posts
A nuclear detonation on the mainland would certainly trigger that scenario...no surprise there. Not to sound fatalistic, but what's meant to happen will happen.

(Rev 13:11) And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spoke as a dragon. (Rev 13:12) And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
197 Posts
Now that's truly wicked. Detonate a nuclear weapon and a fire breathing dragon is unleashed upon the earth. Maybe the Japanese were reading Revelations when they invented Godzilla.

:biglaugh:

Biolgical and /or chemical warfare would be easier to coordinate for Third world nations, hence they are commonly called "The poor man's nuke". Saddam has already proven their effectiveness and how easy it is to wipe out large numbers of people in a single strike. On the smaller scale I'm sure most of you remember the attack in Japan by a fanatical cult, which resulted in a few deaths but many fell ill. Remember, you don't have to kill everybody, you can always weaken your intended enemy and tie up his resources, which has been a winning strategy since the time of Julius Caesar and Sun Tzu. This is a more probable and scary challenge for our port authorities.

Getting back to the original subject, we may have to be willing to sacrifice our open border policy to help insure internal security. Then of course the fanatics will reroute themselves by simply being smuggled in from Mexico.......
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,323 Posts
The 2nd Amendment v. Military Dictatorship

http://www.sianews.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1397

The 2nd Amendment v. Military Dictatorship

by Todd Brendan Fahey
November 22, 2003

Quoted this week in NewsMax.com, General Tommy Franks issued baldly that the U.S. Constitution will probably need to be scrapped, in favor of some form of military dictatorship. Citing the blanket-spectre of "terrorist threats," he reasoned that the U.S. would need to come under lockdown and Total Control via the U.S. military...for our own good.

And just like that, General Franks sets the stage for a Second American Revolution.

Under General Franks' vision, vaporized are the creeping threats against the second amendment (McCain-like attacks on gun show "loopholes"; "Brady Bill" legislation against "assault weapons"; restrictions on clip/magazine capacity for rifles and handguns). Nor are we talking about the rape of the 4th amendment, which protects We The People against "unlawful search and seizure," as seen in the recent "Patriot Act" and the proposed "Victory Act."

General Franks speaks plainly of martial law--where such silly Jeffersonian presumptions of Liberty are moot; null and void.

Scary sh*t. Truly. From one of America's foremost Military Men; and spread, for unknown reasons, through NewsMax.com--one of America's most-read "conservative" Internet news magazines.

Myriad statistical studies suggest that United States citizens hold roughly 15,000,000 (million) rifles--largely for hunting purposes, but also for sporting target-practice. Add to that millions more shotguns, handguns and even "illegal" automatic weapons (machine-guns) and devices equipped to launch small mortars, grenades and cannon-balls, and one sees very readily that the U.S. military is facing a dilemma. These common deer rifles (30.06, equipped with a scope and carrying a high-grain propellant and steel-core bullet) can and do penetrate the toughest Kevlar vest. Nevermind the head/neck or groin or leg-shot (femural artery). A row of cannons and the odd LAAWS rocket-launcher/bazooka/Howitzer assembled strategically will dispatch a goodly squadron of aerial and ground-force vehicles and their occupants.

It's a crying shame that one must write these words. But Tommy Franks "brought it on," and, in the face of dismantling all that Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry and Samuel Adams and other valiant souls held for the hope of Liberty in our nation, there is no other way to phrase things. When the enemy becomes Our Own Government, then We The People must react with similar force and vigor...

The real question shall be, to what degree the heavily-armed local police (city-by-city, county-by-county) will react in any such martial-law crackdown. The local police may, in fact, be the buffer-zone or the "swing-vote," in realpolitik, in any such equation. Ditto, members of the states' National Guard and active military reserves members. To a lesser degree, the potential of "insubordination" of active-duty military may throw a wrench into any martial law blueprint.

Discounting any patriotic assistance from police, National Guard, military reserves and active-duty military, We The People are left to our own devices. For, without the Constitution and its guarantees of Liberty, and especially facing the vanquishing of the second and fourth amendments, you (each person reading these words; each friend and family member with whom you discuss this dilemma) must decide:

What is life? What is freedom? Do you trust Thomas Jefferson, who stated very clearly, that, "The tree of Liberty must, from time to time, be refreshed by the blood of patriots and Tyrants"; or do you accede to General Tommy Franks' visage, of a North America under martial law?

It's your choice. I suggest you make that choice very soon, and then act wisely and effectively upon it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,101 Posts
Re: The 2nd Amendment v. Military Dictatorship

UdontnoME said:
What is life? What is freedom? Do you trust Thomas Jefferson, who stated very clearly, that, "The tree of Liberty must, from time to time, be refreshed by the blood of patriots and Tyrants"
Yes I do. Unfortunately its been refreshed all too often by the blood of patriots, and too rarely by the blood of tyrants.

Gotta git more selective on whos doing the bleedin round here if we are gonna dig our way outta this hole.

:D
 
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Top