1911Forum banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 56 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,105 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
I wouldnt. No way in hell. Chances are we would never get recognition of our rights back. If they do away with the Constitution I want my state out of whatever country you want to name it post Constitution. Without the Constitution protecting my 1st 2nd and 4th amendment rights (in particular, I value the others as well) I want no part of being in a nation with states like California and New York (no offense to those of you from those states that are actually sane, my personal experiences with those states places you in a minority there).

Poll

I think people can vote more than once because I dont think 80-90% of people really approve of martial law. Vote early and often. Give it ten or twenty votes at least.

Story

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
·
1,493 Posts
I absolutely would NOT favor martial law. However, in the above referenced poll, as of 11pm tonight, 72% of 3387 voters said that they WOULD favor martial law in these circumstances. What would martial law achieve? This is insanity, pure and simple. Give up our rights in order to "feel" safe? I don't think so.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,105 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
With numbers like that I wouldnt put it past the government to set off an egg somewhere tomorrow.

Its a win win.

What? More control AND it polls well? Whats the catch?

:(
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,305 Posts
I take Frank's comments as matter of fact. The fact is that a declaration of martial law would be necessary.

My problem with all this is that we have been practically set up for such an incident by a government that steadfastly refuses to take the obvious steps to reduce the chances significantly. The open borders issue is one, the number of illegals here already unpurged is another. The other facet is the steadfast refusal to set up a viable civil defense in keeping with the structure we already had.

Instead of mobilizing the militia per the United States code and providing the training and equipment as needed - we have been given a plethora of benign "volunteer" programs that all fall under FEMA control and the growing behemoth of "Homeland Security". In other words; people to shuffle "care packages", bandaids and tag along with the civil service unarmed. This while everyone not actively employed by a police agency or the military will be confined to their homes - or "relocated" to "shelters".

This is what I'd expect in one of many foreign countries, because they do not have our Constitution, ideology and structure. But it should be readily apparent to many that we have a government that is on the fast track to homogenization with them on all counts, while retaining the mere trappings of our former state.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,105 Posts
Discussion Starter #6 (Edited)
I was less concerned with the idea of a temporary state of emergency or localized martial law than I was with Franks saying it would lead to "an unraveling of the constitution" and that the western world could "lose what it cherishes most." That seemed to be overstating it. There is constitutional framework for states of emergency, curfews, etc.

DHMeieio said:
Rubbish. The Republic has survived much worse. I think Franks' speculation (which is all it is) is misplaced.
I think his comments and some of those of General Wesley Clark reveal that the attributes of a great military officer are not necessarily those of a great political thinker/philosopher. Its like they retire, and then they start saying alot of dumb things in public.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,305 Posts
I think it would lead to "an unraveling of the constitution" - because of the fact that none of the obvious and necessary moves are being made.

It's "everything or anything but ... ". Thus we are being led into ever increasing levels of vulnerability. In the event of another greater catastrophic event, the stage would indeed be set for an unraveling.

They have already gotten away with making so many "necessary things" permanent in this country going back to the 1930s. Like income tax - and "gun control". It is "accepted" that they are permanent once instituted, and people have been increasingly conditioned to "accept change" regardless of acceptability within our Constitution and foundation ideology. Another catastrophic event killing enough people and sufficient to send major metro and urban areas into chaos, and sink our paper economy would no doubt persuade enough people to set the stage for some "unraveling".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,086 Posts
Mus said:
...attributes of a great military officer are not necessarily those of a great political thinker/philosopher...
I don't really think that's what it is. These men have spent their entire lives in a position where they must be extremely careful about expressing their private views in public. It's not that they aren't great thinkers, or even philosophers, it's just that they've seen a lot of things and up to the time of their retirement they haven't had a real opportunity to express their opinions. I'd put a lot of stock in what someone like Franks said due to the fact that he had risen to a position where he would be highly informed on contingency planning for emergencies. He's giving us a warning about what may to be come. What we do with that warning is up to us. Stay safe, Gary
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
171 Posts
What are some of the practical things that would happen to us under martial law?

ex:

- loss of states rights re: concealed carry? Meaning that CCW laws would be federalized? Ultimately taken away from us?
- curfews?
- rationing of goods that the govt would need an endless supply of? (foods, fuels, ammo, etc...)
- Make all gun manufacturers grant the Feds the first right of refusal to all weapons?


??????????????????????????????
 
M

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
It's scary when Generals are saying some of the things this General has been quoted as saying.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
442 Posts
I'm for it, if it will put an END to the ALCU.

It effects Civil court system the most, which most would agree is out of control.

Why should the DC snippers even be considered for Life in prision???????? And why weren't the charged with the Liberals "Hate Crime" Law?

Hadrball1911
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
125 Posts
In the event of a mass casualty terrorist attack I think martial law would be required and mandated. I have no problem with it.

Think about if terrorist bomb takes out DC. This country would be in chaos. There would be no federal government as we know it now. No federal reserve, no FAA, etc. There would be riots at the ATMs, gas stations and grocery stores. A National Guard member in front of a Publix would be the least of my worries. Anyway this already happens during natural disasters.

Marshall law would be the only way to control the situation until the governemnt reforms and reestablishes itself. I imagine the states would take over more self control in temporary measures.

As for suspending the Constitution, I doubt that would be called for, except for maybe the search and seizure and right to a speedy trail (Not sure of the Admendments that go along with these).

I guess it would also depend if it was one massive attack or a continuation or series of attacks. I think Denzel Washington was in a movie called "The Seige" where this scenario played out. Things would be different know if Sept 11 was followed by almost daily attacks elsewhere in the US.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,105 Posts
Discussion Starter #16 (Edited)
1holegrouper said:
It is threads like this that make me think I am becoming Mel Gibson's character in "Conspiracy Theory"!
Hehe. The part where he burns his house and goes out the escape tunnel is still one of the coolest scenes.

11_Bangbang said:
Insurgency, and a whole lot of it
Well then heres to the revolution. Pray God we can keep the one we have.

Gary W Trott said:
I don't really think that's what it is.
Fair enough Gary. I just think its a pretty stupid thing to say in public. Thats just going to encourage them to hit us (not that they necessarily need any but still) with a NBC weapon.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,686 Posts
A military man WOULD say "martial law".

An anarchist would say "anarchy".

A member of a civilian militia would say "SHTF time" and propose people would band together in cells of mutual support/protection.

I think our way of life is more resilient than any of these. Although of course I admit we are quite susceptible to disruption.

I think our government has "backup" plans for the scenarios outlined above, parts of them were implemented on 9/11. That is, "key" government members were sent to an underground bunker, etc. That doesn't imply martial law. Keep in mind, after some localized disasters, such as riots/fires in LA, hurricane in the SE, there is LOCAL martial law. A dirty bomb or whatever would likely cause the same, LOCAL martial law.

We are already unraveling our constitution due to 9/11, by which I mean the Patriot Act. (Not to mention income taxes.) This is might be a bit of a pendulum thing. Laws get passed, and laws get repealed, sometimes because they are ultimately declared unconstitutional.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
290 Posts
Would You Support Martial Law If We Were Hit With Weapons of Mass Destruction?
YES(5175) 65%
NO(2746) 35%


7921 total votes since 11/21/03
 
1 - 20 of 56 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top