Actually, I disagree. A "dirty nuke" would most likely not contaminate a widespread are. Hiroshima and Nagasaki, you will recall, were rebuilt in large measure by the mid-1960's. People still pay rent in Hiroshima. Be Seeing You,
Chris
Posted on 11/20/2003 5:14:53 PM PST by hope
Gen. Franks Doubts Constitution Will Survive WMD Attack
John O. Edwards, NewsMax.comGen. 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.
Friday, Nov. 21, 2003
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.”
Editor's note:
Check out "Resolve" with the official President Bush photo – Click Here Now
The Iraqi "Deck of Death" playing cards – Get yours today!
Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:
George W. Bush
Saddam Hussein/Iraq
Al-Qaeda
War on Terrorism
Hmmm. I don't think that's true. Here in Great Britain a few years back we had a fuel protest. Basically, a handful of farmers wouldn't allow the fuel trucks to leave the refineries (or where ever they were leaving from). The gov't allowed the protest. Within days the supermarkets already had empty shelves of bread and milk. A couple days later, there was no fuel except for essential vehicles (ambulances, the cars of doctors/nurses etc). If that had gone on for even another week, it would have been pandemonium here. And all that without a nuke. There was nothing wrong with the food here- it just wasn't getting to where it needed to get.
All it takes is a vital link being severed. New York City cannot be fed without fuel. Without fuel, the people of New York City could also not flee far enough to get to food (assuming they could pay for it once they got there). The areas where they would flee are not set up to handle millions of refugees. Our whole system relies upon so many links working effectively. Any of these links breaking has catastrophic effects. If the terrorists could somehow sever the command structure from the nation temporarily and get a chain reaction of events going- it would have a high likelihood of spiralling out of control.
I have seen the effects of this also in Africa. Mozambique for example. Torn by years and years of civil war. The local game hunted out. The people had no way left to really sustain themselves. The second largest city- Beira- was essentially isolated from the capital because the main highway down the coast had become inpassable and also because of the lack of fuel stations along the way (look at the map- it's fairly far). Beira was left to slip into decay. It was really spooky moving around those old colonial streets. The people there were afraid. They'd hunker back in the houses and watch you walk down the sidewalk. Big ships were washed up on the beach and rusting because the system of looking after them had broken down and the sailors eventually had to abandon them. It was like the twilight zone. Hundreds of kilometers to the south, the capital, Maputo, was a vibrant, thriving place. And the war was over. Nobody had managed to connect the country back up to that point though- although signs were looking positive.
The point being, events have a way of taking on a life of their own and getting beyond the ability of anyone to control.
Who's the other one (besides Dean)?
If a dirty nuke is set off in Manhattan, it could contaminate an area reaching as far as Ohio, making property uninhabitable. Who is going to pay mortgages or rent on property they cannot occupy.
Martial Law will almost certainly be declared. I think this is what General Franks is talking about.
The 20% of which you speak is all above 45 years old.
I'm sure nearly every member of our active-duty military, as well as millions of other people, would be very surprised to hear that.
Bigot.
Snidely
Who's more patriotic than our military? This is not a dictatorship by the politicians. Many if not most of them would be arrested. There would be no political parties to put before Country.
Coordination of federal, state, and local law enforcement with the military would be a big part of the temporary "dictatorship." No attempt to disarm law abiding citizens would be made, they are the backup militia.
Though I have known career military that I shudder to think that they would command anything nevertheless the vast majority of the military truly believe in Duty, Honor, Country. How many politicians can honestly say that? For that matter, how many civilian movers and shakers (free trader business leaders, etc.) can honestly say it?
I also know that we have lost permanently more speech, property, and self-protection rights during peace time than we'd lose permanently as a result of a temporary patriotic dictatorship. If we still lose the war.. well, at least we tried. No more "win the battles over there," "lose the war at home" BS like a generation ago.
You should thank the General for warning you. He is exercising his Constitutional Rights here and I thank him for his words.
"Today, America would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order [referring to the 1991 LA Riot]. Tomorrow they will be grateful!
This is especially true if they were told that there were an outside threat from beyond [i.e., an "extraterrestrial" invasion], whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead to deliver them from this evil.
The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being granted to them by the World Government."
Dr. Henry Kissinger, Bilderberger Conference, Evians, France, 1991
Actually, I disagree. A "dirty nuke" would most likely not contaminate a widespread are. Hiroshima and Nagasaki, you will recall, were rebuilt in large measure by the mid-1960's. People still pay rent in Hiroshima. Be Seeing You,
Chris
Others pointed out that there is a significant difference between situational and localized use of the National Guard (such as in and around an attack area, riot area, or during natural disasters), and the move to a military form of government in lieu of a constitutional republic.
I believe that Franks was just stating what should be obvious or explained to everyone. More and more in recent years, people have aspired to and won office who don't really care for this republican form of government. The same can be said for too many of the bureaucrats and agents who work farther down on the food chain. These people love nothing more than crises that expand their power over the lives of ordinary citizens and their property.
In my humble opinion, Hillary would be the epitome of this mentality, but examples exist on both sides of the aisle at all levels of government.
I don't believe the National Guard is as closely tied to the political power structure as the career political elements, but they may become so after endless deployments in foreign adventures.
None of this would be much of a concern if schools were still teaching that ours is a government "of, for, and by the People".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.