Gen. Franks Doubts Constitution Will Survive WMD Attack

News Max.Com ^ | 11-21-03

[bart99]

"We should be judged by future generations by how we act in the worst of times, not in the best. Hopefully, we will never have to test ourselves like that."

---

But given the hypothetical, you seem to think that we should conduct business as usual if WMD is let loose in this country? I would expect a suspension of many 'civil liberties' while we respond, includng a lock on any VISAs and putting religion vs state aside and "inspecting every osque in the USA for arms et al. The function of our government is to protect our citizens. A mass deportation of illegals sounds just fine as well. But the real preblem would be to deermine WHO we are going to be going after. That's the problem with rougue nations passing WMD to terrorist organiations.

The hy[othetical Franks proposes is really nasty and will result in some extreme actions, certain to upset a whole lot of ACLU folk.

please forgive typos

[John Lenin]

Believe me the last thing most people are going to be concerned about is some recent ME immigrants rights. I sure won't.

[desertcry]

Thank you very much Momaw, yes I seem to recall now about the Shadow Govt., but only very hazily. Hence, I'm not very comfortable and therefore doubtful that it will be very effective in governing a country in an extremely chaotic condition. Whereas there's a long history of the effectiveness of the military rule in restoring order. I hope I'm wrong, and that whatever Shadow Govt that will get control will be able to do it with the constitution intact. But as I said, if I have to bet, I will bet that a temporary military Govt., as in Japan right after WWII will
probably happen to maintain order and keep our society civilized, until stability is restored.

[rw4site]

Ramius, you need to do a word search of the Constitution of the united States. No where does it provide for "Martial Law."

Martial Law is the suspension of the Constitution and automatically makes those who attempt to institute it an enemy. As Jeff Head said, They who announce "Martial Law" and those who stand with them are our enemies for they have attempted to overthrow the Constitution.

Jeff, I am one of the millions who will do my part to see my enemy dispatched, post haste.

[Servant of the 9]

We might go to martial law after a massive attack while we killed everyone else in the world, but I think we would revert to constitutional law soon after. Our military would find ruling civilians a bigger pain in the ass than being ruled by them.

SO9

[bart99]

"did everyone flee all the cities in Japan after Hiroshima?"

---

This analogy with Japan t the end of WWII is silly. Are the people posting this suggesting that if the USA get a few cities demolished rom nukes, we'll just surrender and we'll all convert to Islam as a national policy?

[republicanwizard]

AH HA! YEAH! ALL WE ANCIENT ROME BUFFS CAN RETURN TO THE DAYS OF OLD! HAIL CAESAR!

[B4Ranch]

ping

[bart99]

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

---

Most sensible statement in this thread.

Now, how do we deal with it...... just wait for the WMD to arrive here in the USA or .......... PROTECT our country through some pre-emptive action with IRAN, SYRIA, NORTH KOREA and a few other places that pose these threats. and keep SAUDI ARABIA from acquiring nukes and do something about Pakistan before the Islamocs just take control of their nukes.

[harpseal]

My reading of the excerpt from teh article is that Franks is not advocating this merely predicting what will happen. I agree as to what should be done to any officer openly advocating this.

Tommy Franks is not that far off from many on this forum as to what would probably happen should a city be taken out by a terrorist nuke.

I do not for one think it would happen unless the most likely target for a nuke were the site ie. Washington DC. If the weapon took out a majority of Congress and the POTUS and VPOTUS much of the SCOTUS along with many thousand mid level government employees we would have a brief paralysis of the US government except for the military. Recognition of the dangers is of course the way to avoid disaster.

[B4Ranch]

"He seems to forget that the military serves at the pleasure of the civilian government who in turn serves at the pleasure of the citizens. "

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

[Michael Barnes]

Tommy forgot the 2nd amendment. It is there to protect the people from bone headed individuals with his line of thinking. He seems to forget that the military serves at the pleasure of the civilian government who in turn serves at the pleasure of the citizens.

Your sooo right. Martial Law, hmm.I might consider depending on the locale and situation. Military form of gov't, not on your f*cking life.

[John Lenin]

I was in Charlotte during hurricane Hugo and martial law was declared to stop the looters and no one said a peep. As usual people overreact to something they have never faced with. You won't say diddly if the attack is bad enough you will welcome troops to protect you.

[CaptIsaacDavis]

Is this guy trying to warn the people of something planned already?

[bart99]

"In WW II we were shocked back into reality and awakened. We can be again."

---

Sorry..... another bad anology. There wasn't a risk of WMD in WWII (until afterwards during the MAD period of the cold war). The hypothesis put forward was a WMD attack in America. Geez, in WWII, we didn't even fight on our home soil.

So when we are "shocked back into reality " this time, get ready for an unleashing of nukes by the USA onto every rouge state in the world. An attack of WMD on our soil would result in unimaginable damage, but rather over there and there and there and there...... than more here.

[First_Salute]

Bump.

[First_Salute]

Bump.

[Ramius]

They who announce "Martial Law" and those who stand with them are our enemies for they have attempted to overthrow the Constitution.

So... if there is a major emergency in some region of the U.S.-- say, the detonation of a nuclear weapon-- and the national guard is called to duty in the area, and lacking any other remaining government infrastructure in the area (becuase they're all DEAD) the national guard is ordered to assume control, in order for there to be *some* kind of orderly leadership in an otherwise chaotic situation.

This would be, in fact, a state of martial law. The power to order this is quite within the constitution and the powers of the President as commander in chief. It would also be arguably absolutely necessary in order to regain some sense of order when the standing government of a region is destroyed.

Are you actually arguing that these soldiers called to such duty should be shot? That instead of restoring order to a destroyed region of the country we should instead opt for a lawless and anarchic wasteland? Is that what this is about?

[Edit35]

"Tommy forgot the 2nd amendment. It is there to protect the people from bone headed individuals with his line of thinking."

My guess is that they would not mess with the 2nd Amendment following a WMD attack, but would simply curtail citizen movement temporarily.

After all, Myrddin, what would you suggest we do if underground terrorists snuck in a few nuclear bombs into the US and started setting them off at random.

My guess is that people would be demanding the military do something, and quick, to stop the massive carnage.

Furthermore, Tommy Franks is not a bone head simply for postulating what he thinks might happen were the US to be attacked by WMD.

What if alQadia successfully spread SMALLPOX around the country, and/or began spreading anthrax through the mail, or in subways.

Would the population get mad if some quasi military units clamped down temporarily.

Sure it would be scary, but I don't think we would have much choice.

[First_Salute]

Bump.