[Jeff Head]

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.

It is not clear here whether Franks believes this would actually happen and whether he advocates or supports it.

I will say this, any officer, any member of the armed service, any government employee or any politician who would advocate this and move in support of it has violated their oath to uphold, defend and bear true allegiance to that very constitution and marked themselves as an enemy of the people.

We can survivie a WMD...we will not survive the destruction or setting aside of the Constitution.

The day any of these people and their lackeys, in their high glory and glass houses, try and do this is the day that Proposition 223 and the Rule of 307 will come into play.

Jeff

[michigander]

Keep your powder dry.

[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]

"I will say this, any officer, any member of the armed service, any government employee or any politician who would advocate this and move in support of it has violated their oath to uphold, defend and bear true allegiance to that very constitution and marked themselves as an enemy of the people."

That being the case, IMO, the changes would be masked in the form of extended martial law. The latter stages of which would be the weeding out of pro-constitution officers. Of course it would have to all originate with the President. If he was a Clinton type, then kiss the Constitution goodbye.

If he were a Bush type, I think civil, Constitutional law would eventually be restored.

[F16Fighter]

"We can survivie a WMD...we will not survive the destruction or setting aside of the Constitution."

That does depend on where and to what extent -- does it not?

Should either New York City or Washington DC take a huge hit, assumptively a number of amendments would at least be suspended during an "State of Emergency."

[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.

[First_Salute]

Bump.

[Momaw Nadon]

"The day we stop believing in democracy is the day we lose it." -Queen Jamilla

[Lurker]

General Franks presupposes that the US Constitution is actually still operative. It's not.

L

[abigkahuna]

Jeff, if you remember there are a series of EOs dealing with post nuclear society. Most date from the Kennedy administration when we relly thought we were on the brink...

Little things like the postman is the local government spy/agent to determine who at what address is able to attend work detail, etc, etc, etc....Food, fuel and what not is not to be hoarded, all of that and more is contained in the EOs.]

If you think about it, it makes sense. I think martial law would be declared regionally as determined by the threat. The constitution would be severely strained.

As this is a "Newsmax" story, I would have to see t original to understand just what the context was in TOmmy Franks remarks...

[Prodigal Son]

It is not clear here whether Franks believes this would actually happen and whether he advocates or supports it.

I don't think he advocates it. I think Franks is a straight shooter calling it like he sees it. He sees how we reacted to 9/11. He sees how eager people are to have laws that guarantee their security. He has also probably given considerable thought to what would happen if we were attacked with WMD. Franks was a man that got paid his whole career to set aside the BS and analyze situations in a very cold calculus- a calculus that many people would not be able to bring themselves to perform.

I have noticed over my short time on this rock that people who tell it exactly like they see it are not going to be applauded.