 |
|  |
 |
|
The diplomat
|
 |
Terre Haute, IN USA
Sep 1999 time: 23:32
|
|
------------------------------
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.
.....
--------------------
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/art...20/185048.shtml
Wouldn't the opposite be true as well? Isn't it likely that in the wake of a catastrophic WMD attack, that the nation would cherish the consitution and want to strengthen its democratic beliefs even more?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Richelieu
|
|
Gatineau
Dec 2001 time: 00:32
|
|
quote: Wouldn't the opposite be true as well? Isn't it likely that in the wake of a catastrophic WMD attack, that the nation would cherish the consitution and want to strengthen its democratic beliefs even more? |
Change WMD for Terrorist (as in 9/11) and then think about the Patriot act that resulted from it.
I believe Franks is right. You would go into "kick ass" mode at the expense of your Constitution. We all would.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Andrew1999
|
|
That was my first reaction when I heard about the plane crash in Queens in November 2001--this was the second wave of attacks everyone was predicting and normal life in the USA was over. Maybe not a military dictatorship, but at least a World War II-style semi-democracy.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Albert Speer
|
|
Puerile Polemic
Mar 1999 time: 00:32
|
|
of course a brutal attack like this would temporarily shut down the republic just as wars always do (martial law)
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Albert Speer
|
|
Puerile Polemic
Mar 1999 time: 00:32
|
|
what would be interesting is if someone brought a nuclear weapon right up to Capitol hill and let it off while congress was in session. that would really f up the US democratic system
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
uh Clem
|
 |
Born in the US; damned if I know where I live now
Nov 1999 time: 23:32
|
|
From about a year and a half ago:
Arabs in U.S. could be held, official warns
quote:
A member of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission said in Detroit on Friday he could foresee a scenario in which the public would demand internment camps for ArabAmericans if Arab terrorists strike again in this country.
If there's a future terrorist attack in America "and they come from the same ethnic group that attacked the World Trade Center, you can forget about civil rights," commission member Peter Kirsanow said.
The reason, he said, is that "the public would be less concerned about any perceived erosion of civil liberties than they are about protecting their own lives." [my emphasis]
|
From a Bush appointee whose job is protecting civil rights. Use your imagination about what the more extreme factions in the administration are thinking.
Last edited by uh Clem on 21-11-2003 at 21:47
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:32. Apolyton Time is 00:32. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|