[w4rma]

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.”
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/11/20/185048.shtml
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=750017

[mantispid]

Lol, if they discard the Constitution, foreign fighters are going to be the least of their worries :P

[NIGHTWATCH]

Terrorists strike with WMD. We finish the job and end the constitution? :scrutiny:

Dont think so general. We may end YOUR constitution, but not ours. :D

[NIGHTWATCH]

I gotta wonder if comments like these make liberals think differently about the Second Amendment. :evil:

[Sergeant Bob]

I don't think Gen. Franks is advocating an end to the Constitution. I think he just foresees a possibility of it happenning in the wake of a catastophic 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.
Since a significant portion of the population already wipes their behind with the Constitution, I expect they would let the government do whatever it wants to make them feel "safe".

[ojibweindian]

Gen. Franks, I believe, is spot on.

[Bob Locke]

What's the Constitution? BOTH major political parties ignore it regularly as it is.

I submit that it's already on life support, and the general's comments are pretty on-point.

[agricola]

Michael Moore said something similar to this a while back - if that did happen in the US a large proportion of people would demand such a change.

[Oracle]

I think that Gen. Franks is spot on, as others have said. If there is a terrorist attack in the U.S. that causes massive amounts of casualties, martial law will be declared, and the Constitution will likely be suspended because of it. I seriously doubt martial law would ever be "undeclared" after that point, and the Constitution would likely cease to have any force of law, not that it has much now.

Think about it, the only reason we see and know about the things we do is because we have the capability to freely exchange ideas, over the internet, through the media, etc. If that capability was taken away, if news stories were all "edited" to make sure that the "wrong content" didn't get through, and the internet was censored, then there likely wouldn't be the kind of outrage violations of liberty spark now, because people wouldn't find out about them, nor be able to organize against them. The majority of the populace would likely support it, too, because of their constantly demonstrated willingness to trade freedom for percieved security.

[Sean Smith]

Don't skip over the important bit: Franks is describing what he is WORRIED about, not what he hopes will happen.

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.”

3,000 dead = Patriot Act
100,000 dead = ?

[HankB]

If there is a terrorist attack in the U.S. that causes massive amounts of casualties, martial law will be declared. . . Perhaps locally, in & around the place it happens. Perhaps more widely, to control the angry mobs that would form when many places in the Middle East were NOT vaporized in retaliation.

[Old Fuff]

Agricola:

What would be the probable effect on civil liberties in Britain if this catastrophic event happened, say in London? Would both the U.S. and U.K. react similarly?

[fish2xs]

I must have slept through the last WMD deployment on US soil, since the Constitution
has already been trashed.


...unless he's talking about the ship, which last time I drove into Boston is still there.

[geekWithA.45]

I wish I had the citation, SCOTUS has historically ruled that the Constitution has full force in both times of peace and war

(Although the certainly seem to turn a blind eye here and there...grrrr....)

Martial law _might_ be legitimate under limited circumstances, limited purpose, limited scope, and limited duration.

Beyond that, It seems to me that if the .gov abandons the Constitution, then .gov abandons it's own conduit to the Powers it wields, and said Power, being "incapable of annihiliation" would return to the People, from whence it came.

At that time, we're all gonna have some interesting choices to make.


Make no mistake, the islamoFascists have the express goal of destroying our way of life and imposing their religion, law, and values upon us. If they had the means to cause mass casualties, they would use it, with little hesitation, and cheer as the Charters of Liberty crumbled.

[ny32182]

Unfortunately, I don't see how it can be anything but a matter of time until a highly lethal WMD strike becomes a reality.:( And, I believe that what Franks said is indeed one possibility as to what could happen afterward.:( The second we lower even the pretense of caring about the Constitution, the terrorists have won.


Another thing I don't like to think about is what our international response would be afterward, and weather our own nukes would fly. I don't know what we could do in response that we are not already doing.

[DeputyVaughn]

Wasn't this the scenario of a show on UPN called "Freedom". It only lasted 6 episodes before being cancelled. Maybe they were afraid it would give people ideas.

Scott

[clange]

I submit that it's already on life support, and the general's comments are pretty on-point.
Agreed. The real question is how much it would take to 'kill' it, assuming you dont think thats happened already. I dont think it would be a martial law, "the constitution has no meaning" kinda thing. It would be like increased police powers, etc.

[Pilgrim]

Perhaps locally, in & around the place it happens. Perhaps more widely, to control the angry mobs that would form when many places in the Middle East were NOT vaporized in retaliation.

I agree. I wonder why some of these "centers of insurgency" in Iraq are still standing now.

Pilgrim

[Sam Adams]

I also think that General Franks is accurate, and that he's not hoping, merely predicting. Given the history of not just this nation, but also of human civilization, I think that he's correct that something like this will be tried in the event of some catastrophe. It wouldn't even have to be done with an evil intent - but the end result will be dictatorship if it isn't strenuously opposed. Government ALWAYS tries to enhance its power, because you are dealing with human beings and human nature.

My question is: where will General Franks and the rest of the former and current military stand, if and when such an event happens? Will the 82nd Airborne uphold its duty to the Constitution and be airdropped into DC and arrest those guilty of trying to destroy our freedom? Inquiring minds want to know.

[Mike Irwin]

Is it my imagination, or does Tommy Franks scare the living hell out of other people, too?

I've seen other interviews with him that make it sound like he's really angling to be voted "General most likely to overthrow the civilian government and lead his own junta..."

[TallPine]

So what incentive does the fed.gov have to prevent a WMD attack ...?

Little or none, that I can see.

9-11-01 was the best thing that could have happened to Bush, politically.

They just have to stall it off long enough to make it look like the fed.gov is somewhat effective: "See, the Patriot Act just wasn't enough to keep you safe ..."

Actually, it doesn't even have to be a WMD attack. A series of other attacks, spaced out over a long enough period of time that people get used to the incremental loss of liberty.


IMO, we are going the way of the Romans: a couple hundred years as a republic, and then a couple centuries (more or less) as an empire ...

[clubsoda22]

Make no mistake, the islamoFascists have the express goal of destroying our way of life and imposing their religion, law, and values upon us.

IslamoFascists....Interesting, fascism was defined by Mussolini as corporatism, where the government works for large corporations and big business instead of the people

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power" –Benito Mussolini

So, who are the real fascists? I think they are the leaders of the government you and I live under. Religious authoritarianism is completely different than fascism. Both are pretty bad.

IMO, we are going the way of the Romans: a couple hundred years as a republic, and then a couple centuries (more or less) as an empire ...

Yes, we think we have it better than the rest of the world, and the only reason we think so is because the government allows us a certain amount of freedom so we don't complain...there i go spouting off Marx again. Smart guy, even though his theorys of government are too idealistic to work in the real world

Oh well, democracy well eventually fail, we'll have another 2000 years of kings and dictators, then the next big democracy will come along...wake me up when it happens.

In the mean time, when i come up with a system of government that works, i'll tell you guys first.

[Dave R]

The attacks on the Patriot Act coming from ALL parties give me some hope that the General is wrong. Many cities have passed ordinances saying they will not enforce the "bad" portions of the Patriot act. That's some pretty signicant legal defiance of the Federal Government. Warms my heart, kinda.

[Gordon Fink]

Unless we see a miracle of human wisdom, the United States is doomed to tyranny. In all likelihood, it will be a long, slow slide, but an abrupt lurch is not impossible. In fact, I would prefer an abrupt lurch into tyranny, as a few people might fight back. If the long slide continues to its inevitable conclusion, very few will resist. :(

~G. Fink

[Gordon Fink]

Religious authoritarianism is completely different than fascism.…

Clubsoda, if you wait long enough, someone will surely start ranting about the mythical, oxymoronic “fascist communists.”

~G. Fink

[clubsoda22]

Don't you just love it when that happens, gordon?

People just use free association of things they heared were bad and evil in their childhood.

[Erik]

Interject the word "temporary" into the general's conclusion and I agree with him.

[longeyes]

It may not take the use of a WMD to bring this condition about. There's
a growing feeling on the Right that the American Left cannot be trusted
in matters of national security. There are a lot of people in this
country who really don't want the next Election controlled by the Oprah
contingent and illegal votes. If by some stroke of ill fate one of the
peacenik candidates (Dean) or a supreme roiler of all things (Hillary)
were to be elected, it's possible that the prospect of immiment civil
strife and chaos--i.e., ungovernability--might engender "martial law" and
the suspension of civil government.

[hillbilly]

Also key to understanding facism is to realize that most of the time, facism also has the element of race, ethnicity, or nationality as defined by race and ethnicity at its heart.

If facism is nothing more than corporatism, then why didn't Germany keep any successful Jewish run corporations on board during WWII?

Mussolini's aim was to re-establish the Roman Empire........For ethnic Italians, not for anyone else.

Facism, at least as I understand it, always has racial and ethnic identity wrapped up in it.

No Jew, no matter how much he agreed with Hitler, would be allowed to live openly as a Jew in Nazi Germany.

In Soviet Russia, not matter how ethnicall Russian you were, if you were not ideologically pure according to the theories of Marx, you got executed, if you were lucky............

hillbilly

[w4rma]

It may not take the use of a WMD to bring this condition about. There's a growing feeling on the Right that the American Left cannot be trusted in matters of national security. There are a lot of people in this country who really don't want the next Election controlled by the Oprah contingent and illegal votes. If by some stroke of ill fate one of the peacenik candidates (Dean) or a supreme roiler of all things (Hillary) were to be elected, it's possible that the prospect of immiment civil strife and chaos--i.e., ungovernability--might engender "martial law" and the suspension of civil government.IMHO, there's a growing feeling on the Left that the American Right cannot be trusted in matters of national security, because of totalitarian leanings as exampled above and the Republican Party leadership's inability to do anything but fail in matters of foreign policy: Examples: Iraq and Afghanistan.

[clubsoda22]

I love being an independent, because i can say that both of you are correct...no politicians can be trusted, democrats and republicans are all the same.

[bountyhunter]

A lot of people think the constitution didn't survive GWB.

Last time I checked, the president needed to ask the congress to declare war. FDR asked congress the day after japan sent our fleet to the bottom of the Pacific.

Yet, somehow, GWB just started making speeches about how we were going to attack Iraq and nobody noticed that the Constitution had been shredded in the process.

I noticed.

[Lone_Gunman]

Bountyhunter, you dont think GWB was the first president to do that, do ya?

[moa]

The Senate and Congress authorized Dubya to go to war against Iraq. He did not do it on his own. Some say Dubya and Co. hyped the intelligence regarding WMDs and al Queda association with Iraq in order to win the authority from the Congress and Senate.

Both the Congress and Senate have their own intelligence committees with oversight responsibility over much of the intelligence community. If they were not doing their jobs responsibly, why blame Dubya and Co.?

If Congress wants to stop the conflict in Iraq, all it has to do is remove the funding. They have that power. They basically did that regarding the Vietnam war.

[thefitzvh]

Well, as much as I typically hate the dem. party candidates...


I must say, the fact that this WORRIES him makes me happy, and, depending on the next few months, may earn him my vote.

Regardless of his views, he's expressing a concern for the constitution. That makes me happy. I hate the idea of keeping the AW ban, but RKBA is only one facet of the constitution. GW Bush is supposedly "pro" rkba, yet we have the patriot act, the single greatest rights-trampling piece of crap in modern times.

To tell you the truth, if the US constitution is declared invalid or anything like that, I will resign my commission immediately. The moment I am ordered to cede my authority to a world government, I will resign my commission. And if I am ever told to disarm the american people, or in any way infringe a constitutional right, I will resign my commission.

I haven't seen anything like this happen explicitely, but its on its way. And when that comes, it's time to move to the wilderness and live the rest of my days caring for as-yet-nonexistant family and searching for meaning in life, because recently I haven't seen any.

The good news is: there IS an active rebellion. Any time a municipality signs a resolution pledging not to enforce the patriot act, that's rebellion. When a case like Silviera vs. Lockyer ACTUALLY makes headway, that's rebellion. Maybe not complete rebellion, but it's an example of the "checks and balances" system working to some extent. When a person sues an oppressive police dept, and WINS, that's a victory for us.

I propose a new political party, one that recognizes the absolute law of the land, the constitution. I'd sign up, and I'll bet many currently non voting americans would too. Maybe that's just false hope, but I think it could happen, if things like the patriot act continue.

James

[4v50 Gary]

Wouldn't be the first time the Constitution was suspended. Lincoln did it during the Civil War. Habeus Corpus? "Yeah we got the body, watcha gonna do 'bout it?" and his troublemakers stayed locked up. Fortunately for the nation, after the war the rights were restored. I can't say the same would happen again.

[WonderNine]

Boy this is a depressing thread. I have a feeling you are all right though.

[MicroBalrog]

Gen. Franks Doubts Constitution Will Survive WMD Attack

Seems to be an "Avoid the End of Year Rush - Fail Your Exams Now" type of quote.

[moa]

The Constitution allows the suspension of Habeus Corpus during times of rebellion, IIRC. I think I am right because I was kind of shocked when reading the Constitution and Habeus Corpus not too long ago.

[bountyhunter]

Bountyhunter, you dont think GWB was the first president to do that, do ya?

You have to admit he was the first one who was so arrogant he announced it to the world before he got his ducks in a row behind the scenes. His mistake was he should have done the Powell Show at the UN first and then announced how disappointed he was that he had to resort to war. He announced Iraq had to go and that he was going to invade because they violated a UN sanction.... all the time the UN was screaming no and the violation didn't rate an invasion. It was the most incredible bit of foreign policy blunder I've ever seen. And the sad part is, if he had just taken a page from his daddy's book he would have seen you can still have your war and keep your friends if you just use a little more finesse.

[Lone_Gunman]

But bountyhunter...

The UN saying the violation didnt warrant an invasion was an incorrect decision on the UN's part, and not on the part of the US.

The violations were in breach of the cease fire agreement from the first Gulf War. When he violated that cease fire, there is justification for invasion, whether the UN wants to acknowledge it or not.

The US is often criticized by its own citizens for bowing to UN whims, but when someone bucks the UN, it looks like they get criticized also.

[RocketMan]

thefitzvh,

I must say, the fact that this WORRIES him makes me happy, and, depending on the next few months, may earn him my vote.

AFAIK, Franks is not running for anything. Are you thinking of Wesley Clark?

[thefitzvh]

boy... i'm an arse....

yes, I was thinking of clark... HA

Wouldn't it be nice if Clark said that...

sorry all. GEEZ. I'm an idiot


James

[HarryRod]

As bad as it may be to say....this will probably happen. It is just a question of when.
I just shudder to think of what everyday life will be like when it does.

[w4rma]

The violations were in breach of the cease fire agreement from the first Gulf War. When he violated that cease fire, there is justification for invasion, whether the UN wants to acknowledge it or not.Richard Perle disagrees with you, Lone_Gunman.

War critics astonished as US hawk admits invasion was illegal

International lawyers and anti-war campaigners reacted with astonishment yesterday after the influential Pentagon hawk Richard Perle conceded that the invasion of Iraq had been illegal.

In a startling break with the official White House and Downing Street lines, Mr Perle told an audience in London: "I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing."

President George Bush has consistently argued that the war was legal either because of existing UN security council resolutions on Iraq - also the British government's publicly stated view - or as an act of self-defence permitted by international law.

But Mr Perle, a key member of the defence policy board, which advises the US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, said that "international law ... would have required us to leave Saddam Hussein alone", and this would have been morally unacceptable.
…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0%2C3604%2C1089042%2C00.html

[rick_reno]

I'm in agreement that it won't take anything as serious as a WMD attack to suspend the Constitution. I suggest you take a look at these recent Supreme Court decisions and draw your own conclusions about where we're going.

1. Illinois v. Rodriquez, 497 U.S. 177 (1990) - Allows authorities to search your home based upon the consent of someone who has absolutely NO authority to grant the search.

2. Alabama v. White, 503, U.S. 953 (1990) - Allows authorities to stop your car based on an anonymous tip completely lacking any indication of reliability.

3. Mich. Dept. of State Police v. Sitz - Subject motorists to mandatory sobriety tests without any indicatiojn they have been drinking or that their driving is impaired.

All it'll take for the Constitution to go away is to have our justices make a few more rulings. Their social agenda is nothing short of incredible.

Remember, this is not the first time in our history freedoms have been eroded in a time of national crisis. It's already been mentioned that Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus, but don't forget Wilson had the Palmer raids (On 7th November, 1919, the second anniversary of the Russian Revolution, over 10,000 suspected communists and anarchists were arrested in the United States. Palmer and J. Edgar Hoover found no evidence of a proposed revolution but large number of these suspects were held without trial for a long time. The vast majority were eventually released but Emma Goldman and 247 other people, were deported to Russia. On 2nd January, 1920, another 6,000 were arrested and held without trial. These raids took place in several cities) and Roosevelt interred Asian-Americans for no reason other than national origin.

These were done, I presume, with the "Constitution" in place. When they knock on your door - don't call me.

[greyhound]

"international law ... would have required us to leave Saddam Hussein alone",

personally, I think too much attention to "international law" is what got us in this post-Cold war mess.

And, I took the opportunity to follow w4ma's DU link on this, and though this might cause our eyes to burn, some of the clowns there are actually agreeing with us about the Constitutional aspects of Gen. franks remarks.

Though I think overall their definition of the Constitution would be MUCH different from the typical THRer.

[Grey54956]

I think that this is a possible outcome of a terrorist WMD.

What makes it possible is this: governments tend toward tyrany. The problem really is that the terrorists and the government (or at least both major parties) have the same agenda: the destruction of the American Way of Life (AWOL). Republicans, Democrats, and Islamistas all hate AWOL, where people are free to do, say, believe, print, and think what they want. They all want to control everybody else.

A WMD attack will give the folks in power the perfect excuse and opportunity to sieze more power for the good of the citizens. This probably means the end of backyard BBQs (bad for enviroment, meat is bad), loud music (volume control, parental advisory lyrics), guns (freak out the sheeple, more jobs for LEO), abortion (God doesn't like it), Religion (Atheists don't like God, and besides, those Islamists dropped a bomb), and a slew of other things. The AWOL ends, and the enemies of America have their day.

[Ian]

Hear hear, Grey.

[Pilgrim]

1. Illinois v. Rodriquez, 497 U.S. 177 (1990) - Allows authorities to search your home based upon the consent of someone who has absolutely NO authority to grant the search.
The court said if it is reasonable for the police to believe the person who grants permission for the search has that authority to give permission, then the search is valid. The police are not required to conduct an extensive investigation into whether the person giving permission indeed has that authority.
2. Alabama v. White, 503, U.S. 953 (1990) - Allows authorities to stop your car based on an anonymous tip completely lacking any indication of reliability.
In White, the anonymous tipster told the police the defendant would be leaving a particular apartment at a particular time in a particular vehicle, that she would be going to a particular motel, and that she would be in possession of cocaine. The police went immediately to the apartment and saw a vehicle matching the caller's description. They observed the defendant leave the building and enter the vehicle, and they followed her along the most direct route to the motel, stopping her vehicle just short of the motel. A consensual serch of the vehicle revealed marijuana, and after the defendant was arrested, cocaine was found in purse.
3. Mich. Dept. of State Police v. Sitz - Subject motorists to mandatory sobriety tests without any indicatiojn they have been drinking or that their driving is impaired.
In Sitz the court approved highway sobriety checkpoints while giving guidelines for their operation, site selection, and publicity. The stops are to be brief and do not provide for mandatory sobriety tests without any indication of intoxication. Sobriety checkpoints have to be well publicized, clearly marked as such with road signs and hazard markers, and provide for an "escape" route for those drivers who don't want to be bothered.

Generally indications of intoxication are immediately apparent in talking to the driver while explaining the reason for the checkpoint. In my experience in running sobriety checkpoints, intoxicated drivers smelled of booze, had watery eyes, and slurred speech. That was sufficient evidence of intoxication to detain them further for field sobriety tests.

In Sitz the court observed that during the time of the sobriety checkpoint in question, 126 vehicles had passed through the checkpoint, the average delay per vehicle was twenty-five seconds, and two drivers had been arrested for driving under the influence.

Again, when I operated sobriety checkpoints, that was about the average time to check to see if the driver had been drinking.

Since Sitz several police agencies have tried checkpoints for narcotics and other violations of the law interdictions and the court has shot them all down.

It would be helpful in the future if you fully explained what the court decisions said rather than give an alarmist view that the Constitution has already been trashed by the courts.

[telewinz]

I still have a great deal of faith in the protection offered by the Supreme Court. I don't agree with everything they do but then I almost never have enough information (who does?) to make a responsible comment. If we agreed with all the Supreme Court's decisions I suspect it would be because they weren't doing their intended duty, no one said they were suppose to be popular.

[spartacus2002]

OK, so has anybody figured out whether he was giving all of us a warning, or whether he cheerfully was saying "oh yes, that pesky constitution really should go"???

I mean, if he's saying "Yeah, that's the plan", then we have some serious concerns about what folks at the highest echelons of power are planning to do. The Prez and cabinet are not our lords and masters; they are our elected agents, charged with managing the govt (i.e., watching the borders, delivering the mail).

[Lone_Gunman]

Franks' message was intended as a prediction of what might happen in such a situation, not his opinion of what should happen.

The Supreme Court really doesn't matter in this situation, even if they made a ruling against martial law, they have no way to enforce it.

[tyme]

Franks doubts the Constitution would survive a NBC attack. I doubt Franks would survive martial law.

His statement is just moronic. If the Constitution wouldn't survive, why are non-military emergency response entities getting so much money from DHS?
The Supreme Court really doesn't matter in this situation, even if they made a ruling against martial law, they have no way to enforce it.
I don't think the SC will ever rule preemptively that martial law in the case of a NBC attack is unconstitutional. Considering such an attack (other than targetted cases - I don't consider the anthrax mailings to be a NBC attack) has never occurred... The issue simply wouldn't be brought before the supremes before it happened.

[longeyes]

Maybe the Constitution wouldn't survive. But neither would martial law.
If that happened, we would have a fragmented, lawless America not unlike
some of the countries we've been battling; probably some form of civil
would erupt as the Great Divide in this nation becomes too raw to be
ignored.

[Mark Tyson]

What do non military emergency response teams have to do with a possible declaration of martial law? Martial law just means that the military acts as the police and that criminals are charged in military courts, rather than civilian ones.

[Werewolf]

Think back to the day of 911 and the days that followed. Remember the shock and then the anger. Two buildings went down that day. A month later we were in Afghanistan and a month after that that country had a new government.

It takes a lot to really piss off the people of the US and after 911 we were pissed but not REALLY PISSED! The Japanese did that with Pearl Harbor.

The dumbest thing any group could ever do would be to set off a WMD in the US. They want to change their destinies and lot in the world not eliminate them.

Now imagine that some how islamic fanatics get hold of a nuke and set it off in downtown NYC or any other large city of your choice. I'm talking nuke - not dirty bomb - something that could kill 100,000+ people and render the city uninhabitable for hundreds of years.

The rage that would emanate from the people of this country would be immense. The politician hasn't been born who would be able to say "Calm down - we're doing something - it'll just take some time". People will want immediate action - any action - and they'll get it.

If we immediately responded by turning the whole Middle East and other islamic countries into large plains of glass I wouldn't be surprised. (though I consider that response a low probability - maybe 10%)

Most likely we'd give the capitals of any suspect nations a certain amount of time to own up to and locate those responsible. Shortly therafter there would be one less city in the world with a message to the rest of islam to take care of the problem or we'll take care of it for you.

I also believe that being of the Muslim faith in the US would not be something anyone would advertise, mosques would be burned and shortly thereafter folks of a more swarthy complexion who talked with a funny accent would start turning up dead. And after that - who knows - it could very well become a national goal to take 'em all out the world over and just be done with it.

[Sean Smith]

OK, so has anybody figured out whether he was giving all of us a warning, or whether he cheerfully was saying "oh yes, that pesky constitution really should go"???

Try actually reading it. ;)

[tyme]

Take FEMA, for instance. I'm sure they have devoted considerable resources to planning a response for a NBC attack. If the military were to assume operational control in the event of such an attack, those FEMA resources would have been wasted.

[feedthehogs]

It happens/It doesn't happen.

The bottom line is we are all ultimately responsible for ourselves. If you depend on anyone or anything you will be SOL.

Always be prepared for the worst, that way when it happens you shrug your shoulders and go on. Let the others run around with their heads cut off.

[alan]

Now that you mention it, I suspect that General Franks is more likely right, than wrong in his analysis. Courtesy of a truly gutless bunch in Washington, D.C., I suspect that they would all rush off crying for "daddy".

[jimpeel]

Remember, after 9-11 -- and I mean within hours after 9-11 -- there were those talking heads who said "It is our very freedoms that make us so vulnerable to attack". I knew from that point that the bad guys had won and we had lost.

There are too many who, though unaware of the quotation, are all too willing to put Franklin's fears into effect.

I feel that the rise of the Militias will escalate beyond what the government has ever conjured. They have no idea of how many people fear the loss of the Constitution far more than they fear being incinerated by a terrorist bomb.

[JPM70535]

General Franks is not advocating the overthrow of the Constitution , merely stating his opinion as to what the probable result could be if a WMD were used and enough casualties were caused. There should be no doubt in anyones mind that following such an attack, the ever present criminal class living among us would use it to their advantage (Burn, loot, and steal TVs. Military control could conceivably be used to restore order since the local LE Agencies would be swamped.

I personally don't see any attempt at a military take over of this country. As long as there are enough of us who possess the means to make any attempt to discard or run rough shod over the Constitution seem like Vietnam multiplied a hundred fold.




PRAISE THE LORD AND PASS THE AMMUNITION!

FIRST RULE OF GUNFIGHTING, HAVE A GUN!

[ReadyontheRight]

More likely, we would REVERT BACK to the Constitution.

[alan]

JPM70535 offered the following:

General Franks is not advocating the overthrow of the Constitution , merely stating his opinion as to what the probable result could be if a WMD were used and enough casualties were caused. There should be no doubt in anyones mind that following such an attack, the ever present criminal class living among us would use it to their advantage (Burn, loot, and steal TVs. Military control could conceivably be used to restore order since the local LE Agencies would be swamped.

I personally don't see any attempt at a military take over of this country. As long as there are enough of us who possess the means to make any attempt to discard or run rough shod over the Constitution seem like Vietnam multiplied a hundred fold.

I didn't think he was either, rather that he was speculating as to what might happen. Interestingly, it appears that the U.S. Military, while it has likely at times torn it's hair at the doings of "the duly constituted civil authority", has either stayed in it's barracks or done what the above mentioned told it to do. Seems to me that the military, as a group, has held closer to it's constitutional oaths, than have any number of our "elected representatives".

As for the doings of "the criminal class", in the event of any breakdown in the civil authority, caused by natural or other disasters, they will raise such hell as they can, and will be checked by law abiding, and armed citizens, exclusive of either the police or the military.

Jimpeel wrote:

Remember, after 9-11 -- and I mean within hours after 9-11 -- there were those talking heads who said "It is our very freedoms that make us so vulnerable to attack". I knew from that point that the bad guys had won and we had lost.

There are too many who, though unaware of the quotation, are all too willing to put Franklin's fears into effect.

I feel that the rise of the Militias will escalate beyond what the government has ever conjured. They have no idea of how many people fear the loss of the Constitution far more than they fear being incinerated by a terrorist bomb.

I believe that you might be right about the upsurg of militias that you predict, given some sort of disaster, natural or otherwise.

As to your reference to admonitions left to us by Ben Franklin, agree with you there also, sad to note.

As to your reference to the maudlin ramblings of those "talking heads", or would it be some other part of the anatonomy that speaks, I believe that you allow them more dignity than they are deserving of. I doubt that all than many people pay them all that much attention.

Re the possibility of a military take-over, that or an attempt in that direction is always possible, however I believe, and I hope that I'm not proved wrong in this, that as I stated above, the military have held closer to the oaths of office that they took, than have any number of our "elected things" held to their oaths of office. Other than that, who can say?

[Alexey931]

Quote:

In Soviet Russia, not matter how ethnicall Russian you were, if you were not ideologically pure according to the theories of Marx, you got executed, if you were lucky............


hillbilly,

Forturnately for you, you don't know how to qualify for being ideologically pure. In real life it has nothing to do with the theories of Marx, but everything to do with the today's Pravda editorial. Neglecting to read it could be fatal :).