Gen. Franks Doubts Constitution Will Survive WMD Attack

[Double Barrel]

Gen. Franks Doubts Constitution Will Survive WMD Attack

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."

 

[amadeus]

I'd say no.

It is of the utmost importance to be on the offensive against these barbarians, not isolating ourselves from the attackers.

Corpses can't plot terrorist attacks.

 

[Smaasnekje]

I agree with rmsharpe on this

 

[andrewgprv]

Aboslutley not! I would view the new military goverenment as more of an enemy then those who struck with WMD.

 

[Richard III]

Originally posted by andrewgprv
Aboslutley not! I would view the new military goverenment as more of an enemy then those who struck with WMD.

I don't know if I'd see it as MORE of an enemy. But an enemy, no doubt.

As for the poll, I didn't vote because I think it's a little too vague; I support the notion of temporary suspensions of civil power in a particular area to restore order in distrupted local situation, e.g. martial law in a state that's suffering from a natural disaster or terrorist attack.

Under no circumstances whatsoever do I support suspension of the civil power overall, and I believe that only properly constituted civil authorities should have the power to set a temporary suspension and for a time clearly limited at the outset.

R.III

 

[Sparrowhawk]

You know, come to think of it, this sort of scenario is about the only one in which I can picture taking up arms beyond my own personal defence.

This article is veeery interesting. These are people who are supposed to be pro-democracy to the core (democracy for Iraq!), and yet they might seriously consider instituting a military government in the case of an entirely plausible terrorist attack? For the first time in my life the right of the people to bear arms seems like a good idea.


EDIT: Double Barrel, what is your source? I don't see it mentioned anywhere.

 

[cgannon64]

I agree with RIII entirely. Martial law in the city or state that is attacked makes perfect sense. Put national martial law wouldn't do anything, unless the WMD attack was so widespread that it hit multiple regions, but this probably won't happen, IMO.

 

[Double Barrel]

Sparrowhawk, the interview with General Franks is in the December issue of Cigar Aficionado.

This particular article is from NewsMax.com , which is a right of center (conservative) site, but the article doesn't seem to have a particular political slant other than reiterating what Franks said in an interview. (Apologies for ommitting the source in my original post.)

With regards to the poll, I wasn't sure how many options I should have made, so I decided to keep it simple.

But you folks have renewed my faith in humanity (so to speak), as I am glad to hear that a potential government coup would not be highly welcomed by the populace.

My fear is that once implemented, it would be an extremely uphill battle to reinstate the constitution. Military governments have historically been tough to give up their power once they have control of it.

 

[Dr. Dr. Doktor]

Doesn't martial law include summary and public executions, legal torture to extract information, curfews, extreme prejudice, violation of private property, survaillance without court order, indeterminate detention, rule by fiat, disolvement of private savings, forced relocation, forced labour, the draft, state censorship, confiscation, search and seizure, disolvement of labour unions, and three persons gathering is a demonstration?

 

[JonathanValjean]

No, I absolutely would not!

 

[RedWolf]

Originally posted by Dr. Dr. Doktor
Doesn't martial law include summary and public executions, legal torture to extract information, curfews, extreme prejudice, violation of private property, survaillance without court order, indeterminate detention, rule by fiat, disolvement of private savings, forced relocation, forced labour, the draft, state censorship, confiscation, search and seizure, disolvement of labour unions, and three persons gathering is a demonstration?

Yeah - all the same things that the hawks squaked about Saddam Hussein.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

Originally posted by Sparrowhawk
This article is veeery interesting. These are people who are supposed to be pro-democracy to the core (democracy for Iraq!), and yet they might seriously consider instituting a military government in the case of an entirely plausible terrorist attack? For the first time in my life the right of the people to bear arms seems like a good idea.

For the record Franks appears to be saying that he "fears" this happening, not tha that he supports it.

 

[YNCS]

I believe it was Benjamin Franklin who said:

"Those who would sacrifice liberty for safety will end up having neither."

 

[nihilistic]

I actually agree with R3 that there may be instances where ISOLATED suspensions may neccesary. However, I don't think that thone circumstances are likely, even given a wmd attack.

 

[ArbitraryGuy]

If I recall, isn't that somewhat how Caesar got his power? By invoking the Roman form of martial law (Imperator?) in a time of "national distress". Correct me if I'm wrong, my ancient history's a bit fuzzy.

 

[Richard III]

Originally posted by Dr. Dr. Doktor
Doesn't martial law include summary and public executions, legal torture to extract information, curfews, extreme prejudice, violation of private property, survaillance without court order, indeterminate detention, rule by fiat, disolvement of private savings, forced relocation, forced labour, the draft, state censorship, confiscation, search and seizure, disolvement of labour unions, and three persons gathering is a demonstration?

No.

Canada has experienced martial law nationwide in my lifetime. Or rather, barely in my lifetime. The War Measures Act - used in 1970 in the FLQ crisis but carelessly applied to the whole country - has since been softened; it essentially suspends habeus corpus, property rights and permits very specified state measures designed to end the emergency within a limited time. In the US, emergency powers would be of particular use insofar as they would suspend - again, one insists, temporarily - the posse comitatus act, allowing the armed forces to be used as a police force. States of emergency - which are, in fact, cases of martial law - are quite common in western democracies, especially in natural disaster zones. Another example of martial law that doesn't seem quite so evil: Federal authorities using troops to enforce desegregation in the south. I don't see anyone complaining about that (yet?).

Martial law was almost instituted in Winnipeg in the 1950s during a catastrophic flood; the purpose of it would have been to permit the federal authorities to seize property needed for flood defence without due process, and to conscript the lazy among the population to actually help save the city before it was completely destroyed around them. Compensation could be handled later, just as time-limited suspension of habeus corpus during, say, a WMD attack would not allow for permanent incarceration. However, the flood peaked just as the paperwork was being signed and it proved unnecessary.

So, it's not quite as malevolent as you make out, necessarily - which is why the martial law I'm talking about can't be the subordination of rights, only the temporary suspension of them. And again, I'm only making the case here that it's complicated, not that it's ever desirable. Granted, for example, the Quebec situation permitted a few abuses in other provinces - and in Quebec itself - from opportunistic attorneys-general suddenly arresting hippies and the like as part of the "apprehended insurrection" without much evidence to back it. But all captured were released shortly thereafter, because Trudeau put a time limit on the effect of the emergency powers, as expected in the Act. If using the WMA was wrong, certainly sticking time limits on its use was the right way to use the wrong power. To make sure this happened, that's why the law was rewritten.

I agree that other states may apply "state of emergency" or martial law in different ways; I suspect, for instance, that Saddam Hussein wasn't practicing martial law but his version of civil law. If you think about it. But I'm quite clear on what I mean...

R.III

 

[Dr. Dr. Doktor]

Richard III

Was Iraq not, de facto, in a state of war or national emergency since 1979 until 2003? Maybe there was a period between 1988 to 1991 when they were not.

How can you put a time limit on war. I understand that you can put a time limit on internal dissent and natural disasters. But war?

 

[Richard III]

Yeah, Iraq was a democratic state with elections, too

Stop being ridiculous.

If someone said "yeah, we need a military dictatorship where the civil power is permanently surrendered to a general staff and a caudillo until the war ends," that would be (a) repugnant, (b) something several of us have made it clear we'd pick up our guns for and (c) comparable to Iraq.

No one is talking about that. I'm saying "be clear on what martial law means." If it means a time-limited, localized suspension of "process" in the area of a WMD attack to permit the protection of lives to take precedence until the situation can be stabilized, then that's ok, provided that the effects of suspended processes are removed after the time limit, e.g. just because you're arrested without probable cause for looting, doesn't mean they can keep you beyond the end of the emergency without having to find evidence later. It's no different from what happens in the event of a severe flood or hurricane or a wildfire, so why should a WMD attack be special?

Unless WMD attacks are happening daily, I don't see how your question matters. And to suggest I or anyone else is supporting anything more untoward (e.g. actual termination of a constitutional right or constitutional government, or placement of a general in a position of authority over the civil power), well, that suggestion is just sheer communism.

R.III

 

[Dr. Dr. Doktor]

Yes, disregarding Saddam's predeliction for swift justice, (something he might have learned from the Ottoman and English empire when they ruled) it is common knowledge that prior to the Iraq-Iran war the Saddam regime made a great leap forward in terms of healthcare, litteracy, military organisation, university education, women's rights, industrialisation, diplomatic ties with the West. The saying still is, 'Cairo writes, Lebanon prints, and Baghdad reads'.

What I am suggesting is that if it is the right of a sovereign nation to declare martial law, a natural thing when missiles are landing here and there, how could the coalition of the willing possibly use that as an argument against him? I believe that prior to the Iraq-Iran war the human rights violations were primarily directed against party-members.

I think that what Tommy Franks means by what he is saying is not a mere suspension of localized and time definate rights. It is something far more sinister. He is delivering a general warning. And he, I suspect, is doing this because he does not agree with the current administration. He has intuition, how else would he have become a general? Gen. Schwarztkopf (ret.) warned against the invasion did he not?

 

[Richard III]

HELLO!

I frickin SAID THAT. I SAID

"And to suggest I or anyone else is supporting anything more untoward (e.g. actual termination of a constitutional right or constitutional government, or placement of a general in a position of authority over the civil power)... is communism."

E.g. DUH, NO ONE IS SUPPORTING WHAT THE GENERAL IS TALKING ABOUT.


SADDAM HUSSEIN IS NOT A PROPERLY CONSTITUTED CIVIL AUTHORITY YOU FOOL HE TOOK POWER BY WHACKING A BUNCH OF GUYS WITH PISTOLS AND HIS POPULATION HAD NO CIVIL RIGHTS.

If you're so drunk on your commie bull**** that you think the United States, or Britain, or Germany, or any other similar frickin' country retaining the power to suspend due process for a few days to clean up after a nuke is somehow remotely similar to ANYTHING Saddam Hussein did, then XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX.


Jesus, how ridiculous! If someone sprays a contagious bioagent in downtown Manhatten, what's the Governor supposed to do, say "we can't ask you to go to a quarantine zone because that's what Saddam would have done?"

Saddam would have shot the people who were sick. No one is talking about that.

Come on, grow up.

R.III