scrambler Posted November 21, 2003 Share Posted November 21, 2003 (edited) Tommy Franks: Martial Law Will Replace Constitution After Next Terror 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.” Tommy Franks: Martial Law Will Replace Constitution After Next Terror Attack American Hero, General Tommy Franks: An Exclusive Interview Edited November 21, 2003 by scrambler Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted November 21, 2003 Share Posted November 21, 2003 the thing i laugh at is the people who cry out for anarky are the ones least likely to survive it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jordop Posted November 21, 2003 Share Posted November 21, 2003 "Franks, who successfully led the U.S. military operation to liberate Iraq . . ." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted November 21, 2003 Share Posted November 21, 2003 jordop said: "Franks, who successfully led the U.S. military operation to liberate Iraq . . ." no doubt! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted November 21, 2003 Share Posted November 21, 2003 Liberals can't even make it past the 1st and 2nd amendments to our constitution. Most of them believe in "free speech" only as defined by them, and abhore the second amendment. ....So tell me, Scrambler, exactly who would uphold the constitution in time of crisis? You need only look at who tries to subvert it in time of relative peace! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scrambler Posted November 21, 2003 Author Share Posted November 21, 2003 Accomplished mission to topple Saddam and his Baathist Party from power Are we not in the occupation phase of the Iraqi operation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scrambler Posted November 21, 2003 Author Share Posted November 21, 2003 Fairweather said: Liberals can't even make it past the 1st and 2nd amendments to our constitution. Most of them believe in "free speech" only as defined by them, and abhore the second amendment. ....So tell me, Scrambler, exactly who would uphold the constitution in time of crisis? You need only look at who tries to subvert it in time of relative peace! Explain this further. I'm not following. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted November 21, 2003 Share Posted November 21, 2003 This nation held a general election in the middle of a civil war! I respectfully suggest that general Franks is mistaken and underestimates the stregnth of our system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted November 21, 2003 Share Posted November 21, 2003 scrambler said: Fairweather said: Liberals can't even make it past the 1st and 2nd amendments to our constitution. Most of them believe in "free speech" only as defined by them, and abhore the second amendment. ....So tell me, Scrambler, exactly who would uphold the constitution in time of crisis? You need only look at who tries to subvert it in time of relative peace! Explain this further. I'm not following. Constant attempts to "ban" certain deemed offensive types of speech. (ie: with campus "speech codes"....not to mention their attempts to regulate conservative talk radio.) Constant attempts to subvert/re-interpret the second amendment....surely you understand what I mean. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scrambler Posted November 21, 2003 Author Share Posted November 21, 2003 Times have changed. Maybe the worst case scenairo involving a constitutional challenge would be a severe fiscal crisis coupled with terrorist attack. Stuff of paperback novels. Perhaps the system is strong. Franks' ideas are a real possibility. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scrambler Posted November 21, 2003 Author Share Posted November 21, 2003 Fairweather said: scrambler said: Fairweather said: Liberals can't even make it past the 1st and 2nd amendments to our constitution. Most of them believe in "free speech" only as defined by them, and abhore the second amendment. ....So tell me, Scrambler, exactly who would uphold the constitution in time of crisis? You need only look at who tries to subvert it in time of relative peace! Explain this further. I'm not following. Constant attempts to "ban" certain deemed offensive types of speech. (ie: with campus "speech codes"....not to mention their attempts to regulate conservative talk radio.) Constant attempts to subvert/re-interpret the second amendment....surely you understand what I mean. Liberals. That word carries a lot of different connotations. So liberals meaning big gov't, 'Big Mother', we'll dictate what's right for you, etc., and to some extent, the secularization of culture? With respect to Second Amendment, the original intent of the right to possess firearms was to rise up to oppose overbearing government (controversial) but at the very least, for defense against attack. It certainly wasn't put there so that we could have guns for hunting. As I understand the First Amendment, this is a safeguard to protect the individual's right to political speech, which includes criticism of the ruling government. I don't know. I'm not a Constitutional scholar. Seems that the interpretation of the law can differ with the changing times. The letter of the law will not change but the spirit of the law can be reinterpreted. ??? But we still retain our rights. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted November 21, 2003 Share Posted November 21, 2003 scrambler said: Seems that the interpretation of the law can differ with the changing times. The letter of the law will not change but the spirit of the law can be reinterpreted. ??? But we still retain our rights. The idea that the constitution is "flexible", or "a living, breathing document" is what brought about decisions like Dred Scott. The document means what it says, and IMHO is not as open to interpretation as many think. .....But then I'll admit that I do, in fact, support things that are clearly unconstitutional such as the Federal Reserve system and the death penalty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marylou Posted November 21, 2003 Share Posted November 21, 2003 There are several things being considered in this discussion. I'm just going to take on one for now. Current thinking on conservative versus liberal includes (but is not limited to) the idea that the framers covered pretty much everything in the Constitution, and that the document should be taken at face value. I'd call this, as GWB does, "strict constructionism." This is in line with current and typical conservative thought with regard, at least, to the Constitution. The other way of looking at it is to consider it a living document, and to work with it in changing modern times. This is (once again loosely) more in line with the liberal perspective. If it seems as though I am painting with a big wide brush, it's because I am. But more or less, with regard to the Constitution, that's what I see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Metalhead_Mojo Posted November 21, 2003 Share Posted November 21, 2003 marylou said: There are several things being considered in this discussion. I'm just going to take on one for now. Current thinking on conservative versus liberal includes (but is not limited to) the idea that the framers covered pretty much everything in the Constitution, and that the document should be taken at face value. I'd call this, as GWB does, "strict constructionism." This is in line with current and typical conservative thought with regard, at least, to the Constitution. The other way of looking at it is to consider it a living document, and to work with it in changing modern times. This is (once again loosely) more in line with the liberal perspective. If it seems as though I am painting with a big wide brush, it's because I am. But more or less, with regard to the Constitution, that's what I see. gee, thanks for pointing out the obvious Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sk Posted November 21, 2003 Share Posted November 21, 2003 Scrambler I would like to point out that when the constitution was writen the primay sorce of meet was indeed hunting (or raising and killing your own) they would have had no concept for safeway. If you think that was not part of the practical decision making for the second amendment you are sadly mistaken. sure it is probable that what thewy wanted to be sure of is that people could rise up against a wrong minded government if that becomes nessicary, but you have to admit part of freedom is being able to feed ones family. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted November 21, 2003 Share Posted November 21, 2003 If you think that was not part of the practical decision making for the second amendment you are sadly mistaken. militia. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sk Posted November 21, 2003 Share Posted November 21, 2003 scott_harpell said: If you think that was not part of the practical decision making for the second amendment you are sadly mistaken. I am saying that logicly scott, that it is both. those men were not fools... freedom involves being able to eat. militia. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted November 21, 2003 Share Posted November 21, 2003 Muffy_The_Wanker_Sprayer said: scott_harpell said: If you think that was not part of the practical decision making for the second amendment you are sadly mistaken. I am saying that logicly scott, that it is both. those men were not fools... freedom involves being able to eat. militia. not really. have you read it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted November 21, 2003 Share Posted November 21, 2003 "9 in 10 child molesters support the eradication of your 2nd amendment rights!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sk Posted November 21, 2003 Share Posted November 21, 2003 I am not saying read what they wrote, I am aware of what they wrote... think beyound what you read. Try understanding some of human nature. Think of the three most important things that a parent may consider if trying to take care of a child. (pppssst. one of those is food ;0 ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted November 21, 2003 Share Posted November 21, 2003 Muffy_The_Wanker_Sprayer said: I am not saying read what they wrote, I am aware of what they wrote... think beyound what you read. Try understanding some of human nature. Think of the three most important things that a parent may consider if trying to take care of a child. (pppssst. one of those is food ;0 ) so you haven't read it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sk Posted November 21, 2003 Share Posted November 21, 2003 I have long time ago... I do not know it word for word. post it will you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted November 21, 2003 Share Posted November 21, 2003 Muffy_The_Wanker_Sprayer said: I have long time ago... I do not know it word for word. post it will you? i do A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sk Posted November 21, 2003 Share Posted November 21, 2003 I think that my mind goes to survival... I have diffrent priorities Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted November 21, 2003 Share Posted November 21, 2003 i have all 4 versions. above is the ratified one, but if you would like, i can post the other 3. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.