Just found some scary things while browsing today.

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.

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.

then....

F.B.I. Scrutinizes Antiwar Rallies
By ERIC LICHTBLAU

Published: November 23, 2003


ASHINGTON, Nov. 22 — The Federal Bureau of Investigation has collected extensive information on the tactics, training and organization of antiwar demonstrators and has advised local law enforcement officials to report any suspicious activity at protests to its counterterrorism squads, according to interviews and a confidential bureau memorandum.

and most terrifying and least surprising

U.S. General Says Bin Laden 'Out of the Picture'
Fri Nov 21, 9:23 AM ET Add Top Stories - Reuters to My Yahoo!


By Yousuf Azimy

BAGRAM, Afghanistan (Reuters) - A senior U.S. general said on Friday that al Qaeda mastermind Osama bin Laden (news - web sites) had "taken himself out of the picture" and that his capture was not essential to winning the "war on terror."

I mean, who the hell cares his organization killed 3,000 americans. Lets just attack another country that had nothing to do with 9/11 illegally and under false pretenses. We'll call it self defense.

How ridiculous! General Franks is overreacting. The US has absorbed hundreds of thousands of deaths in its wars, and the Constitution has held fast. The US was never so "militarized" as during WW2, when one president held power for one term after another and our productive capacity was completely oriented towards the war effort. Yet the Constitution survived.

If our cities were nuked, then we'd just do more of what we're doing now - constitutionally attacking offender and would-be offender countries, and legislating controls (like the Patriot Act) that can pass muster with the Supreme Court. Repealing the Constitution wouldn't help us track down terrorists.

The Constitution's already being torn to shreds by the current administration. Besides, who's gonna attack us with WMD? Countries will not let those things out of their hands, and only countries have the resources and infrastructure to develop them. The only thing that could happen to cause that kind of destruction is a terrorist wrecking a nuclear power plant, and since the security at those places is so gosh awful that's not beyond the realm of possibility.

How can this Generals point of view be seen as ridiculous? The above interview only states what he think will happen if the US is hit by a WMD. Nothing more and nothing less. This is an objective statement. He doesn't say anything for or against the constitution, neither does he say anything about what ought to happen if the above scenario takes place.

And yes, the US has last many thousands trooper during the last century. Not anywere near the cassualties suffered by the european countries, but still a very high number. However, these cassualties are first of all military. Besides the WTC, there have not been many attacks against the civilian population. Secondly, the cassualties have been coming in "tolerable" doses, if such a term exists. Imagine the whole population of New York whiped out in a mere second. No society or government is going to survive that.

The example of the second world war is a valid one. The UK suffered many non-military casualties during air-raids, but this didn't result in military government or the suspension of civil liberties. The business of confrontational multiparty politics was suspended for the duration and a government of national unity formed but that is not the same thing. Methinks Tommy Franks is talking out of his backside.

As for the FBI keeping an eye on anti-war protest groups, isn't that part of their job? They would be considered pretty remiss if the anti-war movement were to spawn another Timothy McVeigh and the FBI had no knowledge of it.

What is it with some leftwing Westerners? They fondly imagine that they are living in a state of severe repression with their civil liberties under constant assault, yet they have no grounds for doing so. Jschild, you're American. Within perfectly reasonable limits you can say and do whatever you damned well please and nobody will interfere with you.

There's a Polish board member called Chevalier. You may want to ask him what it was like living under REAL repression.

The example of the second world war is a valid one. The UK suffered many non-military casualties during air-raids, but this didn't result in military government or the suspension of civil liberties. The business of confrontational multiparty politics was suspended for the duration and a government of national unity formed but that is not the same thing. Methinks Tommy Franks is talking out of his backside.
Now the UK is famous for its hyperstability. It centralist monarchy always fared better then the other centralist monarchies around.

Anyway, I think any halfway decent book about fundamental constitutional issues contains a chapter on the inherent problems of emergency laws. Having a clause that provides for it is like having a trojan horse, letting leagally someone taking over. Having no clause in it, is not controlling an emergency situation.

]I think that is the usual way most military dictatorships were installed. If it would happen in the US, I do not know.

"Constitutional dictatorship is a dangerous thing," Rossiter advises. Such governments are the result of necessity, of the sheer imperative of survival. The greatest danger with such a form of government, and its related institutions and laws, is that they can remain after the crisis has abated.

here (http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20020607.html)

I see your points. However, a metropolis with many million inhabitants wiped from the earth will send shockwaves through modern society, and I don't want to be predicting the result. Remember the aftermath of WTC. That was 'only' some thousand people....

The possibilities exist in recent history. The patriot act was created due to the over-inflated paranoia resulting from the attacks on the World Trade Center. The act itself is a direct threat to our freedom from government persecution.