November 24, 2003

WMD: One / Democracy: Zero

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.

...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 weve seen for a couple of hundred years in this grand experiment that we call democracy. read more.

So what would this mean in my life and yours... to live in a police state where most or all individual "freedoms" were curtailed? What liberty and freedom would we lose and for how long? Who would make decisions under such a military state? What plans are in place for our branches of government to persist in the face of this very possible if not inevitable event?

Posted by fred1st at November 24, 2003 07:12 AM | TrackBack

If they can hoodwink the American people into going to war with the evidence they had for weapons of mass destruction, they can probably hoodwink them into thinking the strike has already happened. This may just be the cat's paw, one small step toward what they already have planned. Read Molly Ivins At least once a week. Today, for example.

Posted by: trish at November 24, 2003 07:41 AM

We the people are the best deterent to terrorism. In my view, military state is what Homeland Security is all about. How much of our wealth must we spend (and how much debt must we saddle our children and their children with) on ineffective, bureaucratic shenanigans that increases our security infinitesimally but takes away our freedoms hugely? Bureaucracy cannot respond to terrorism. It can only close the barn door after the horse has escaped. Were we to spend the same amount of money on conquering disease and poverty, much more good could come from it.

Posted by: Cop Car at November 24, 2003 07:57 AM

I think Gen Franks is overstating the case. Two airlines full of jet fuel do qualify as a WMD in my opinion, and we did not descind in fascism because of the attack. Actually, I think the public response to another major attack at home would be outrage and a demand that the government blow up the bad guys immediately, whatever the cost. We may have gotten soft as a people, but the one thing that will cause us to fight back hard is anything that threatens our ability to get by being soft.

Posted by: Chris at November 24, 2003 09:41 AM

Why do I feel like smoking a cigar?

Posted by: Kurt at November 24, 2003 01:14 PM

This reminds me of that oft-repeated quote "If voting actually did anything, they'd outlaw it." The government is doing just fine as it is giving handouts to all their friends who run big companies, etc. etc. This is a problem left and right (see, for example, Nancy Pelosi's desire to jail anybody sharing a movie that hasn't been released yet: her biggest campaign contributor is the MPAA. hm..). If there were an actual police state, people would join together and revolt. I don't think many people in America would stand for it. As it is, we think our votes matter (although, as the Washington Post has been good to point out, in places like Maryland, something like 86% of ther races were uncompetitive this past election cycle. So, even though you were voting, there was only one candidate.)

So, here's what I'm getting at: why would any government risk being overthrown by the people when they already have the run of the land, with the people's consent?

Posted by: tim at November 24, 2003 01:40 PM

Post a comment

Remember Me?