Did General Tommy Franks violate his Army oath?

[number6]

this is from a Right Wing webb site..

My opinion
I say by his comments he did.

http://www.sianews.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1408

With recently-retired Army General Tommy Franks having stated publicly that the Constitution might need to be scrapped, in favor of some form of military dictatorship, did this human turd violate his Army Oath?

I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; ...ect

[neuvocat]

1. Hmmm....its a possibility.

[mmonk]

2. Its similar to the Bible

They believe in it except where it doesn't fit their purposes.

[Turkw]

3. the real Franks

Now that he is retired Franks can shoot off his mouth. Now we get to see the real Franks. He doesn't seem particulary upset with the idea does he? And he attacked Clark, whom he doesn't know. Scary dude, glad he is out of the "closet" and out of the military.

[number6]

7. yes , who the hell is Tommy F. to

say anything about Wesley Clark.

he's a piece of shit traitor !

[newyawker99]

24. Hi Turkw!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[pinkpops]

4. I didn't read much about what he said

From the headline and lead, I took it as an offhanded comment about the sorry state of humanity. But upon reflection I am wondering if such a situation occured, would Franks lead his troops in support of enforcing the constitution, or would he take sides with those who would do away with it. In other words, shouldn't he be responsible enough to state up front what HE would do in this hypothetical situation. Then again, you could argue that the assault has already begun through passivity of the congress and courts.

[Silverhair]

He didn't say that. n/t

[bearfartinthewoods]

28. i really hate it when DUers try and spin us!

read the freaking article. it's obviously a warning. i happen to agree with him. if something huge happens, the people will be sceaming to give up freedon for security.

[number6]

10. yes , you would think if he was a true Patriot...he

would say we should never give up our rights...

[Silverhair]

17. Have you ever seriously thought about the aftermath of a nuclear

hit? I suggest that you give some serious thought to it, study the subject some, then speak.

[Gore1FL]

25. Yep-- Lived with it growing up.

Revoking the Constitution due to any attack:

a> is surrendering to the attacker
b> invalidates everything we stand for (which presumably is why we were attacked in the first place
c> adds no security or betterment in cleanup -- Whether we have a Constitution or not, radioactive half-life is pretty much going to be unchanged.

In a preamble (the Constituional goals in a nutshell) reads as follows:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Which of these stated goals is less importatn after a WMD attack?

[Silverhair]

27. That's why nukes are so damn horrible. They place simple

survival at such a high premium, and cause so much chaos, that the public at large, would indeed sacrifice those very things to regain order and survival.

Remember, I am NOT say that they SHOULD, be sacrificed. I am saying that they probably would not survive. I hope it is never put to the test.

You seem to be confused about the difference between predicting something, and desiring something. It is entirely possible to predict something and not want it at the same time.

[Silverhair]

5. That is a misquote. It is dishonest to critize based on falsifing what

he actually said. He was speculating on what the population might demand if the US were hit with a WMD attack with large casualties. From the context he was talking about a Hiroshima sized terrorist attack. HE WAS NOT SUGGESTING SCRAPPING THE CONSTITUTION.

We at DU, above others, should be concerned with truth. When we lie about someone's position, we give our enemies a powerful weapon to use against us.

BTW, Just what do YOU think would happen if downtwon Manhattan vanished under a mushroom cloud? Don't you think something like that would send a hell of a shock throught the populace. Or maybe you think that after something like that, everything would still go on just like always?

[number6]

8. what I think..

"Just what do YOU think would happen if downtwon Manhattan vanished under a mushroom cloud? Don't you think something like that would send a hell of a shock throught the populace"

so should we toss out the Constitution and Bill of Rights
and become slaves ????

I wouldn't no matter what

"HE WAS NOT SUGGESTING SCRAPPING THE CONSTITUTION."

yes, but I beleive he did say that he doubted it
would survive the next terrorist attack

he doesn't have much faith in it

[Silverhair]

12. You have appearently never seriously consider what would

happen in the event of an attack of that scale.

1. I did not say what we SHOULD do. I said that he was speculating on what WOULD happen.

I will also specualte here, as I have done in other posts on this same topic.

In the event of a massasive attack like that, I give you a guarantee: You will be a hell of a lot more worried about merely being ALIVE the next day, than you will about your rights.

[number6]

16. "Give me Liberty or Give me Death"

"In the event of a massasive attack like that, I give you a guarantee: You will be a hell of a lot more worried about merely being ALIVE the next day, than you will about your rights.

well lets say one our cities gets nuked, bushee seze only
repubs can deal with this, lets outlaw the Democrats there
soft on terroism , civil rights eh that helps the terrorists
privicy nope can't have it, search warrents don't need em

I hope no matter how bad, I'm worried about more than
"merely being ALIVE the next day"

[Silverhair]

19. In the event of something like that, the public will demand

that the gov't be strong enough to protect them, and they will want blood vengence - and lots of it. Don't you understand? Bush won't have to do anything, the people (With a very few rare exceptions.)will give him the power by acclimation.

And I do suggest some serious contemplation and study of what really happens in the aftermath of a nuke strike.

[bearfartinthewoods]

29. for example.......

sobriety checks should be illegal under the constitution because we are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law and we are supposed to be abl;e to move freely, without interagation.

the PEOPLE back these roadblock/ID checks/prove to the state that you haven't been drinking surrenders of freedom because of a, relitively speaking, as compared to a massive terror attack, few deaths.

be prepared for a ten fold degree of limitation in freedom of movement. expect the numbers of searches to waaay outrip any meaningful judical review and warrenting (if they even bother with warrents at all).

expect a round up of nationals that will make what happened to japenese americans look piddling.

does the above sound like our constitution will reign supreme?

[Silverhair]

13. No he did not say that. You have misquoted what he said.

He said, "...WMD attack with large casualties..." and from the context it is obvious that the was talking about a Hiroshima sized attack.

If you want to disagree with him based on what he ACTUALLY said, that is fine. But don't lie. Don't put your words in his mouth, and then disagree with those.

[number6]

21. well heres what newsmax had

"If you want to disagree with him based on what he ACTUALLY said, that is fine. But don't lie. Don't put your words in his mouth, and then disagree with those."

well its newsmax and Friends of Liberty that are reporting this

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/11/20/185048.shtml

"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."

.......>>>>>will likely be discarded <<<<......

so does he have much faith in the Constitution???

"from lifestyle magazine Cigar Aficionado"

"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"

[Silverhair]

23. Fine. Now you are actually quoting him and that is honest.

Now I invite you to do some serious thinking about the aftermath of a major WMD hit on one of our major cities.

[Bucky]

11. Excellent points

We need to be intellectually honest as we rip our opponents to shreds. Decency demands it. Tommy Franks has served his country honorably enough. He's a jerk for trying to slam Clark's character (notice that he's shut up about since then). But he's done whatever his C-in-C has asked him to do and kept his opinions to himself while he wore the uniform.

I can say for myself that if terrorists nuked New York City--even if they did it during next year's Republican convention--I'd fight like hell to keep the Constitution going. Destroying the Constitution would no doubt be part of the agenda of any such attack. Of course so far terrorists don't have nukes. But let's just watch to see what happens as Bushco continues to screw up the Korea situation.

[Silverhair]

14. I too would try to keep the constitution. However,

I have attended a military nuclear weapons school. I am more knowledgeable than the average DUer about them. I have had to "think the unthinkable". I just don't think the constitution would survive a nuclear hit. OK, maybe one and that is stretching it, but if we got hit by two of them, or other large scale WMD attack, then the population will DEMAND action. And they won't be satisfied with calling a conference of the UN to condemn the suicide attackers, or with throwing a couple of missiles into a patch of desert.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

18. How does one explain modern day Japan then?

[Silverhair]

22. American occupation and American aid in rebuilding. Also

the average Japanese didn't know what had happen, or know anything at all had happened it he was too far away to see it. In modern America, all the country would know about it within minutes. The panic and chaos that would follow would make the populace beg the gov't to somehow, anyhow, restore order.

[DoYouEverWonder]

26. Why do you assume the worst of people

We didn't have panic and chaos on 9-11. We didn't have panic and chaos during the NE blackout.

Don't worry, if we ever have a major nuclear attack which is highly unlikely, we all know that nothing else will matter except trying to survive.

However, even a dirty bomb in the middle of a major city wouldn't do anymore damage than what we already saw on 9-11 and more likely would do much less visible damage. WMD's are not the weapons of choice for people who have to use donkey carts for a delivery system.

I don't mean to be overly optimistic, but I do believe that if we are attacked again, most of us will survive. Heck, despite the fact that the center of the global economy, the WTC was destroyed, I still got my Amex bill on time.

[bearfartinthewoods]

30. do you see people, en masse, refusing to remove their shoes

in order to board a plane?

i saw Ozzie's kid drop trou in order to try and pass a bogus security test. he was being punked and dropped trou ON THE STREET in front of the MTV building because the security check/metal detector was alerting on him as he tried to enter.

store loyalty cards, cellphones, sobriety check points, video surveillance on the streets...all examples of how vigilent(NOT) the people are in guarding their freedom and privacy.

[mw]

6. He's retired. And no longer under that oath. nt

nt

[number6]

9. true, he's retired, good riddance

...

[Nlighten1]

15. Isn't Franks retired though?

If he isn't retired he could be in trouble.

[Renew Deal]

20. He is retired so no.

As far as I know.