T Nation

Just Give Up

Right off the bat I just want to say I don’t follow politics. My personal views lean more the way of the right but I certainly don’t tivo every show on Fox news or listen to Sean Hannity on my way home from work. Both sides have an agenda, and both sides are not to be trusted in my opinion. However I overheard a conversation the other day that concerned me a bit. Goes like this:

I work nights at my sister’s dance studio to earn a little extra money. I do her accounting, run the website, help little girls put on their tap shoes, and flirt with high school jail bait. On Thursdays two parents come in that share similar political views and they often talk politics. One is a school teacher, the other is retired. I often overhear their conversations and don’t think much of them, but this last Thursday i honestly wanted to drive over them with a bulldozer just to keep them from poisoning impressionable minds of the younger generation. They were comparing Bush to Hitler.

In my mind, you can dislike Bush all you want, but comparing him to the likes of Hitler is a little beyond extreme. How can people be this stupid? If you honestly believe the President of this country is a mass murdering dictator whose intent is to wipe out inferior races than you my friend have more than a few screws lose. Yeah Bush isn’t a genius, maybe he doesn’t do his job as well as I would like, but the guy is not a madman! If people can be persuaded so severely to think so passionately one way or the other to the point of being totally blind to reality then the system has totally failed.

The sad thing is, my own brother is the exact same way. He is so hardcore right it’s disgusting. Everything wrong with the world is/was the fault of the democrats in his mind and to think this is wrong.

Something needs to change. We can’t keep shoving propaganda down the throats of people. We need to start being honest with ourselves and others. Everyone has an agenda. No one is out there for anyone other than themselves and that is sad. I have no idea what the solution is but I know we are heading in the wrong direction. Please tell me I’m not the only one.

I hear ya.

I agree.And I’m what in the U.S. would be considered as very liberal.
Common sense knows no ideology…

That is what happens when you listen bankrupt Air America Radio.

[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
That is what happens when you listen bankrupt Air America Radio.[/quote]

Some of the right wingers are just as over the top.

While I am no Clinton fan much of what was said about him was disgraceful and rEEdiculous when he was president.

America has a horrible “team” mentality. People only want their team (Rep or Dem) to win. Even running for President has becomed a damned pageant. It makes me sick to hear voters discussing a candidate’s hair or smile.

While I tend to agree with you that comparing our current president to one of the most evil men in history is taking things a bit far, there are some similarities. Not just in Bush and Hitler, but in modern America and prewar Germany (ca. 1933ish). Now, I’m sure some people are going to fly off the handle and call me a freedom hating anti-american terrorist or some such. That’s fine, go right ahead, but at least think about things for a second before coming back with the typical knee jerk, nationalist responses that seem to plague every political forum on the intertubes.

There is no arguing the fact that the current administration has gained some power for the executive branch of our government. Whether those “power grabs” were done withing the letter of the law or not is up for debate but doesn’t really matter for this discussion.

The Patriot act and, more recently, the Military Commissions Act of 2006, effectively give the executive branch the ability to suspend, or perhaps loosely interpret, certain civil liberties of American citizens. True, the supposed intent of these laws is not to oppress the general public but to aid in the aprehension, detainment, prosecution, and punishment of terrorist and their supporters. However, if you’ll look back to 1933 Germany there was a law passed called the Reichstag Fire Decree in response to the Reichstag Fire. It suspended certain civil liberties, including the writ of Habeas Corpus, for the German people. The cause of the fire is still hazy, but the Nazi party claimed it was intended to signal the start of a bloody uprising and revolt involving pillaging and terrorism. The law was passed to help the Government fight terrorism and revolutionaries. However, the suspension of Habeas Corpus allowed Hitler and other Nazi party leaders to imprison anyone who didn’t agree with them and take stronger control of the Reichstag (German parliament).

I don’t think this was the intention of Congress or the President in the passing of the above mentioned laws, however, they leave a lot of leeway for interpretation. For example, the Military Commissions Act allows for the apprehension and detainment of Unlawful Enemy Combatants without any of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. It effectively suspends the writ of Habeas Corpus for Unlawful Enemy Combatants. Fine, they’re terrorists, who cares if they rot away at Gitmo for 4 years right? Not so fast, the law also defines the term “Unlawful Enemy Combatant” as anyone (including US citizens) who the President, Secretary of Defense, or anyone authorized by them determines is either engaged in hostilities towards the US, a member of an organization involved in hostilities towards the US, or a supporter of any organization or individual engaged in hostilities towards the US. That’s pretty vague, but considering the National Strategy for Winning the War on Terrorism (http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nsct/2006/sectionV.html) effectively labels conspiracy theorists as terrorist recruiters, who knows how the “supporter of any organization…” clause could be interpreted.

Even more disturbing is this passage found later in the law:

This effectively quashes any possibility for appeal or review of the MCA by any court. Since most of the law gives powers directly to the President and Secretary of Defense, we end up with the following situation:

  1. President determines who the law applies to based on a definition so vague it could theoretically refer to anyone.
  2. President can decide to hold anyone he’s determined to fall under the law indefinitely without even giving them a reason for the detainment (i.e. suspending the writ of Habeas Corpus)
  3. The President can determine when they’re tried, who tries them, and the charges against them. They aren’t guaranteed legal council, heresay evidence is allowed, and they may or may not be notified of the charges against them or who their accuser is.
  4. No one, except possibly the President, has any authority to challenge or overturn any aspect of the law or the trials.

If that’s not borderline dictatorial powers then I don’t know what is.

Lastly, I’d like to say that I don’t think our President has his mind set on world domination or genocide. I feel that he truly believes he’s doing what’s best for America and the American people. However, Hitler probably thought the same thing about what he was doing for Germany.

So, is it fair and in good taste to compare Bush to Hitler? No, probably not. However, to say it’s an asinine, bullshit argument is also not really right either, as there are definitely comparisons to be made there.

[quote]m0dd3r wrote:

So, is it fair and in good taste to compare Bush to Hitler? No, probably not. However, to say it’s an asinine, bullshit argument is also not really right either, as there are definitely comparisons to be made there.[/quote]

Those same comparisons can probably be made more accurately to any number of other countries in history.

The comparisons to Hitler and Nazi Germany are used because they are outrageous and are meant to terrify the gullible.

Hardly a good start for reasonable dialogue.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
m0dd3r wrote:

So, is it fair and in good taste to compare Bush to Hitler? No, probably not. However, to say it’s an asinine, bullshit argument is also not really right either, as there are definitely comparisons to be made there.

Those same comparisons can probably be made more accurately to any number of other countries in history.
[/quote]

I don’t know that I’d say more accurately, although I’d be curious to hear an example. But yes, they could be made many other places. However, since the OP was referring to someone comparing Bush and Hitler, I figured that would make the most sense to talk about.

Agreed, to a point. To be nitpicky, I specifically stated that I was referring to prewar Germany (ca. 1933) which was really before the Nazi party took complete power. In general any comparison to Nazi Germany is totally outrageous. We obviously don’t have death camps lying about the US.

However, many of the conditions seen in prewar Germany can be seen in modern day America and I personally find it somewhat disturbing. Could be mere coincidence and I’ll be proven totally wrong as time passes. In fact, I hope and pray that’s the case. But either way, I personally find it at least a rather interesting subject for debate if nothing else.

Oh dear, I’m terribly sorry, should I PM you my opinions from now on before posting to make sure they’re up to snuff for reasonable dialogue?

[quote]m0dd3r wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
m0dd3r wrote:

So, is it fair and in good taste to compare Bush to Hitler? No, probably not. However, to say it’s an asinine, bullshit argument is also not really right either, as there are definitely comparisons to be made there.

Those same comparisons can probably be made more accurately to any number of other countries in history.

I don’t know that I’d say more accurately, although I’d be curious to hear an example. But yes, they could be made many other places. However, since the OP was referring to someone comparing Bush and Hitler, I figured that would make the most sense to talk about.

The comparisons to Hitler and Nazi Germany are used because they are outrageous and are meant to terrify the gullible.

Agreed, to a point. To be nitpicky, I specifically stated that I was referring to prewar Germany (ca. 1933) which was really before the Nazi party took complete power. In general any comparison to Nazi Germany is totally outrageous. We obviously don’t have death camps lying about the US.

However, many of the conditions seen in prewar Germany can be seen in modern day America and I personally find it somewhat disturbing. Could be mere coincidence and I’ll be proven totally wrong as time passes. In fact, I hope and pray that’s the case. But either way, I personally find it at least a rather interesting subject for debate if nothing else.

Hardly a good start for reasonable dialogue.

Oh dear, I’m terribly sorry, should I PM you my opinions from now on before posting to make sure they’re up to snuff for reasonable dialogue?

[/quote]

Modern America is hardly like 1933 Germany. I don’t know where to begin.

Perhaps you could tell me how our economy compares to 1933 Germany’s, how our worldwide power compares to 1933 Germany, how our 200 plus year democracy compares to 1933 Germany’s political system and on and on.

I think it is better to compare some of Bush’s power grabs and infringements on civil rights to those of FDR or Lincoln but that is not popular with the loons that like to claim Bush = Hitler.

As to your opinion, well everyone has one…

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:

Modern America is hardly like 1933 Germany. I don’t know where to begin.

Perhaps you could tell me how our economy compares to 1933 Germany’s, how our worldwide power compares to 1933 Germany, how our 200 plus year democracy compares to 1933 Germany’s political system and on and on.

I think it is better to compare some of Bush’s power grabs and infringements on civil rights to those of FDR or Lincoln but that is not popular with the loons that like to claim Bush = Hitler.
[/quote]

I have to admit I don’t know enough specifics about the economic conditions of prewar Germany to effectively comment on that. As far as our worldwide power goes, I don’t see how it’s really relevant. Comparison of our democracy to the Weimar republic is really not that hard to do though. Both constitutionally founded governments including a President and cabinet, Parliament (or Senate) and House of Representatives (Reichsrat). The two aren’t by any means identical, but there are quite a few similarities. If anything the President under the Weimar Constitution had more power than ours does, yet still failed to stop Hitler from taking complete control of the government (not that he made much attempt as he was senile at the time).

But more importantly, I’m not going to debate the differences between the two. I’m not saying everything’s the same. Hell, I’m not even saying we’re that close. Just that there are similarities. You can point out thousands of differences and that doesn’t change the fact that our current administration has made several steps towards having dictatorial powers for our President. I’m honestly not even questioning whether or not that is or was their intent, solely pointing out what I see.

Anyway, I’d like to hear more about these similarities between Bush and FDR or Lincoln. I know they may be unpopular ideas with us ‘loons’ but I’d be interested to hear them.

[quote]

As to your opinion, well everyone has one…[/quote]

um, sorry? Should I not have one? Or are they only valid if they fall in line with yours?

[quote]m0dd3r wrote:
While I tend to agree with you that comparing our current president to one of the most evil men in history is taking things a bit far, there are some similarities. Not just in Bush and Hitler, but in modern America and prewar Germany (ca. 1933ish). Now, I’m sure some people are going to fly off the handle and call me a freedom hating anti-american terrorist or some such. That’s fine, go right ahead, but at least think about things for a second before coming back with the typical knee jerk, nationalist responses that seem to plague every political forum on the intertubes.

There is no arguing the fact that the current administration has gained some power for the executive branch of our government. Whether those “power grabs” were done withing the letter of the law or not is up for debate but doesn’t really matter for this discussion.

The Patriot act and, more recently, the Military Commissions Act of 2006, effectively give the executive branch the ability to suspend, or perhaps loosely interpret, certain civil liberties of American citizens. True, the supposed intent of these laws is not to oppress the general public but to aid in the aprehension, detainment, prosecution, and punishment of terrorist and their supporters. However, if you’ll look back to 1933 Germany there was a law passed called the Reichstag Fire Decree in response to the Reichstag Fire. It suspended certain civil liberties, including the writ of Habeas Corpus, for the German people. The cause of the fire is still hazy, but the Nazi party claimed it was intended to signal the start of a bloody uprising and revolt involving pillaging and terrorism. The law was passed to help the Government fight terrorism and revolutionaries. However, the suspension of Habeas Corpus allowed Hitler and other Nazi party leaders to imprison anyone who didn’t agree with them and take stronger control of the Reichstag (German parliament).

I don’t think this was the intention of Congress or the President in the passing of the above mentioned laws, however, they leave a lot of leeway for interpretation. For example, the Military Commissions Act allows for the apprehension and detainment of Unlawful Enemy Combatants without any of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. It effectively suspends the writ of Habeas Corpus for Unlawful Enemy Combatants. Fine, they’re terrorists, who cares if they rot away at Gitmo for 4 years right? Not so fast, the law also defines the term “Unlawful Enemy Combatant” as anyone (including US citizens) who the President, Secretary of Defense, or anyone authorized by them determines is either engaged in hostilities towards the US, a member of an organization involved in hostilities towards the US, or a supporter of any organization or individual engaged in hostilities towards the US. That’s pretty vague, but considering the National Strategy for Winning the War on Terrorism (http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nsct/2006/sectionV.html) effectively labels conspiracy theorists as terrorist recruiters, who knows how the “supporter of any organization…” clause could be interpreted.

Even more disturbing is this passage found later in the law:

No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any claim or cause of action whatsoever, including any action pending on or filed after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, relating to the prosecution, trial, or judgment of a military commission under this chapter, including challenges to the lawfulness of procedures of military commissions under this chapter.

This effectively quashes any possibility for appeal or review of the MCA by any court. Since most of the law gives powers directly to the President and Secretary of Defense, we end up with the following situation:

  1. President determines who the law applies to based on a definition so vague it could theoretically refer to anyone.
  2. President can decide to hold anyone he’s determined to fall under the law indefinitely without even giving them a reason for the detainment (i.e. suspending the writ of Habeas Corpus)
  3. The President can determine when they’re tried, who tries them, and the charges against them. They aren’t guaranteed legal council, heresay evidence is allowed, and they may or may not be notified of the charges against them or who their accuser is.
  4. No one, except possibly the President, has any authority to challenge or overturn any aspect of the law or the trials.

If that’s not borderline dictatorial powers then I don’t know what is.

Lastly, I’d like to say that I don’t think our President has his mind set on world domination or genocide. I feel that he truly believes he’s doing what’s best for America and the American people. However, Hitler probably thought the same thing about what he was doing for Germany.

So, is it fair and in good taste to compare Bush to Hitler? No, probably not. However, to say it’s an asinine, bullshit argument is also not really right either, as there are definitely comparisons to be made there.[/quote]

You’ve got to give me a bit of a break. Aside from the fact that you are incorrect in your particular claims, this comparison rings incredibly hollow, particularly when you can find one or two generalities to compare about just about anything to anything else.

For instance, did you know that professional football players and 8-year-old ballerinas do some similar flexibility drills? There are comparisons to be made…

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

You’ve got to give me a bit of a break. Aside from the fact that you are incorrect in your particular claims, this comparison rings incredibly hollow, particularly when you can find one or two generalities to compare about just about anything to anything else.

For instance, did you know that professional football players and 8-year-old ballerinas do some similar flexibility drills? There are comparisons to be made…

[/quote]

What exactly am I supposed to be giving you a break on? And, more importantly, please enlighten me as to which of my claims are incorrect.

As far as comparing generalities goes, you’re right, you can usually compare pretty much any two things if you’re broad enough. And if you read one of my more recent posts I believe I said something to the effect of “Perhaps I’m wrong and it’s just a coincidence. In fact I hope that’s all it is.” And yes, I was aware of the similarities between the flexibility drills of ballerinas and football players. Perhaps it’s because they need to perform some similar movements in their activities.

Can we take this one step further and discuss the similarities between the football “blitz” and the german military “blitzkrieg”? (ok, sorry, now I’m just being an ass for humor’s sake, disregard that blitz thing.)

Overall please, if you disagree with me that’s fine, welcomed actually, but at least say something to the contrary or show some evidence in your defense. Posting “you’re wrong” in so many words really doesn’t lend itself well to interesting discussion. Or have I also missed the point of internet forums?

[quote]m0dd3r wrote:

Can we take this one step further and discuss the similarities between the football “blitz” and the german military “blitzkrieg”? (ok, sorry, now I’m just being an ass for humor’s sake, disregard that blitz thing.)

…[/quote]

This is an excellent analogy. Now I will call the Philadelphia Eagles jackbooted thugs and compare their defensive coach to Hitler.

[quote]m0dd3r wrote:

What exactly am I supposed to be giving you a break on? And, more importantly, please enlighten me as to which of my claims are incorrect.

Overall please, if you disagree with me that’s fine, welcomed actually, but at least say something to the contrary or show some evidence in your defense. Posting “you’re wrong” in so many words really doesn’t lend itself well to interesting discussion. Or have I also missed the point of internet forums?[/quote]

See my comments on this thread:

http://www.T-Nation.com/readTopic.do?id=1272736&pageNo=1

As an official lefty and Bush sceptic I say: Historical comparisons are nonsense. Always. Some idiot always comes up with a Hitler comparison, and s/he is always wrong.

As much as I dread your current president and many of his despicable policies, comparing him with anyone else than himself and his actions is futile, useless and leads nowhere.

The same of course goes for comparing Hitler with Saddam - although even I must say that one might be just a bit closer (let’s think ridiculous moustaches) - but it’s still an idiotic comparison.

Bush has IMO done enough himself to be frowned upon, and he really doesn’t have to be compared to Hitler to be criticised.

Makkun

How creepy is that?
http://rexcurry.net/pledge2.html

Actually it is correct that you can’t compare Bush to Hitler – for one thing Hitler was much smarter and he actually served in combat. One similarity - Hitler wrote books and Bush read one.

Hitler and the Nazi party’s evil persona has been so consistently ingrained and inflated to astronomical proportions over the years, that people falsely believe there can be no comparison. All the parallels are there – the idea is to recognize them and not let it progress.

Excerpt from Robert Jackson’s Opening Address for the United States at the Nuremberg Trials:

[i]"We shall now consider the steps, which embraced the most hideous of crimes against humanity, to which the conspirators resorted in perfecting control of the German State and in preparing Germany for the aggressive war indispensable to their ends…

We find at this period two governments in Germany – the real and the ostensible. The forms of the German Republic were maintained for a time, and it was the outward and visible government. But the real authority in the State was outside of and above the law and rested in the Leadership Corps of the Nazi Party.

On February 27, 1933, less than a month after Hitler became Chancellor, the Reichstag building was set on fire. The burning of this symbol of free parliamentary government was so providential for the Nazis that it was believed they staged the fire themselves.

Certainly when we contemplate their known crimes, we cannot believe they would shrink from mere arson. It is not necessary, however, to resolve the controversy as to who set the fire. The significant point is in the use that was made of the fire and of the state of public mind it produced. The Nazis immediately accused the Communist Party of instigating and committing the crime, and turned every effort to portray this single act of arson as the beginning of a Communist revolution. Then, taking advantage of the hysteria, the Nazi met this phantom revolution with a real one. In the following December, the German Supreme Court with commendable courage and independence acquitted the accused Communists, but it was too late to influence the tragic course of events which the Nazi conspirators had set rushing forward.

Hitler, on the morning after the fire, obtained from the aged and ailing President von Hindenburg a Presidential decree suspending the extensive guarantees of individual liberty contained in the Constitution of the Weimar Republic. The decree provided that:

"Sections 114, 115, 117, 118, 123, 124 and 153 of the Constitution of the German Reich are suspended until further notice. Thus, restrictions on personal liberty, on the right of free expression of opinion, including freedom of the press, on the right of assembly and the right of association, and violations of the privacy of postal, telegraphic, and telephonic communications, and warrants for house-searches, orders for confiscations as well as restrictions on property, are also permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed. (1390-PS).

But the National Socialist coup was made possible because the terms of the Hitler-Hindenburg decree departed from all previous ones in which the power of suspension had been invoked. Whenever Ebert had suspended constitutional guarantees of individual rights, his decree had expressly revived the Protective Custody Act adopted by the Reichstag in 1916 during the previous war. This Act guaranteed a judicial hearing within 24 hours of arrest, gave a right to have counsel and to inspect all relevant records, provided for appeal, and authorized compensation from Treasury funds for erroneous arrests.

The Hitler-Hindenburg decree of February 28, 1933 contained no such safeguards. The omission may not have been noted by von Hindenburg. Certainly he did not appreciate its effect. It left the Nazi police and party formations, already existing and functioning under Hitler, completely unrestrained and irresponsible. Secret arrest and indefinite detention, without charges, without evidence, without hearing, without counsel, became the method of inflicting inhuman punishment on any whom the Nazi police suspected or disliked. court could issue an injunction, or writ of habeas corpus, or certiorar. The German people were in the hands of the police, the police were in the hands of the Nazi Party, and the Party was in the hands of a ring of evil men, of whom the defendants here before you are surviving and representative leaders."[/i]
http://fcit.coedu.usf.edu/holocaust/resource/document/DocJac03.htm

An EXACT parallel to 9/11, the Patriot Act and the recent “Military Commissions Act of 2006” – just replace “Communists” with Islamo Fascists"

Hitler’s Enabling Act
March 23, 1933
The ‘distress’ had been secretly caused by the Nazis themselves in order to create a crisis atmosphere that would make the law seem necessary to restore order. On February 27, 1933, they had burned the Reichstag building, seat of the German government, causing panic and outrage. The Nazis successfully blamed the fire on the Communists and claimed it marked the beginning of a widespread uprising…

Just before the vote, Hitler made a speech to the Reichstag in which he pledged to use restraint.

“The government will make use of these powers only insofar as they are essential for carrying out vitally necessary measures… The number of cases in which an internal necessity exists for having recourse to such a law is in itself a limited one.” - Hitler told the Reichstag…

From this day on, the Reichstag would be just a sounding board, a cheering section for Hitler’s pronouncements.
http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/timeline/enabling.htm

“Not as tyrants have we come, but as liberators.”

  • Adolph Hitler


Some things, people just don’t like to think about…

[quote]makkun wrote:
As an official lefty and Bush sceptic I say: Historical comparisons are nonsense. Always. Some idiot always comes up with a Hitler comparison, and s/he is always wrong.

As much as I dread your current president and many of his despicable policies, comparing him with anyone else than himself and his actions is futile, useless and leads nowhere.

The same of course goes for comparing Hitler with Saddam - although even I must say that one might be just a bit closer (let’s think ridiculous moustaches) - but it’s still an idiotic comparison.

Bush has IMO done enough himself to be frowned upon, and he really doesn’t have to be compared to Hitler to be criticised.

Makkun[/quote]

That may be true, Bush really does sit in his own dunce-hat corner.

Do not however believe that though isolated in effort, arent completely unrelated. We can see alot of similarities between cause and effect as history is perfect evidence of what we remember and what we see now.

I dont think there are too many people who compare Hitler to Bush anyway. Lets just not confuse ourselves and assume our future will pan out like WWII’s because of the similarities.

The Authoritarian Streak in the Conservative Movement
By John Dean (former counsel to Nixon)
July 2006
Frankly, when I started writing this book I had a difficult time accounting for what had become of conservatism or, for that matter, the Republican Party.

I went down a number of dead-end streets looking for answers, before finally discovering a true explanation. My finding, simply stated, is the growing presence of conservative authoritarianism.

Conservatism has noticeably evolved from its so-called modern phase (1950-94) into what might be called a postmodern period (1994 to the present), and in doing so it has regressed to its earliest authoritarian roots. Authoritarianism is not well understood and seldom discussed in the context of American government and politics, yet it now constitutes the prevailing thinking and behavior among conservatives.

Regrettably, empirical studies reveal, however, that authoritarians are frequently enemies of freedom, antidemocratic, antiequality, highly prejudiced, mean-spirited, power hungry, Machiavellian, and amoral. They are also often conservatives without conscience who are capable of plunging this nation into disasters the likes of which we have never known…
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/072206X.shtml

Authoritarianism
Democracies rarely exhibit much authoritarian behavior except in transition to or from authoritarian states. Many (if not most) citizens of authoritarian states do not perceive their state as authoritarian until late in its development. This makes it difficult to label modern states as ‘democratic’ or ‘authoritarian’. People make this difficulty worse when they use these terms without clear definitions…

Former top judge says US risks edging near to dictatorship
The Guardian
March 13, 2006
Sandra Day O’Connor, a Republican-appointed judge who retired last month after 24 years on the supreme court, has said the US is in danger of edging towards dictatorship if the party’s rightwingers continue to attack the judiciary…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0%2C%2C1729396%2C00.html?gusrc=rss

Gen. Franks Doubts Constitution Will Survive WMD Attack


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.