www.globalresearch.ca Centre for Research on Globalisation Centre de recherche sur la mondialisation
"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."
General Tommy Franks calls for Repeal of US Constitution
Commentary on General Franks' Statement
The Criminalization of the State
by Michel Chossudovsky
23 November 2003
In the wake of the Iraq war, 18 Iraqis and 2 Jordanians introduced a class action law suit in a Brussels Court against General Franks, Commander of the US Armed Forces in Iraq.
Based on the law of “universal jurisdiction”, characteristic of Belgian law concerning genocide and war crimes, General Franks was identified:
"for ordering war crimes and for not preventing others from committing them or for providing protection to the perpetrators."
The law suit does not solely implicate General Franks, who was obeying orders from higher up: Under the war agenda, high ranking officials of the Bush administration, members of the military, the US Congress and the Judiciary have been granted the authority not only to commit criminal acts, but also to designate those opposed to these criminal acts as "enemies of the State."
In other words, the "Criminalization of the State", is when war criminals legitimately occupy positions of authority, which enable them to decide "who are the criminals", when in fact they are criminals.
Franks' statement no doubt reflects a consensus within the Military as to how events ought to unfold. It is clear in his mind that the "war on terrorism" provides a justification for repealing the Rule of Law, ultimately with a view to preserving civil liberties.
Franks' interview suggests that an Al Qaeda sponsored terrorist attack will be used as a "trigger mechanism" for a military coup d'état in America. Franks is alluding to a so-called "Pearl Harbor type event" which would be used as a justification for declaring a State of emergency, leading to the establishment of a military government.
In many regards, the militarisation of civilian State institutions is already functional under the facade of a bogus democracy.
General Franks has nonetheless identified with cynical accuracy the precise scenario whereby military rule will be established:
"a terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event [will occur] 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."
This statement from an individual who was actively involved in military and intelligence planning at the highest levels, suggests that the "militarisation of our country" is an ongoing operational assumption. It is part of the broader "Washington consensus". It identifies the Bush administration's "roadmap" of war and Homeland Defense. Needless to say, it is also an integral part of the neoliberal agenda.
The "terrorist massive casualty-producing event" is presented by General Franks as a crucial political turning point. The resulting crisis and social turmoil are intended to facilitate a major shift in US political, social and institutional structures.
In the words of David Rockefeller:
"We are on the verge of global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order."
A similar statement was made by Zbigniew Brzezinski in the Grand Chessboard:
"As America becomes an increasingly multicultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstances of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat."
The NeoCons' Project for the New American Century (PNAC), published in September 2000, barely two months before the presidential elections, called for:
"some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor." (See http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/NAC304A.html )
What is terrifying in General Franks' statement is that it accurately reflects official US foreign policy. It comes from a man who obeys orders emanating from the military command structure.
In other words, his statement accurately reveals the Pentagon's frame of mind. Moreover, it comes from a military man who speaks with a profound sense of conviction, who firmly believes in the righteousness of war as a means to safeguarding democratic values.
In other words, the military actors and politicians are totally blinded by the "war on terrorism" dogma. Truth is falsehood and falsehood is truth. Realities are turned upside down. Acts of war are heralded as "humanitarian interventions" geared towards upholding democracy. Military occupation and the killing of civilians are presented as "peace-keeping operations." The repeal of democracy is portrayed by General Franks as a means to providing "domestic security" and upholding civil liberties.
Needless to say: any attempt by antiwar critics to reveal these "inconsistencies" or "unanswered questions" would --under General Frank's scenario-- be defined as a "criminal act". In other words, those who are investigating "the war on terrorism" and the military, political and economic actors behind the New World Order, with a view to establishing the truth, are categorized as "enemies of the State", and consequently as criminals:
"The 'war on terrorism' is the cover for the war on dissent."
("Homeland Defense" and the Militarisation of America by Frank Morales, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/MOR309A.html , September 2003)
For further details on the war crimes law suit against General Frank, see:
Court case against General Franks in Brussels: No impunity for war crimes committed by U.S. troops in Iraq:
The Genocide and War Crimes Case against General Tommy Franks in Brussels:
The Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) at www.globalresearch.ca grants permission to post the above mentioned article in its entirety, or any portions thereof, so long as the URL and source are indicated, a copyright note is displayed. Michel Chossudovsky is the author of War and Globalization, the Truth behind September 11 , Global Outlook, Shanty Bay, Ont., 2003. For details click: http://globalresearch.ca/globaloutlook/truth911.html
Kindly help to circulate the following article to as many interested people as possible.
Gen. Franks Doubts Constitution Will Survive WMD Attack
by John O. Edwards
NewsMax.com 21 November 2003
www.globalresearch.ca 23 November 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.
The usually camera-shy Franks retired from U.S. Central Command, known in Pentagon lingo as CentCom, in August 2003, after serving nearly four decades in the Army.
Franks earned three Purple Hearts for combat wounds and three Bronze Stars for valor. Known as a “soldier’s general,” Franks made his mark as a top commander during the U.S.’s successful Operation Desert Storm, which liberated Kuwait in 1991. He was in charge of CentCom when Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda attacked the United States on Sept. 11.
Franks said that within hours of the attacks, he was given orders to prepare to root out the Taliban in Afghanistan and to capture bin Laden.
Franks offered his assessment on a number of topics to Cigar Aficionado, including:
President Bush: “As I look at President Bush, I think he will ultimately be judged as a man of extremely high character. A very thoughtful man, not having been appraised properly by those who would say he’s not very smart. I find the contrary. I think he’s very, very bright. And I suspect that he’ll be judged as a man who led this country through a crease in history effectively. Probably we’ll think of him in years to come as an American hero.”
On the motivation for the Iraq war: Contrary to claims that top Pentagon brass opposed the invasion of Iraq, Franks said he wholeheartedly agreed with the president’s decision to invade Iraq and oust Saddam Hussein.
“I, for one, begin with intent. ... There is no question that Saddam Hussein had intent to do harm to the Western alliance and to the United States of America. That intent is confirmed in a great many of his speeches, his commentary, the words that have come out of the Iraqi regime over the last dozen or so years. So we have intent.
“If we know for sure ... that a regime has intent to do harm to this country, and if we have something beyond a reasonable doubt that this particular regime may have the wherewithal with which to execute the intent, what are our actions and orders as leaders in this country?”
The Pentagon’s deck of cards: Asked how the Pentagon decided to put its most-wanted Iraqis on a set of playing cards, Franks explained its genesis. He recalled that when his staff identified the most notorious Iraqis the U.S. wanted to capture, “it just turned out that the number happened to be about the same as a deck of cards. And so somebody said, ‘Aha, this will be the ace of spades.’”
Capturing Saddam: Franks said he was not surprised that Saddam has not been captured or killed. But he says he will eventually be found, perhaps sooner than Osama bin laden.
“The capture or killing of Saddam Hussein will be a near term thing. And I won’t say that’ll be within 19 or 43 days. ... I believe it is inevitable.”
Franks ended his interview with a less-than-optimistic note.
“It’s not in the history of civilization for peace ever to reign. Never has in the history of man. ... I doubt that we’ll ever have a time when the world will actually be at peace.”
© Copyright NewsMax 2003 For fair use only/ pour usage équitable seulement.