Don't Let a Little Thing Like "The Law" Get in the Way
Reported by Nancy - August 9, 2005 -
Here's a little tidbit from yesterday's (8/8) FNL that should make everyone sit up & pay attention.
At 12:03pm (EDT) Greg Kelly reported on the US military planning a "domestic military response" in case of a terror attack in the US. Kelly said such duties could include "crowd control" & coping with the aftermath of a WMD attack. He also noted that the Pentagon is in a "delicate position" because they are "by law prevented from" doing this, but the Pentagon believes it "could be used on orders from" POTUS & it "may have to take charge of" certain crisis duties. As usual on FNL, Kelly's "report" was *very* brief (under 2 minutes). Kelly -- one of their better reporters, light-years beyond the likes of Jonathan Hunt -- delivered it in a matter-of-fact way.
Comment: Yes, I know, the Pentagon has contingency plans for a gazillion likely scenarios, & probably for a few hundred extremely improbable or even impossible scenarios too. But "domestic military response"? If they're leaking this via Fox, is it more than a contingency plan? Note the language: "may have to take charge". And the implication: that orders from POTUS trump the law. Finally, the delivery: move along, nothing to see here.
NOTE TO READERS: Please stay on topic (the Pentagon's "contingency" plan, FNL's coverage of it). O/T comments will be deleted. Thanks.