Plan C: The Cold War Plan Which Would Have Brought the US Under Martial Law 313
v3rgEz writes with this story of a top secret Cold War plan which would have brought the U.S. under martial law. Starting on April 19, 1956, the federal government practiced and planned for a near-doomsday scenario known as Plan C. When activated, Plan C would have brought the United States under martial law, rounded up over ten thousand individuals connected to 'subversive' organizations, implemented a censorship board, and prepared the country for life after nuclear attack. There was no Plan A or B....Details of this program were distributed to each FBI field office. Over the following months and years, Plan C would be adjusted as drills and meetings found holes in the defensive strategy: Communications were more closely held, authority was apparently more dispersed, and certain segments of the government, such as the U.S. Attorneys, had trouble actually delineating who was responsible for what. Bureau employees were encouraged to prepare their families for the worst, but had to keep secret the more in-depth plans for what the government would do if war did break out. Families were given a phone number and city for where the relocated agency locations would be, but not the exact location.
Urban legend? (Score:5, Insightful)
This reads like an urban legend... Every field office got a copy, (seemingly) lots of employees were notified, but it's only public 30 years later? Hmm...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
But things still get out.
What's changed are the targets. In the '50s it was the leftists. Now the government targets right-wing groups.
For example, a recent training exercise [examiner.com] involved "handling" a right wing group called "Free Americans against Socialist Tyranny".
They don't actually exist, but the government is so paranoid of right wingers that they make up groups to train against.
Re:Urban legend? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
and the raft of armed right-wing gun-toters ready to confront law enforcement while using women and children as human shields
Citation needed.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Urban legend? (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, considering the armed insurrection at Ferguson, and the raft of armed "activists" ready to confront law enforcement while using peaceful protesters as human shields while burning the property of completely innocent people to the ground, it would be extremely bizarre if they weren't running training exercises. One could say that they would be negligent if they weren't...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Really? What about the Weavers where this asshole [wikipedia.org] killed an innocent woman by blowing fragments of her skull all over her infant.
Of course, instead of starting a fucking firefight, they could have caught Randy Weaver when he drove into town for errands, but that's not sexy, now is it?
Sorry son, try again. The government is the one that's out of control.
Re: (Score:3)
The govt can actually keep secrets sometimes. Crazy, right?
The probability of a secret being kept is proportional to the reciprocal of the square of the number of people that know the secret.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Urban legend? (Score:5, Insightful)
This reads like an urban legend... Every field office got a copy, (seemingly) lots of employees were notified, but it's only public 30 years later? Hmm...
It probably was just one of a multitude of government-produced silly guides about what to do in X unlikely (or hopeless) scenario. Anyone with even common sense would have known that any "plan" involving the aftermath of a true major-scale nuclear war between the U.S. and U.S.S.R. would be as worthless as the paper it's printed on (maybe good for starting a fire for a few unlucky survivors). No one probably took it seriously enough to bother leaking it.
In the event of a major nuclear war:
Call this number (all the phone lines are down),
Stay tuned to this emergency TV station (no electricity),
Go to this city (you mean the highly radioactive rubble of that city?),
Stay in this bunker (and do what?),
Arrest this person (everyone at this address is dead)
Respect this authority (I can't even find safe food)
etc.
Re: (Score:3)
No joke, the US Army has plans for "if we have to invade Canada."
Re:Urban legend? (Score:5, Funny)
Where's the problem? Just ask nicely, they're Canadians!
Re:Urban legend? (Score:5, Funny)
2) Wait till end of weekend
3) Declare victory!
Re: (Score:3)
We have had to invade friends before ... (Score:3)
No joke, the US Army has plans for "if we have to invade Canada."
We have had to invade friends before, for example France in 1944.
USA invading Canada? (Score:2, Interesting)
They better be better plans than the last two times the USA tried it and got its butt kicked (1175, 1812). :-) Or is it six times the USA has invaded?
http://mentalfloss.com/article... [mentalfloss.com]
Of course, if the USA really has to invade Canada, like say, if lots more oil is discovered there and the USA political system need to redirect who gets the profits from it, or if Canada experiments with a "basic income" again and the USA fears "contagion", then everyone will be screaming if there are no plans. :-) See also Cho
Re:USA invading Canada? (Score:5, Funny)
That's okay, we have plans for stopping you from invading. Just leave lots of cases of real beer across the border. You guys won't be able to handle it and we can counterattack.
Re: (Score:2)
The various staffs of the armed services constantly run "what-if" scenarios like this. They are not evidence of any sort of intent, they're just thought exercises on how to carry out an attack on or defense against any particular opposing force. This is just war-gaming at a professional level which can be used to sharpen planning skills when they want to break out of planning yet another Middle East scenario.
Re: (Score:2)
No doubt filed between the plans for invading Cameroon and Cape Verde. Updated once every 5 years. It's one of the important ones. The two I mentioned are on a 20 year schedule.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Or mabey it did get out, but you most likely dismissed it as a conspiracy theory. Which is how most secrets are kept is getting people to dismiss them as conspiracy theories, and throw in aliens and reptilian overlords so you simply don't believe anything the mainstream news doesn't push, repeatedly.
Re: (Score:3)
Can't comment on exactly _this_ plan for doomsday, but my Dad was a highly-placed official in the Post Office Department/Postal Service during the 60s-80s, and there was a CoG (Continuity of Government) plan, at least for leadership.
Don't ask me who they thought was going to deliver the mail.
Dad was supposed to abandon the family and head for a specific place in the mountains 90 or so miles west of the city. (There was plenty DC traffic in the '60s, but it wasn't anything like it is today - and the exurbs w
Re:Urban legend? (Score:4, Funny)
Delivering the mail (Score:2)
... there was a CoG (Continuity of Government) plan, at least for leadership. Don't ask me who they thought was going to deliver the mail ...
"The Postman"
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt01... [imdb.com]
Re: (Score:2)
It was a classified document, even if it was widely circulated, so why wouldn't you expect it to not become publicly known for years if not decades? My Google-fu is weak ATM, but there have been authoritative accounts of President Eisenhower pre-designating significant power to various individuals in the event of a nuclear war and break down of communicat
Then there was War Plan Red (Score:5, Informative)
War Plan Red was developed by the United States Army following the 1927 Geneva Naval Conference and approved in May 1930 by the Secretary of War and the Secretary of Navy and updated in 1934–35. In 1939 on the outbreak of World War II and Britain's war against Nazi Germany, a decision was taken that no further planning was required but that the plan be retained.[3] War Plan Red was not declassified until 1974.
The war plan outlined those actions that would be necessary to initiate war between Britain and the United States. The plan suggested that the British would initially have the upper hand by virtue of the strength of the Royal Navy. The plan further assumed that Britain would probably use its Dominion in Canada as a springboard from which to initiate a retaliatory invasion of the United States. The assumption was taken that at first Britain would fight a defensive battle against invading American forces, but that the US would eventually defeat the British by blockading the United Kingdom and economically isolating it.
Re:Then there was War Plan Red (Score:5, Interesting)
Some examples:
Green - Mexico
Orange - Japan
Black - Germany
Gold - France
Yellow - China
Probably the most interesting (and dangerous) alternate history was War Plan Red-Orange, which postulated a war against Britain and Japan, who were allied at the time.
The most appropriate for this subject, though, would be War Plan White, which dealt with domestic uprising and civil disturbances.
Re: (Score:3)
Hitler tried very hard to ally with the US (against GB and France) prior to the onset of WW2. Later on he tried to play everyone against each other to gain some time.
This sort of thing happens all of the time.
I wonder if they're still updated (Score:2)
I wonder if any of these plans are still being updated, even if it's only by some guy in a basement office someplace.
Obviously China is still of interest, but most of them are extremely unlikely, although you wonder if there are times where it gets thought about. France after the attempt on De Gaulle or the possibility of a left-wing revolution in 1968, maybe even about Marine LePen. Mexico might warrant some kind of what-ifs around a failed state status. Germany and Japan are occupied by US forces now,
Re:Then there was War Plan Red (Score:5, Funny)
War Plan Red - The US plan to invade Canada [wikipedia.org].
Canadians are generally very nice, polite and reasonable, so I imagine we could simply ask them ... w/o the mess of actually invading.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you've only captured half of the Canadian mindset here.
If asked politely, Canadians would agree and maybe even fly the stars and stripes... ...and then go back to life as normal and ignore anything the Americans attempted to do.
Invading wouldn't be all that messy; the invaders would be welcomed with open arms, and then firmly sent back home with care packages and requests to say hello to common friends and family members. A guide might also be provided, if the invaders had any navigational issues.
Re: (Score:2)
Depending on how the politeness lasted, they may end up back in the US, or wandering around the arctic circle.
Follow the oowwwnnnnllly road, follow the oowwwnnnnllly road...
Re:Then there was War Plan Red (Score:5, Interesting)
Although a war with Britain/Canada seems implausible in hindsight, it was not always considered so unlikely. A decade prior to WW1, many British strategists considered rising American naval power to be the biggest threat to their empire. And they assumed that in a 20th century conflict with America, they could always rely on their historically ally, Germany.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Then there was War Plan Red (Score:4, Informative)
And if memory serves, as recently as the 1860's, the Brits were supplying arms to the Confederacy, so in the late 19th century, it wasn't all smiles and sunshine the way it has been since WW2.
There's also the 'Trent Affair'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T... [wikipedia.org] . The US stopped a British ship mid-Atlantic to take off a couple of confederate politicians. That got pretty heated, until Lincoln handled the incident (read the article...).
Re: (Score:2)
This is a prime example of why I went to school for history. It's filled with good laughs like this.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Europe was tired out and broke after WWII. The US probably did some nudging, but the reality was that there was a new world after WWII and true empires of the 19th Century sort were no longer supportable, if they ever really were. Europe was a literal wreck, and the UK was broke.
In the end, they exhausted themselves and ended their own empires through their bad decisions.
Re: (Score:2)
It was a General Staff plan. It was just a fleshed out thought exercise. It could have been turned into action, if need be, but does not imply any sort of intent.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, the scouting was the "fleshed out" part. You don't create an actual war plan without doing your homework, and scouting your next door neighbor is probably easier than scouting anyone else would be.
Creating plans to invade or defend against other countries, even (currently) friendly ones, is the job of a military staff. It provides options for leaders, and good plans can't wait until two weeks before you realize that you need to go to war. If you've waited that long, you're screwed. Modern militari
Re: (Score:2)
The United States declared war on June 18, 1812 for several reasons, including trade restrictions brought about by the British war with France, the impressment of American merchant sailors into the Royal Navy, British support of Indian tribes against American expansion, outrage over insults to national honor after humiliations on the high seas, and possible American interest in annexing British territory in modern-day Canada.
With the majority of its land and naval forces tied down in Europe fighting the Napoleonic Wars, the British used a defensive strategy in the Provinces of Upper and Lower Canada, repelling initial American invasions.
Declaring war and invading is NOT the same as planning to invade and annex an ally.
Re: (Score:2)
an ally
Using the word "ally" here insinuates that the British-US relationship was as close as it is today. In fact, the WWI relationship was not nearly as cozy. The US provided the UK with massive amounts of war material, but at great cost. It's not absurd to say that a century or so of accrued wealth flowed from London to NYC. As a result of the UK's near-suffocation at the hands of German U-boats, they developed a healthy new respect for having a top-notch navy. Their problem was that the now very wealthy US als
Re: (Score:3)
A few clarifications and nits:
The Japanese had been pushing for a 15:15:10 ratio (British and US each having 50% more tonnage in their limits than Japan), but got a 15:15:9, which was unpopular at home. It doesn't look like much, but Japanese naval thinking was that one more battleship would tip the theoretical odds from slightly favorable to the US in a war to slightly unfavorable.
The British, at the time, didn't realize the consequences of US battleship armor. They made a distinction between "pre-J
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Did anyone expect otherwise? (Score:2)
You don't survive widespread nuclear war without some pretty drastic measures. If the options were between martial law and severe curtailing of rights, or the complete collapse of society, I know which one I would pick.
Re:Did anyone expect otherwise? (Score:5, Insightful)
We survived for centuries with the number of people and level of industrialization that would remain after a widespread, devastating war, without resorting to these measures. In fact, we have measured the society that this plan seeks to "protect" by the rights and freedoms that the average citizen has gained.
I don't know what "society" means to you, but to me it's the structure by which we all agree that other people exist and have rights; martial law means that society has already fallen.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know what "society" means to you, but to me it's the structure by which we all agree that other people exist and have rights; martial law means that society has already fallen.
Under martial law we'd bitch about how oppressive the government is and how much we hate martial law. Under the collapse of society scenario we wouldn't bitch about anything because we'd be dead of disease, starvation or random violence.
Anarchy != Happy Fun Peaceful Cooperation Land
Martial law (Score:3)
I think this is why it managed to say 'secret' for so long. When you were briefed into the program you realized that:
1. The plan was incredibly unlikely to ever go 'live'
2. If the plan DID have to go 'live' things were so FUBAR that it was the best remaining option.
We need continuity in government. So long as the military command(majority of surviving government due to being designed to survive attack) gives command back over to civilians in a reasonable timeframe*, we're good.
*2-4 years? Enough for a
Re: (Score:2)
While I do identify my political leanings as conservative, I believe that it is an individual argument, not the political leanings of the speaker, which should be addressed in debate.
As I said, I believe that life was better in the society of the past few hundred years than it would be under a martial law imposed with the power of a modern state. I do also believe that life is better under today's society is better than it was under Napoleon. It is this improvement that I referred to as the measure of our m
Re: (Score:2)
The Demon Conservatives of Slashdot are paradoxically both in favor of a powerful, racist, homophobic state clamping down on any free thought, and an anarchic, eternal war where gold is the only value.
Re: (Score:3)
You don't survive widespread nuclear war without some pretty drastic measures.
Exactly. My gut response was, "GOOD!" Do you have any idea how many companies do NOT have a disaster recovery plan? No one ever wants to use it, but you'll be MUCH better off with it than without.
It could have been a lot worse; Their plan C could have been:
* Let's put enough food/water for 10 years in a secure bomb shelter and plan to store the top 0.005% of the population. After they run out of food, who cares.. let's just make sure we can remain fat for a little longer than everyone else.
* Launch everythi
Re:Did anyone expect otherwise? (Score:4, Funny)
Mr. President! We must not allow a mine-shaft gap!
Re: (Score:2)
You don't survive widespread nuclear war without some pretty drastic measures.
Follow Bert the Turtle's example and you will be just fine.
If the options were between martial law and severe curtailing of rights, or the complete collapse of society, I know which one I would pick.
Did this nonsense also come from the federal civil defense administration?
Re: (Score:2)
That's something entirely different. Nuclear war has been planned again and again. Katrina and 9/11 were unplanned and had to be improvised. 9/11 was simply a total surprise and Katrina, well, while it was likely to happen and everyone knew it would, there was simply no money in preparing for it.
C? (Score:4, Funny)
plan "c" what about "Plan R" !!!!
Thankfully they didn't number the plans (Score:4, Funny)
I would have been more worried if they had ditched the first 8 plans.
Anyway .. there is probably a modern day equivalent kicking around somewhere now.
I have seen Plan B (Score:4, Informative)
There are no such things as human "rights". (Score:5, Insightful)
Freedom, and everything else, is a privilege given to you by your betters; when the chips are down, that's all out the window. Never forget that.
It's for your own good, you know.
Wish more people read history.
Re: (Score:3)
If they (which includes the author of TFA) had read history, they would already know that Lincoln did all that and more during the Civil War. That we might do so again goes without saying.
Re: (Score:2)
No amount of history education is going to stop the herd mentality from handing your privacy over to some domestic intelligence type claiming it's Required to combat terrorism or pedophelia or both. Don't want to hand over your rights? THINK OF THE CHILDREN!
(watching this happen in the UK is predictably hilarious)
Re: (Score:2)
"Betters" are the ones with the guns.
Re: (Score:2)
Now the state the US is in makes a lot more sense.
So it was the 1950's PATRIOT ACT (Score:5, Interesting)
Because short of the martial law of troops in the streets with body armor and M16's..... Oh wait... Our COPS have those now.
Well they dont have assult vehicles...... Wait....
Nor do they have grenade launchers...... Welll.....
So basically they have been planning on the shit we have today for decades?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, see, infantry are actually trained on how to use military weapons and equipment. Cops just get handed a grenade launcher and told to go tear-gas some protesters. So we'd actually be better off with martial law.
* I'm exaggerating, but only slightly.
12949 (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Wow (Score:5, Interesting)
And yet somehow we survived with these 10,000 people with connections to subversive organizations roaming freely in our midst. Amazing.
Dear ALL GOVERNMENT AGENCIES: *THIS* is why we don't want you to have infinite surveillance. Because those 10,000 people you had files on did EXACTLY NOTHING. You want to wiretap someone, go get some ACTUAL FUCKING EVIDENCE. Not just "he read this book and knows this guy and likes to encrypt his files."
Re: (Score:2)
The interesting thing with these facilities is that they all have fences and barb wire facing inwards - not to keep people out, but to keep people in.
"You have attributed conditions to villainy that simply result from stupidity"
Heinlein [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Thus the importance of the second amendment.
I see your AR-15 and raise you an M-1 Tank
Re: (Score:3)
Which one can run the longest without fuel?
Re: (Score:3)
> I see your AR-15 and raise you an M-1 Tank
Marine infantrymen are trained how to disable tanks. They are aren't armed with much beyond the AR-15.
Re: (Score:2)
> I see your AR-15 and raise you an M-1 Tank
Marine infantrymen are trained how to disable tanks. They are aren't armed with much beyond the AR-15.
Aaaaannnd what side of the battle you think they will be on? You know, after having sworn oaths etc, and a command structure that can say "bang! you're dead" for not obeying orders?
Or do you consider that every ex-miltary person has a raging libertarian anti-government hard-on? And want to kill their former squad mates?
Re: There are still contingency plans (Score:4, Insightful)
It depends on the specific service member in question.
http://oathkeepers.org/ [oathkeepers.org]
During the time of the US Civil war, Americans shot their literal brothers - not just their squad mates.
It starts with one soldier. How many follow, and when they follow, depends on the rhetoric of the separatists, how they conduct themselves, how they spread their message, and the counteracting rhetoric and actions of the government.
All of us are alive because people on both sides of the Atlantic with their finger on the "launch" button skipped opportunities to press it. Soldiers are people in difficult situations, trying to balance many opposing directives.
Re: (Score:2)
You want to use regular military against your own population?
History is not on your side when it comes to the question of their loyalty.
Re: (Score:2)
Swore oaths to the Constitution (Score:2)
Aaaaannnd what side of the battle you think they will be on? You know, after having sworn oaths etc, and a command structure that can say "bang! you're dead" for not obeying orders?
They swore oaths to the Constitution and not blind loyalty to a President, nor a commander nor a command structure. They only swore to obey lawful orders from that command structure, i.e. orders within the bounds of the Constitution. Contrary to the belief of many civilians, soldiers and Marines are not mindless robots that will follow all orders.
Or do you consider that every ex-miltary person has a raging libertarian anti-government hard-on? And want to kill their former squad mates?
You mean like in a civil war where half the country feels the other half has betrayed the constitution and the people? When things go that bad active duty military
Re: (Score:2)
In fact we are taught to disobey unlawful orders.
This is getting off-topic, but was the internment of the Japanese-Americans a lawful or unlawful order?
Re: (Score:2)
Also forgot to mention Kent State
(Damn I wish /. would allow you to add onto posts)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
That's going to be one damn big pit, you're going to have trouble camoflaging it properly. That method doesn't seem particularly practical, especially in an urban environment. (barring use of explosives, say set off in an underlying sewer tunnel or something like that)
Yes, you can jam a tank track but they've got one h
Re: (Score:2)
I see your M-1 Tank and raise you asymmetrical warfare.
The out-gunned side takes more casualties but always wins in the end...
Re: (Score:2)
I see your M-1 Tank and raise you asymmetrical warfare.
The out-gunned side takes more casualties but always wins in the end...
It all depends if the non-outgunned side cares about pacifying or wiping out the outgunned side. Why did the japs surrender when only a comparatively small number died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki? They were outgunned and could have taken on asymmetrical warfare and cause all kinds of hell for the allies.
Anyway, the M-1 was a facetious reference to the fact that the military has an assorted range of larger and more deadly toys than an AR-15
Re: (Score:2)
I see your M1 and raise you urban warfare. A personal firearm can go where tanks can't.
B-52 anyone?
Re: (Score:2)
Thus the importance of the second amendment.
Do you really think the Army will need help rounding up the subversives?
yeah, over 300 million guns (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
One hundred million unorganized, inebriated, confused, uncoordinated, ill disciplined bozos who haven't slept outside of a building since cub scouts.
Yeah, I'll take the military any day.
Re: (Score:2)
The truth of matter is that most people are screwed in a big enough scenario. Indeed, even the leaders or the rich would not be guaranteed to get out of it. The government will do its best to keep things going, but the reason there is a succession plan is that even the most highly ranked individuals face their demise.
Re:Montreal in October 1970 (Score:5, Informative)
The Martial law result of thousands of jailed people because they speak french.
Internment of American-Japanese in the 2nd world war - just because they looked funny.
Re: (Score:2)
That and there were a few spies among them.
Re:Montreal in October 1970 (Score:4, Insightful)
That and there were a few spies among them.
[Citation needed]. Though I suspect if there weren't spies among 'em when they were interned, there were when they were released.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem with these "emergency modes" is that they run infinitely. With censorship and martial law in place, how would you know that it's time to get back to a normal mode of operation if the powers that are don't want to return to it?
Re: (Score:2)
Initially, maybe. When the first barns get flattened by M1s, including whatever is inside, the resistance should falter pretty quickly.
Re: (Score:2)
Huh, I just read this article in a "history nerd" mindset.
Re: (Score:2)
Las Casas tells how "two of these so-called Christians met two Indian boys one day, each carrying a parrot; they took the parrots and for fun beheaded the boys." ..."
And the Iraqi Republican Guards pulled babies out of incubators in Kuwaiti hospitals and threw then on the floor to die, right?
Sometimes historical "facts" are made up to discredit the other side.
Re:Plan A: Abundance & conflict resolution for (Score:5, Informative)
True, and that bit about Iraqis was indeed war propaganda used to justify US violence. ... and that she was the daughter of Saud Al-Sabah, the Kuwaiti ambassador to the United States. Furthermore, it was revealed that her testimony was organized as part of the Citizens for a Free Kuwait public relations campaign which was run by Hill & Knowlton for the Kuwaiti government. Following this, al-Sabah's testimony has come to be regarded as a classic example of modern atrocity propaganda."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N... [wikipedia.org]
"The Nayirah testimony was a testimony given before the non-governmental Congressional Human Rights Caucus on October 10, 1990 by a woman who provided only her first name, Nayirah. The testimony was widely publicized, and was cited numerous times by United States senators and the American president in their rationale to back Kuwait in the Gulf War. In 1992, it was revealed that Nayirah's last name was al-Sabah
Except Las Casa was also Spanish, so presumably "on the same side"as Columbus (or at least his funders):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B... [wikipedia.org]
"Bartolome de las Casas, O.P. (c. 1484[1] -- 18 July 1566) was a 16th-century Spanish historian, social reformer and Dominican friar. He became the first resident Bishop of Chiapas, and the first officially appointed "Protector of the Indians". His extensive writings, the most famous being A Short Account of the Destruction of the Indies and Historia de Las Indias, chronicle the first decades of colonization of the West Indies and focus particularly on the atrocities committed by the colonizers against the indigenous peoples.[2] Arriving as one of the first European settlers in the Americas, he participated in, and was eventually compelled to oppose, the atrocities committed against the Native Americans by the Spanish colonists. In 1515, he reformed his views, gave up his Indian slaves and encomienda, and advocated, before King Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor, on behalf of rights for the natives."
So, it is perhaps more like Pat Tillman, who left a lucrative contract with the NFL to sign up to invade Iraq, and who conveniently died from "friendly fire" before a planned meeting with Noam Chomsky over his emerging doubts? ... Despite his fame, Tillman did not want to be used for propaganda purposes. He spoke to friends about his opposition to President Bush and the Iraq war, and he had made an appointment with notable government critic Noam Chomsky for after his return from the military. The destruction of evidence linked to Tillman's death, including his personal journal, led his mother to speculate that he was murdered.[31] General Wesley Clark agreed that it was "very possible". ..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P... [wikipedia.org]
"Patrick Daniel "Pat" Tillman (November 6, 1976-- April 22, 2004) was an American football player who left his professional career and enlisted in the United States Army in June 2002 in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks. His service in Iraq and Afghanistan, and subsequent death, were the subject of much media attention.[1]
More on that:
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2... [veteranstoday.com]
"An NFL football star who enlisted in the Army in May 2002, he apparently became disenchanted with the conduct of the war. He not only did not support President Bush for reelection, but encouraged others to vote for John Kerry. According to his mother, a friend of his had arranged for him to meet with Noam Chomsky, professor emeritus from MIT and one of our nationâ(TM)s most respected public intellectuals, who, no doubt, could have launched him into prominent orbit as an outspoken opponent of the war, had he been so inclined."
But read for yourself what Columbus himself wrote in his log.
Re: (Score:3)
You're welcome. Thanks for reading and modding.