postpone the nov. elections

[Ray Zee]

i heard on the news our govt. has a plan to postpone the elections if we have a terrorist strike just before the nov. election. can we imagine the different senarios that can come from this crazy plan.
like for instance if the present administration is leading in the polls the election goes forward. if not- not. we might get another fun election for the history books.

[jokerswild]

That's the final straw in the Coup D'Etat.


It's clearly the administration's strategy, or they wouldn't have homeland secuirty talking about.

[nothumb]

[ QUOTE ]
we might get another fun election for the history books.

[/ QUOTE ]

Clearly you and I have a different idea of 'fun.'

I'm scared.

NT

[ArchAngel71857]

i'd be interested to see the Supreme Court's opinion in the inevitable lawsuit.

-AA

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

You know, as much as I despise the hate Bush crowd that uses "I'm scared" and "Coup d'etat" as substitutes for substantive political discourse, I think *any* plan to postpone the election for *any* reason shows America has lost its balls.

Let's grow up and stop whining about 9/11. How many people died? Less than 3,000? Out of a country of 285,000,000. If we can't take a bloody nose like warriors we're a sad shadow of the my parents' generation.

9/11 was their best shot? Why those piss-ant little weaklings. Why don't they take another one? Maybe we'd grow some balls and show the Arab world what *our* best shot looks like and sent 10 or 12 million of their citizens to the 7th level of hell in a nano-second.

If this administration postpones the election it won't be because they're trying to subvert our constitution, it'll be because they are weak.

[Ed Miller]

I think a major terrorist attack shortly before the election would all but assure Bush's reelection. This isn't Spain. I can't see why the GOP might wish to postpone...

[andyfox]

I'd be shocked to hear if the government has any such plan. Sounds like brad-like baloney. I have, it will come as no surprise, very little respect for this administration, but this sounds ridiculous.

[andyfox]

9-0 against postponement.

[jokerswild]

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1896&u=/nm/20040711/us_nm/politics_election_terror_dc_5&printer=1

[Utah]

What if they had an agreed upon bipartisan plan?

[MMMMMM]

At the bottom of your linked article:

"Republican Rep. Christopher Cox of California, who chairs the House Homeland Security Committee, told CNN that the idea of legislation allowing the election to be postponed was similar to what had already been looked at in terms of how to respond to an attack on Congress.


"These are doomsday scenarios. Nobody expects that they're going to happen," he said. "But we're preparing for all these contingencies now."


Sounds to me their considering postponing the elections in the event of a catastrophic attack: that would probably be something much bigger than 9/11 or something that takes out critical government offices or major infrastructure. Hopefully that won't happen, but in case it does, contingency plans might well be needed.

[Boris]

I agree. any post-ponement would only help the challenger.

[nothumb]

Kurn,

I wasn't joking about being scared. I'll have to do the research, but if this proves to be a real policy I think it would be the worst thing to happen in this country in my lifetime. Allowing democracy to be subverted for any reason would be a bigger victory for the terrorists than killing 3000 people.

[ QUOTE ]
Let's grow up and stop whining about 9/11.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed.

[ QUOTE ]
9/11 was their best shot? Why those piss-ant little weaklings. Why don't they take another one? Maybe we'd grow some balls and show the Arab world what *our* best shot looks like and sent 10 or 12 million of their citizens to the 7th level of hell in a nano-second.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not agreed. The geopolitical implications alone would be awful. Not to mention I think it would be morally reprehensible to annhilate millions of innocent civilians, regardless of religious belief. Tantamount to Holocaust, in fact.

[ QUOTE ]
If this administration postpones the election it won't be because they're trying to subvert our constitution, it'll be because they are weak.

[/ QUOTE ]

Those two are not mutually exclusive.

NT

[Mayhap]

What if all the bull crap that flies around during an election year were postponed?
No doubt, we'd have some brighter, clearer days.

/M

[paland]

[ QUOTE ]
...sent 10 or 12 million of their citizens to the 7th level of hell in a nano-second.

[/ QUOTE ]
Kurn, I hope you're kidding. Kill tens of millions because of a small group that have no affiliation to the innocents? Thats like killing all Christians because of Timmothy McViegh's actions.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
Kurn, I hope you're kidding. Kill tens of millions because of a small group that have no affiliation to the innocents? Thats like killing all Christians because of Timmothy McViegh's actions.

[/ QUOTE ]

If Al Queda detonated a Nuclear Bomb in the middle of New York City, I'd support a nuclear retalition against the people and governments who harbor the terrorist. Be it a volley of 5 megatons across the tribal regions of Pakistan, or a 50 megaton in downtown Damascus, people and governments who habor terrorist are not innocents. They are legitimate targets in war.

Stu

[Stu Pidasso]

I think we should have such a plan less some small minority be disenfranchised.

Stu

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Allowing democracy to be subverted for any reason would be a bigger victory for the terrorists than killing 3000 people.

Agreed


The geopolitical implications alone would be awful.

Screw geopolitical implications, but...

I think it would be morally reprehensible to annhilate millions of innocent civilians

You're right of course. We should hold ourselves to a higher standard than our enemies. It's just frustrating that our enemies see this higher standard as a weakness and try to use it against us.

Those two are not mutually exclusive.

True, but it's not like subverting the Constitution is unique to this administration or even the GOP.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Kurn, I hope you're kidding.

What you saw was an emotional response. But under some circumstances, I would support that kind of retaliation, though I admit I would have to really believe there was no other option for self-defense.

a small group that have no affiliation to the innocents?

2 points. 1) there is an affiliation, even if only one of inaction, but no different than the affiliation of the Germans who lived in Dresden, for example. 2) In war, there are no "innocents". That's why war should always be the last resort.

Thats like killing all Christians because of Timmothy McViegh's actions.

Don't give me any ideas. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

I can see logic that, in the event of a localized terrorist attack in the week before the election, postponing voting *in that location* for a couple of days makes sense if there is any damage to relevant infrastructure, but not postponing the election itself nation wide.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

I disagree. We need more frequent elections. When politicians are busy trying to get reelected, they aren't passing legislation that screws up our lives.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
in the event of a localized terrorist attack in the week before the election, postponing voting *in that location* for a couple of days makes sense if there is any damage to relevant infrastructure, but not postponing the election itself nation wide.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think localized delays would be unconstitutional - Article 2 § 1 clause 3:
The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States

[Cyrus]

Those folks at the Bush camp seem keen to prove paranoid worriers like Jokerswild right!

Now they are considering plans to postpone the November 2004 presidential elections in case of a major terrorist attack. There's one "U.S. Election Assistance Commission" , which was set up after the disputed 2000 presidential vote in order "to help states deal with logistical problems in their elections". (Apparently logistical might involve ordering that the polls don't open at all for reasons of national emergency!) And that Commission's Chairman is a senior pastor of the 7,000-member First Baptist Church of Lincoln Gardens in Somerset.

That man asked Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge to ask Congress to give his Commission the authority to postpone federal elections.

Now, I can understand contingency plans as much as the next guy. The [i]things[(i] one sees in such plans! Armaggeddon or worse. But the way Ridge and Co. are handling this is very indicative of their cavalier, contemptuous mindset towards congressional authority, the use of executive power and due process. They are not friends of liberty, that's for sure.

CNN Report (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/11/election.day.delay/index.html)

[elwoodblues]

I don't think setting up a contingency plan is a bad idea (nor necessarily politically motivated). Implementing that plan is another story and the decision to postpose would need to be scrutinized.

Assume something less than catastrophic...Assume that New York uses all electronic ballots and we have another east coast black out on election day. That might very well be a good reason to postpone the elections.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Thank you. Then any delay would have to be nationwide.

[elwoodblues]

Exactly. So the question then becomes when to we delay. I think that's a tough question. If all NY (state) couldn't vote, should we delay? How about South Dakota? How about just NY City? How about just Rapid City South Dakota?

I don't think there are easy answers to these questions and any decision to postpone (or not) would be seen as a partisan move.

[Cyrus]

"I don't think setting up a contingency plan is a bad idea (nor necessarily politically motivated)."

I agree. Contingency/emergency plans that have to do with political events, though, have to be carefully drawn up and worded. There have been cases in History where democracy was derailed because the wrong plan was invoked for the right (no pun intended) reasons.

Recommended reading (of course a classic) : E. Luttwak's "Coup D' Etat".

[MaxPower]

My understanding is that this is a provision of the Patriot Act. I've never read the act, so I can't be sure, but that is what I've heard.

[Matty]

Odd that this is announced on the day that Kerry opens up his biggest lead (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Electoral%20College%20Projection.htm).

Sure are a lot of strange coincidences going on lately. Like the Pentagon announced that only the three months of records that could have proven or disproven Bush' AWOL allegations were destroyed ... while they were trying to be salvaged. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[Sloats]

[ QUOTE ]
Kurn,

I wasn't joking about being scared. I'll have to do the research, but if this proves to be a real policy I think it would be the worst thing to happen in this country in my lifetime. Allowing democracy to be subverted for any reason would be a bigger victory for the terrorists than killing 3000 people.

[ QUOTE ]
Let's grow up and stop whining about 9/11.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed.

NT

[/ QUOTE ]



Our lives are expendable. The lives of people I've never met, who I have nothing in common with, are completely valuable. I make no distinction between family, neighbor, resident of the same community, state, country, or world. We are all equal to me.

[adios]

It's planning for a doomsday scenario, looks to be a silly idea. Lets move the elections up a month or two and really screw the terrorists.

[MaxPower]

I just checked. Its not part of the Patriot act. Must have heard it from some left wing wacko.

[cardcounter0]

If there was a terrorist attack before the elections, why would it be good for Bush?

Wasn't the attack on the World Trade Center all Clinton's fault? Isn't the only thing that has saved us from further attacks is Der Furher Bush and his Dept. Of Homeland Security?

If we are again attacked by the "Evil Doers" after 4 years of Bush "Bring It On, Mission Accomplished", Why would people still want to "stay the course"?

[MMMMMM]

"If there was a terrorist attack before the elections, why would it be good for Bush?"

It would help his reelection chances, IMO, because Americans would be really ready to kick some ass.

"Wasn't the attack on the World Trade Center all Clinton's fault? Isn't the only thing that has saved us from further attacks is Der Furher Bush and his Dept. Of Homeland Security?"

Well no attacks on US soil since then, for whatever that's worth...

"If we are again attacked by the "Evil Doers" after 4 years of Bush "Bring It On, Mission Accomplished", Why would people still want to "stay the course"?"

If there were to be a major attack--say WTC scale or bigger--there would be strong American sentiment to destroy things--like from wherever the attackers drew their support. Never mind about merely "staying the course"--many Americans would want to annihilate things. Large things.

Damascus and Tehran better watch the hell out: they are playing with fire supporting terrorists. All it might take is one more catastrophic terrorist attack in America and they run the risk of being glassed over permanently.

Americans ain't Euroweenies. Actually in Afghanistan and Iraq, America has been remarkably restrained. If it happens again, we may start fighting to kill (rather than merely to obtain an objective).

[Chris Alger]

This is a good question. Not because the answer isn't obvious, but because it illustrates how a forceful appearance of political and social sanity can be an illusion that precedes decisions like seceding from the Union, launching World War I, invading Vietnam or the multitude of other indescribably stupid acts of self-destruction that have plagued countries throughout history. Another attack should hurt Bush's election chances, but everyone knows it will help them.

Just look at the response to Bush's record to date. On July 10, 2001, following months of urgent warnings about potential bin Laden attacks, the FBI's field office in Phoenix alerted Washington of a "coordinated effort" by bin Laden to train terrorist hijackers in American flight schools, citing observations of "an inordinate number of individuals of investigative interest" who have attended such schools. Less than two weeks later, acting on separate intelligence, Italian authorities warn of a possible terrorist attack by bin Laden to crash an aircraft into the G-8 summit in Genoa. The Italians prepared for this possibility by declaring the area a no-fly zone, mounting antiaircraft guns and deploying warships in the area.

Two weeks after that, on August 6, 2001, Bush was given an intelligence briefing entitled "Bin Laden determined to attack inside the U.S.," which described recent "patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York." (The largest complex of federal buildings in New York City is a few blocks from the World Trade Center). This intelligence had to be at least as good as what the Italians saw because, after all, it actually happened.

So during the two months before 9/11 we have warnings that bin Laden terrorists are learning to fly planes, warnings that bin Laden might crash hijacked planes, and warnings that bin Laden is "determined" to attack the U.S., possibly with hijacked planes, and probably in lower Manhattan. What would you, or any competent manager having taken a solemn vow to defend the country, have done?

Bush did nothing. As the FAA transcripts show, the hijackings caught officials completely by surprise, which allowed a third hijacking to occur 50 minutes after the first plane crashed into the World Trade Center.

This partial chronology, widely reported in the mainstream press and disputed by no one, unambiguously shows that Bush's administration is culpable for the worst act of Presidential negligence in recent memory. Bush's failure to take even modest precautions proves an almost comical degree of incompetence and directly contributed to the loss of hundreds if not thousands of American lives. (To say nothing of the economic cost: Rumsfeld estimated that $50 of box cutters cost the U.S. nearly $300 billion). One might consider this a lesson learned, but from his public statements, Bush does not appear to be aware that his performance was lacking in any respect, or that he needs to pay more attention to what he's told.

Yet the polls bear out the general consensus that 9/11 and the subsequent "war on terror" were boons to Bush's approval ratings and reelection effort.

Why would a screw-up of this magnitude help the President get reelected? Partly ignorance, partly the understandable tendency of a terrorized public to rally behind their leader, no doubt enhanced by an "off the shelf" PR campaign that suggesting they have little choice.

Another reason is suggested by M's response to your post: there is a sizeable group of right-wingers who relish to prospect of terrorism against Americans in the hopes that it will provide a pretext for U.S. "retaliation" against Muslims and other groups they hate throughout the Middle East. They need to think of themselves as victims to rationalize these impulses, perhaps arising from some sort of psychosexual need for blood and fire everywhere to prove their masculinity (and distinguish themselves from "Euroweenies") or maybe because they think endless enemies are socially desirable (like a "war on terror" that can never end).

All countries probably have groups like this but America might be more afflicted. My guess is that they're no more than 15-20% of the population, but their implacable hostility amounts to a bulwark against anything but belligerence, self-obsessive victimhood and a crypto-fascist worship of a single commander. They're like spirochetes corkscrewing their way through the brain of the body politic.

Note, for example, that the attack we're discussing is a hypothetical one by bin Laden, supported by no particular country, but that M already has his sights, as do so many on the right, on taking out Syria and Iran. Consider his candid hope of mass killing for the sake of mass killing, rather as an unpleasant means to attain rational "objectives." This is no doubt inspired by his oft-expressed claim that the people in such countries are guilty of "savage and barbaric" cultures the world could do without, a persistent suggestion in that press which specializes in pandering to the racist right-wing fringe.

Also note the subject of this thread is nothing short of a political coup, the indefinite suspension of democracy in America, and that many on the right think this is just fine.

[MMMMMM]

"Consider his (M's) candid hope of mass killing for the sake of mass killing, rather as an unpleasant means to attain rational "objectives."

Huh? That was a brief description of possible or likely scenarios, not a "hope".

[Chris Alger]

Your references to ass kicking and countries that better watch themselves shouldn't construed as reflecting your preference, but merely a neutral prediction of what others will demand. Tell it to the Marines, M.

Anyway, your post described two different groups:

1. "Many Americans" who "would want to annihilate things" so much that "Damascus and Tehran ... run the risk of being glassed over permanently." This is regardless of who attacks the U.S. or why. In other words, those Americans who would use any terror attack as a pretext for gratuitous genocide.

Contrasted to these, there are

2. "Euroweenies," which you claim "Americans," as a rule, or not.

Toward which of these two poles do your motives that I've supposedly misconstrued drive you closer?

BTW, how many times on this forum have you cited with approval Gary Kasparov's article suggesting that the U.S. attack Damascus and Tehran?

[jokerswild]

.

[MMMMMM]

It certainly takes a lot of gall on your part to be asking me questions about my positions or motives without first apologizing for deliberately and blatantly misconstruing based on my words in the prior post.

Euroweenies favor appeasement; most Americans favor fighting the attackers (and to some degree their supporters, if necessary, as it was in Afghanistan). That many Americans might favor nuking some state if it is found to have sponsored an enormous terror attack against us (in the future), is simply a statement of fact.

It is my feeling that your tactics are disgusting and slimy. That you persist in this vein without acknowledging your misconstruing of my remarks (let alone offering an apology) is clear evidence of your habit of employing dirty tactics in discussion or debate.


Secondly: Kasparov's article did NOT advocate attacking Tehran and Damascus. Again you err (and probably deliberately so, IMO). As I recall, his article said something very close to this: "After American troops are on the ground in Iraq, the message must go out to all regional sponsors of terror that this game is up". He also said something to the effect that the message must go out to Damascus, Tehran and perhaps even Riyadh that state sponsorship of terror will not be tolerated. That is an important strategic concept, and IMO it was a very good article.

[MMMMMM]

^

[jokerswild]

Just ask him to explain economic theory. He doesn't even know that his heros are monetarists.

[jokerswild]

Becuase if he suspends the election, he makes himself Der Fuhrer.

[MMMMMM]

My heros certainly aren't Keynesians.

[jokerswild]

I'm not a paranoid worrier. I just don't put anything past the neocons. I fully expect Bush to be in office in February 2005. If he loses the election, then he simply won't leave. I have no worries that they cheat, and kill for corporate interests. I suppose you think that the public can do something to stop it? Please don't start advocating violence against the USA like MMMMMMMM does.

It would be wise for Congress not to grant the administration the authority to stop the election.
The mirage of democracy sells much better on Fox News.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
That many Americans might favor nuking some state if it is found to have sponsored an enormous terror attack against us (in the future), is simply a statement of fact.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'd wouldn't favor it, I would demand it. Sadly, I suspect it is only a matter of time before such a series of events happens.

Stu

[Grivan]

If you listen to these storys, the people who are talking about doing this or about there being plans to postpone the election are generally on the liberal side of things. The current administration would not want to postpone the elections for anything. There are some situations where it might be a good idea, but the likelyhood of it happening are probably less then the likelyhood of the worst bad beat anyone has ever taken.

The fact that it is making the news at all is just so that liberals can say "look at what the administration wants to do its HORRIBLE!"

[jokerswild]

You are much more frightening than MMMMM, Stu.
MMMMMMMM is an ignorant ranting moron. Your views
sound more like Adolf Eichmann's. Let's just hope that Russian, and Chinese military leaders don't share your proensity for the hasty use of nuclear weapons.

[Stu Pidasso]

I believe nukes have great deterent value. The deterence value of nukes does not come from having them, it comes from the willingness to use them. What did Adolf Eichmann have to say about the deterent value of Nuclear weapons?

Stu

[Drunk Bob]

A radical demo living in Idaho or is it Montana.

We will remove it from your cold dead fingers.

[MMMMMM]

"I just don't put anything past the neocons."

That's your prerogative.


"Please don't start advocating violence against the USA like MMMMMMMM does."

I don't advocate it and you know it...and from your statement, it is obvious that it would be unwise for anyone to put anything past YOU.

[Cyrus]

"Please don't start advocating violence against the USA like MMMMMMMM does."

I don't know how MMMMMM acts when he is soused but, as for me, I never advocated "violence against the US"! Never insinuated anything like that, either.

Either drunk or sober.

[MMMMMM]

jokerswild needs a few more ties on his straitjacket, I'm afraid. Cyrus, please pass the buckle.

[ACPlayer]

This is a new version of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle:

The act of trying to locate politically sensitive information disturbs the location of the information and destroys the information in space and time.