Suspending Elections
 

I know I'm cynical but...

U.S. counterterrorism officials are looking at an emergency proposal on the legal steps needed to postpone the presidential election in case of such an attack, Newsweek reported on Sunday. :eyebrow:

don't worry, griff. jane_says that's impossible.

from this thread in response to this post in that thread:

Fear appears to be W's ally.

If someone told you in 2000 that the reichstag would be smoking by now, what would you have said? Amazing how things change. Looks like bush's closest political allay is Osama, he's the thing most likely to keep him in power.

That's what I call an unholy alliance, a fundie president who beleives he's fighting god's war being kept in power by a fundie who think he's fighting gods war.

I get this image in my mind of God with long white hair and a white beard, sitting on a golden throne in heaven. He reads the latest reports from earth handed to him by a worried angel and gets a really upset look on his face. "OK, send 'em in now," He says. Jesus and Mohammed approach with hang dog looks on their faces. "Can't you two get ANYTHING right?" He asks. "I said 'Peace on earth' NOT 'the earth in peices!" :D

Right. In terms of the election itself, what's the absolute worst that could happen if terrorists attack polling stations on Election Day? The votes from those stations won't be counted. How many thousands (hundred thousands?)of polling stations are there across the US? Not to mention absentee ballots and the like? The terrorists would have to hit a LOT of stations in the 12 or so hours that elections are open. And even if they did, news of a station being hit would travel REAL fast and every other station in the US would be on guard. If it is Al Qaeda, then it's known they don't like to go after well guarded targets, more trouble and less chance of success.

Doing anything to move, postpone or otherwise alter the normal flow of the elections would only bolster the terrorists' morale. Now, what if we left the elections alone and went on through as planned? If a few sites are attacked, should be totally shut down and cower like a bad puppy looking at a raised rolled up newspaper? Or should we take what votes do get through and use them? Besides, in the normal course of an election, it's nothing new for votes to be lost, forged and mistallied. In a given year, there's plenty of votes that either don't get in or don't get counted correctly. I shouldn't have to remind anyone of the absolute tripe that was 2000's election process. If an attack should happen, acknowledge it, yes. Mourn what losses occur, yes. But don't STOP. Keep MOVING. Take what you've got and GO.

[offtopic]Also, along the lines of letting go and moving on, how long are flags supposed to be kept at half-mast for the death of a president? Around here, there's still flags being raised a half-mast and I can't figure out if there's a time period for it or if whoever's responsible just forgot/is lazy?[/offtopic]

I give the Wise Alchy Sage credit for not getting caught up in that thread. :) We are in an amazing place right now. If we look back at the much more significant threat of WWII, FDR was all about keeping the machine of democracy running, no matter what. Having the administration even float this idea is a nice victory for Osama. It's enough to make a libbytarian vote Democratic. Ridge's comments were a message to any crackpot that all they have to do is disrupt a few well chosen polling places and the election is closed. Any crackpot, even a few homegrown right wing nuts who want to stay the course or some ELF types who think it needs to get worse so it can get better could read that message the wrong way.

[offtopic]Also, along the lines of letting go and moving on, how long are flags supposed to be kept at half-mast for the death of a president? Around here, there's still flags being raised a half-mast and I can't figure out if there's a time period for it or if whoever's responsible just forgot/is lazy?[/offtopic]

Bush declared the period to be 30 days in this case.

i'm a bit worried that this is just the seed of something to come. So this gets pishawed, and this election comes and goes, and sanity forbid, GWB gets re-elected.....NEXT time, this comes up again, and maybe, just maybe they sneak it through. that's when the shit hits the fan.

and why is it automatically we should postpone the election? why not preempt it? do we think the terrorists can't postpone their attacks? and like CW said, if they wanted to effect our elections, they'd pretty much have to invade us full scale. duh.

this is really fucked up.

and jinx tells me, although i haven't seen it, that we've discussed "free speech zones" at bush rallies, and people are being arrested for adverse signage at those rallies?

if bush get's reelected, i'm going to go live with aunt Elsa in switzerland, american hater or not.

1) i don't agree with postponing the elections, but from a point of view it does make some sense.

2) i don't think they are talking about postponing to prevent further casualties in the event of an attack. the fear is probably more along the lines of preventing a repeat of spain's election. a couple hundred people die and the election goes in an absolutely unexpected direction. i personally think that if their was a pre-election attack in america it would actually shore up gwb's #'s just because of the collective personality of america. ( america - "you attacked us??? we'll put big flags in our car windows, attack a few gas station attendants, and nuke ya back to the stoneage". spain - "you attacked us??? we'll hand power to the guy who will pull us out so you won't be mad at us anymore"."
that is obviously oversimplified, but you get the point.

i fear that you are correct in that beleif, and gwb knows it. makes me think that another major attack is a near certainty. let's take a poll on the date? i'm thinking mid October.....

i have believed there was certain to be a pre-election attack since spain's RR bombings. i don't think the terrorists understand the american psyche well enough to know that it would backfire.
personally, i believe there have already been attempts. i would expect their focus to be no more than a week before the election though. they will be looking to accomplish a repeat of spain's elections.
i don't expect any polling places targeted. i believe it will be public functions, the transportation system again.

I'm thinking Boston, July 26-29.

jinx, i think you are right that there is something planned for it - but no the main event. keep in mind the public doesn't hear about the events that are prevented, there have been other samll scale attacks foiled. it's just one of those things, we only hear about the failures, not the successes.

Why?

There is that. However, I think what Georgey's numbers will do also depends on how heavy a spin the media and politicians put on the event. At this point, there's lots more people who aren't as sure about Bush's actions (and those of his administration, let's not forget them in all this) in Iraq et al. as there were even a year ago. If the right spin gets put on a pre-election attack, especially if it's a particularly nasty one, then it might show that Bush and Friends "failed to protect the American people", that in fixing the fence of someone across town, he let the hole in his own backyard fence go unchecked. And if that spin takes hold we'll get the finger pointing and so-and-so didn't divulge the correct information blah blah blah. At this point I think the American populace could pick up on something like that as readily as they would run to lift Bush up on their shoulders and "stand with solidarity and purpose."

i think you are asking why you hear about the failures, not the successes, so...

if we report on the successes, the risk is that the enemy will know how you got the information used to spoil their plans. once you make public that an event was prevented, it is fairly simple for the enemy to backtrack and find out how we got our info, sources of information will be compromised and you can't use them in the future.

we always know about intel failures because it is on the evening news.

Ah you guy's are missing two things.
Firstly, Al Queda is VERY media savvy, I'm talking right on the ball, they know how the game work very, very well. They WANT GWB in power, he's caused anger and outrage across the mideast creating thousands of new recruits, they want an irrational, reactionary leader, not one that might be able to defuse the situation.

Think about the 'truce' offered to European leaders, it's about retargetting anger on a single target to increase the power of it, it's very clever. Try and weaken Europe's interest in the war, work to maintain the rift and target the US with it's evil leader. Bush and Osama want the same thing, holy war. (world's biggest oxymoron).

Oh an LJ there's a Renault dealership over here I can probably slot you into.

But the enemy already knows their plans were spoiled.... and they probably have a good idea of why. It just doesn't make sense to me to keep it a secret from 'the people', especially if a warning of a possible attack has already been issued. Why not follow it up with "hey, we found a bomb and deactivated it" or "we arrested some terrorist guy renting a Ryder". Something... you know?

It is too easy to imagine another attack taking place, followed by Bush ads which carry a sentiment of "A time of crisis is not a time for a change in administration. Stick with a president you can trust to get the job done." I shudder to think of what tatters our Constitution will be left in if Bush gets another four years... particularly if he starts his new term with another vendetta, whose energy he can direct where it pleases him.... even at countries and people who had nothing to do with the attack.

That Free Speech Zone thread is here, Jimbo. It was originally posted months ago, but was recently resurrected.

Actually, they kicked out the guys who immediately started to lie about the attack to further their political goals.

actually that is how FDR got elected 4 times. he campaign theme was basically that you don't change horses midway through race.

I think Jaguar is right on the money. The terrorists want Bush in office. He makes recruiting new terrorists very easy.

I'm not sure if a terrorist act just before the election hurts Bush or helps him. I think a lot of it depends on how Kerry spins the attack. If Kerry has a spine, he will say that Bush was unable to prevent the attack and even helped to cause it to happen with his heavy handedness around the world.

If Kerry doesn't have a spine, he will say that we all need to come together, and that he supports the President. Bush would win in that situation.

If anyone calls for postponing the elections because of terrorism, I fear that will be the beginning of the end of this country.

i know that a lot of people on here don't agree, but i don't believe the american people have the NEED to know everything. and in the end, that is what it boils down to - who has a genuine need to know. anyone who has ever been in the military is very familiar with the concept.

the obsession with secrecy came long before the media, but think it through. if there is an announcement that a truck bombing was prevented in NYC today... every news agency will be out attempting to get the scoop. they will dig deep for their stories and release any info they have, even if that is not in the best interests of operational security. if there is no announcement of a non-event, then they won't dig in that direction and the assets can continue to be used.

Ok, but using that logic, why issue warnings? They're far too vague to be useful to the average person, but a news agency attempting to get the scoop might inadvertantly get in the way of intelligence or release info that is not in the best interest of operational security. Seems like the situation is far more security critcal before an attack than after a failed/thwarted attempt.

i agree with you. i think the warning system is pathetic, lame, and couter-productive. i think it was put into place more for psych benefit after 9/11 than for any other reason. although, in some cases, when it is known something is happening, but you don't know what, raising the threat level or putting out vague warnings has the effect of rustling the bushes. it is possible to get adversaries to show their hand if they think you know what they are doing. an increase in phone traffic or even just increased stress levels can cause them to make small mistakes.

i still think it is, primarily, for psych benefit.

"see? everything is ok. look at the pretty color on the threat board, now go back to your desks and relax"

I bet Elsa would actually get the biggest kick out of you, LJ. I'll write and tell her to fix up her guest room just in case. I'm sure she wouldn't mind. She'd probably just pretend that you are Canadian or something. ;)

oh geez... yeah I heard about all this at work today.. I like the Idea of pre-dating the elections.. heh that'd screw everybodies plans up.. and yes, it does seem that the best thing in the world for Osama and company is to keep bush in office... he generates more propaganda for their cause than anything. ANYTHING in the past oh.. 50 years? I know we can't function as an isolationist country.. but do you think we (and by we I don't mean me :)) ) could keep our dirty little fingers out of the till? I mean how many bazillions of dollars does a person need?.. yeah I'm working class sure.. and I value the money I do make.. and the entire concept of gaining so much more wealth (both fiscal and physical) that you could never ever spend it all... is just silly... short sighted and to some extent morally wrong (in the case of Bill Gates.. there was an article the other month, that if Bill Gates were a country he would come in at number 52 in the world...fine sure great, and he does donate alot to charity..and he is not in a political office.. so I don't really care.. but it's nuts.. and NO I'm not saying 'lets tax the shit out of him or take it away.. just a bad attempt to explai my point)..

ANYWAY! what I really wanted to say in this post is that a friend of mine and I have a bet that something is going to happen in late september early october.. (more than likely another 'terror event' or perhaps Pakistan will get lippy.. or Bin Ladin will be 'found' )

http://www.octobersurprise.net/phpbb/index.php

and it seems we're not alone in that thought line...

the other thing.. is this administration really getting that afraid of losing power (get me my tinfoil hat!) and there is that whole Bush I new world order thing.. they're close to implimenting it...

the last thing! ( I promise) what needs to happen if bush wins.. everyone who voted against him needs to hop in their car/bus/plane and we make a march on washington..30 million or more angry people would be something I think they need to see... that this shit is NOT flying and although open revolution is out of the question (as the civilian population is seriously out gunned (and no... I'm not saying an RPG in every pot...) it's not really an option.. anyway... thanks for listen to my little rant

There's nothing I wouldn't put past the Bush administration. I think the man himself is certifiable, and he's got plenty of ruthless power brokers just behind the scenes. If Kerry played his cards right, he could turn such an attack to his advantage; but I don't know that he's got the rhetoric to pull such a thing off. JFK could have taken such an incident and used it to put the last nail in Bush's coffin. In this instance, I think Bush would use it to put the last nail in democracy's coffin. :mad2: If such a sequence of events were to take place, I'd go live with Aunt Elsa myself and ask her to sponsor me as a political refugee.

Please do not make the mistake of calling Kerry "JFK" even if the initials fit.

I do not think there is any great likelihood of elections being cancelled for any reason, and suspect that the current furor is the result of a "slow news day" rather than any real concern.

Never, in my wildest dreams, Wolf. You misunderstood me, I think. Kerry is nowhere the equivlent to JFK. If only...

IIRC, JFK was nowhere near JFK. The legend has grown far beyond the man. :eyebrow:

yeah, death is good for your stock in politics as well as art, I guess. (see the various ronald reagan threads)