Guest TheZsaszHorsemen Posted July 12, 2004 Report Posted July 12, 2004 From Yahoo! News WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. counterterrorism officials are looking at an emergency proposal on the legal steps needed to postpone the November presidential election in case of an attack by al Qaeda, Newsweek reported on Sunday. Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge warned last week that Osama bin Laden (news - web sites)'s al Qaeda network may attack within the United States to try to disrupt the election. The magazine cited unnamed sources who told it that the Department of Homeland Security asked the Justice Department (news - web sites) last week to review what legal steps would be needed to delay the election if an attack occurred on the day before or the day of the election. The department was asked to review a letter to Ridge from DeForest Soaries, who is the chairman of the new U.S. Election Assistance Commission, the magazine said. The commission was created in 2002 to provide funds to the states to the replace punch card voting systems and provide other assistance in conducting federal elections. In his letter, Soaries pointed out that while New York's Board of Elections suspended primary elections in New York on the day of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, "the federal government has no agency that has the statutory authority to cancel and reschedule a federal election." Soaries wants Ridge to ask Congress to pass legislation giving the government such power, Newsweek reported in its latest issue that hits the newsstands on Monday. Homeland Security Department spokesman Brian Rochrkasse told the magazine the agency is reviewing the matter "to determine what steps need to be taken to secure the election." I won't make a comment about the politics of such a move, however it is very interesting.
Justice Posted July 12, 2004 Report Posted July 12, 2004 The only way it could be more secured is if we moved it up and surprised the terrorists. Considering that's impossible, I really don't see a reason to try and move it back; the only way to really thwart any threat would be to move things forwards.
Guest MikeSC Posted July 12, 2004 Report Posted July 12, 2004 Damn them for planning for all possibilities! DAMN THEM TO HELL! -=Mike
Guest TheZsaszHorsemen Posted July 12, 2004 Report Posted July 12, 2004 Damn them for planning for all possibilities! DAMN THEM TO HELL! -=Mike Even though no one even suggested getting angry with them, right Mike? Believe me, Bush has given the left more than enough ammo without looking for more.
Justice Posted July 12, 2004 Report Posted July 12, 2004 Damn them for planning for all possibilities! DAMN THEM TO HELL! -=Mike Even though no one even suggested getting angry with them, right Mike? Believe me, Bush has given the left more than enough ammo without looking for more. I won't make a comment about the politics of such a move, however it is very interesting. You know, you do seem to hint that this is could be a political move of sorts, so don't act so surprised that Mike jumped in like he did. But I'll say this again: there isn't a point to moving elections forwards or backwards, and I don't think Americans will want to extend this election any more than possible. Everyone hates election years.
Highland Posted July 12, 2004 Report Posted July 12, 2004 They're not going to move or otherwise postpone the date of the election; that would be a sign of capitulation towards the terrorists.
Stephen Joseph Posted July 12, 2004 Report Posted July 12, 2004 I agree, Zsasz definitely baited for that response. and..what highland said...they wont delay it unless well, we lose a city. Then i think it might just be okay
NoCalMike Posted July 12, 2004 Report Posted July 12, 2004 I just find it Ironic that in the article it says, that the Terrorists are trying to disrupt our democratic procedures, yet how the hell is our own government changing/delaying the date not interrupting democratic procedures? Shouldn't we be firm on the election date to show they can't scare us into doing something drastic like, oh say.....the Patriot Act?
Guest MikeSC Posted July 12, 2004 Report Posted July 12, 2004 I just find it Ironic that in the article it says, that the Terrorists are trying to disrupt our democratic procedures, yet how the hell is our own government changing/delaying the date not interrupting democratic procedures? Shouldn't we be firm on the election date to show they can't scare us into doing something drastic like, oh say.....the Patriot Act? Jesus, is PLANNING for all possibilities so foreign a concept? -=Mike
Vyce Posted July 12, 2004 Report Posted July 12, 2004 I just find it Ironic that in the article it says, that the Terrorists are trying to disrupt our democratic procedures, yet how the hell is our own government changing/delaying the date not interrupting democratic procedures? Shouldn't we be firm on the election date to show they can't scare us into doing something drastic like, oh say.....the Patriot Act? Jesus, is PLANNING for all possibilities so foreign a concept? -=Mike Why are you even trying to argue logically with them?
NoCalMike Posted July 12, 2004 Report Posted July 12, 2004 I just find it Ironic that in the article it says, that the Terrorists are trying to disrupt our democratic procedures, yet how the hell is our own government changing/delaying the date not interrupting democratic procedures? Shouldn't we be firm on the election date to show they can't scare us into doing something drastic like, oh say.....the Patriot Act? Jesus, is PLANNING for all possibilities so foreign a concept? -=Mike What on earth are you talking about? Planning for ALL possibilites? What is that, the new tag line of bullshit? What does that even mean, it is virtually IMPOSSIBLE to plan for all possibilites. I don't see how delaying the elections would make a lick of difference anyway besides guarantee Dubya a few more weeks/months in office. If Tom Ridge has some definitive evidence to show that an attack is being planned during election day, then so be it and do what we have to do, however just making these vague statements that really mean nothing, is starting to get redundant, unless you personally have been out there on the streets being weary and suspicious of "people dressed up as firemen, policemen, people sweating, people looking disconnected, people mumbling" Gimme a fucking break.......
Guest INXS Posted July 12, 2004 Report Posted July 12, 2004 If it looks as though Bush is facing defeat (which at this point he isn't in my view) I wouldn't be surprised to see the elections delayed for one reason or other.
tommytomlin Posted July 12, 2004 Report Posted July 12, 2004 I don't see why this is interpreted as some sinister Bush plot, when a terrorist attack on or before Election Day is MORE likely to get him elected. A week's delay might turn the ultra-patriotism immediately after an attack into anger towards the Administration.
Highland Posted July 12, 2004 Report Posted July 12, 2004 (edited) Either that or if Bush isn't re-elected after a terrorist attack the electorate will be accused of capitulating before the terrorists.... Edited July 12, 2004 by Highland
kkktookmybabyaway Posted July 12, 2004 Report Posted July 12, 2004 If it looks as though Bush is facing defeat (which at this point he isn't in my view) I wouldn't be surprised to see the elections delayed for one reason or other. You never fail to disappoint me. And screw all this pre-planning bullshit -- it did WONDERS regarding the 9/11 attack. Personally, I want the elections to go on right after a terrorist attack. Hell, I want my fellow citizens to keep going to the polls right when Habib (OMG RACISM) is running into the school gym with a bomb strapped to him. John Q. Citizen in a voting booth: "Hmm, who should I vote for -- Bush or Kerry?" Habib, who's right outside the booth: "ALLAH ALLAH ALLAH!" John Q.: "Wait your turn." BOOOOOOM!...
Dr. Tom Posted July 12, 2004 Report Posted July 12, 2004 CNN had an article about this, too, with the expected carping from a couple prominent Democrats. I think if a Democrat were in the White House now, they'd be saying how prudent the idea was, just in case something awful happens. While I don't think this is a political move, I think both sides are going to do their best to make it look like one.
kkktookmybabyaway Posted July 12, 2004 Report Posted July 12, 2004 Already in South Florida there are far-sighted Jews confused at when the 2004 election will take place...
Jobber of the Week Posted July 12, 2004 Report Posted July 12, 2004 I just find it Ironic that in the article it says, that the Terrorists are trying to disrupt our democratic procedures, yet how the hell is our own government changing/delaying the date not interrupting democratic procedures? Shouldn't we be firm on the election date to show they can't scare us into doing something drastic like, oh say.....the Patriot Act? Jesus, is PLANNING for all possibilities so foreign a concept? -=Mike Don't know about you, but I'm sick and fucking tired of this "after 9/11, everything changed" bullshit. Did we screw with our elections because of the Civil War? Not that we know of. World War II? No. Threat of communism? No sir. This stupid political game of living under a clould of fear due to terrorism is utter crap, and I'm tired of seeing it exist year after goddamned year. Let's stop living like this.
Highland Posted July 12, 2004 Report Posted July 12, 2004 (edited) It's about time someone said what has to be said. I got tired of the "world is changed forever" crap by 9/12/01 Edited July 12, 2004 by Highland
Stephen Joseph Posted July 12, 2004 Report Posted July 12, 2004 That's all fine and dandy but stop with the conspiracy theories then you know...all the post 9/11 OMG BUSH~! ALIENS! ones.
kkktookmybabyaway Posted July 12, 2004 Report Posted July 12, 2004 And of course if something does happen in 2004 and Bush and friends had nothing planned there would be theories that nothing was planned because they wanted an attack to throw off an election and Bush would still be POTUS while the government scrambles to re-start elections. As Tom would say, Christ on a cracker...
snuffbox Posted July 12, 2004 Report Posted July 12, 2004 Shouldn't this be considered a failure of Bush? Nearly 3 years since 9-11, billions of dollars, war and death, Patriot Act.... Still we are America, Land of the Fear. Please help us G.I. George. Please.
NoCalMike Posted July 12, 2004 Report Posted July 12, 2004 And of course if something does happen in 2004 and Bush and friends had nothing planned there would be theories that nothing was planned because they wanted an attack to throw off an election and Bush would still be POTUS while the government scrambles to re-start elections. As Tom would say, Christ on a cracker... Well you'd think Mr Tough on Terrorism Bush would make it a point to go out publicly and say that America will show resolve and we will not let some terrorist scum affect our elections and they will go on AS PLANNED in November. Then he can throw in how our nation is strong and will not be shaken and all that junk to boot. However if this story is not really that big and just some fodder for internet new sites, then I understand why he hasn't commented on it either way yet.
Guest Salacious Crumb Posted July 12, 2004 Report Posted July 12, 2004 Shouldn't this be considered a failure of Bush? Nearly 3 years since 9-11, billions of dollars, war and death, Patriot Act.... Still we are America, Land of the Fear. Please help us G.I. George. Please. Oh yes..... let's just stop what we're doing all together because that's such a better option.
Guest Cerebus Posted July 12, 2004 Report Posted July 12, 2004 Much like the possiblity of a draft, this is a minor extremely unlikely thing blown WAY the fuck out of proportion. One would think we have more important things to worry about.
Guest GreatOne Posted July 12, 2004 Report Posted July 12, 2004 Shouldn't this be considered a failure of Bush? Nearly 3 years since 9-11, billions of dollars, war and death, Patriot Act.... Still we are America, Land of the Fear. Please help us G.I. George. Please. You're right we should have just done aboslutely nothing, pull all our troops inland, and wait for the next attack. Because everyone knows that the way to combat enemy forces is by fighting on the DEFENSIVE, just ask the French........... And we wouldn't even need that UNCONSTITUTIONAL Patriot Act--nevermind the fact the average person who whines about it can't tell you which one of their rights was "violated" by it.
Vyce Posted July 12, 2004 Report Posted July 12, 2004 Shouldn't this be considered a failure of Bush? Nearly 3 years since 9-11, billions of dollars, war and death, Patriot Act.... Still we are America, Land of the Fear. Please help us G.I. George. Please. That loud sound that you all just heard was my skull bashing against the wall in frustration at the reasoning skills of some of the people in this forum.
Highland Posted July 12, 2004 Report Posted July 12, 2004 Shouldn't this be considered a failure of Bush? Nearly 3 years since 9-11, billions of dollars, war and death, Patriot Act.... Still we are America, Land of the Fear. Please help us G.I. George. Please. That loud sound that you all just heard was my skull bashing against the wall in frustration at the reasoning skills of some of the people in this forum. Vyce, are you at all capable of actually contributing to a debate here? So far all you've done is insult those that aren't in lockstep with your opinions, while you blindingly and sycophantically agree with everthing MikeSC and a few others have said.
BX Posted July 12, 2004 Report Posted July 12, 2004 Shouldn't this be considered a failure of Bush? Nearly 3 years since 9-11, billions of dollars, war and death, Patriot Act.... Still we are America, Land of the Fear. Please help us G.I. George. Please. That loud sound that you all just heard was my skull bashing against the wall in frustration at the reasoning skills of some of the people in this forum. Vyce, are you at all capable of actually contributing to a debate here? So far all you've done is insult those that aren't in lockstep with your opinions, while you blindingly and sycophantically agree with everthing MikeSC and a few others have said. It's confusing the shit out of me, because I seem to remember Vyce being one of the better right-wing posters in CE. Maybe he took over the "surrogate mother" role for SC now that Marney left. Anyway, I seriously doubt that this is the first time that someone has looked into the legalities of delaying a federal election. As it has been said, every possibility needs to be looked into, because it'd sure be terrible if we were caught with our pants down. I also seriously doubt that Bush & Co. would even try to do this, because what short of the second coming of Jesus Christ would cause that amount of turmoil and chaos neccesary to push back an election? What sort of terrorist attack would be serious enough to tell 288 million Americans to just "stay home"?
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now