US election delay plan

[SoundDust]

from here

The Bush administration is reported to be investigating the possibility of postponing the presidential election in the event of a terror attack.
US counter-terrorism officials are examining what steps would be needed to permit a delay, Newsweek reports.

Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge last week warned al-Qaeda was planning to attack the US to disrupt the poll but conceded he had no precise information.

A senior Democrat in Congress has said talk of postponement is "excessive".

part of me is saying, "well, thats an entirely reasonable thing to prepare for", and part of me is saying; "the conspiracy theorists will have a field day over this" (although it might be the day they announce the results that they would want to look at delaying indefinately ). . .

 

[ignatiusII]

Probably means nothing. On the other hand, there is the rather distinct possibility that this is a direct result of Mr Bush's rapidly deteriorating approval ratings in the polls. I've no doubt the machinary is already in place to ensure that he wins reelection, however there is the teeniest tiniest chance that come november, we'll be able to enshrine a second lame-duck one-termer named Bush, and I'm certain the very thought puts the fear of god in both dad & son.

 

[Anonymous]

and when the results come in and they're not satisfactory they'll probably want to drag the whole thing out in court too.

 

[Mighty_Emperor]

And so it begins......

To be honest I didn't think they were going to show their hand so early and keep the possibility of declaring a state of emergency until they needed too but I suppose this way it won't be so out of the blue.

If Al Qaeda are planning terrorism for the US elections specifically to get Bush re-elected (I'm sure I posted the article here but I can't find it) and Bush is planning to postpone elections if he does then you don't really need a conspiracy to hold it all together just two groups working towards their best interests.

Frightening.

 

[Mighty_Emperor]

Other reports:

Voting official seeks process for canceling Election Day over terrorism

Friday, June 25, 2004

BY ERICA WERNER
ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON - The government needs to establish guidelines for canceling or rescheduling elections if terrorists strike the United States again, says the chairman of a new federal voting commission.

Such guidelines do not currently exist, said DeForest B. Soaries, head of the voting panel.

Soaries was appointed to the federal Election Assistance Commission last year by President Bush. Soaries said he wrote to National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge in April to raise the concerns.

``I am still awaiting their response,'' he said. ``Thus far we have not begun any meaningful discussion.'' Spokesmen for Rice and Ridge did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Soaries noted that Sept. 11, 2001, fell on Election Day in New York City - and he said officials there had no rules to follow in making the decision to cancel the election and hold it later.

Events in Spain, where a terrorist attack shortly before the March election possibly influenced its outcome, show the need for a process to deal with terrorists threatening or interrupting the Nov. 2 presidential election in America, he said.

``Look at the possibilities. If the federal government were to cancel an election or suspend an election, it has tremendous political implications. If the federal government chose not to suspend an election it has political implications,'' said Soaries, a Republican and former secretary of state of New Jersey.

``Who makes the call, under what circumstances is the call made, what are the constitutional implications?'' he said. ``I think we have to err on the side of transparency to protect the voting rights of the country.''

Soaries said his bipartisan, four-member commission might make a recommendation to Congress about setting up guidelies.

``I'm hopeful that there are some proposals already being floated. If there are, we're not aware of them. If there are not, we will probably try to put one on the table,'' he said.

Soaries also said he's met with a former New York state elections director to discuss how officials there handled the Sept. 11 attacks from the perspective of election administration. He said the commission is getting information from New York documenting the process used there.

``The states control elections, but on the national scale where every state has its own election laws and its own election chief, who's in charge?'' he said.

Soaries also said he wants to know what federal officials are doing to increase security on Election Day. He said security officials must take care not to allow heightened security measures to intimidate minority voters, but that local and state election officials he's talked to have not been told what measures to expect.

``There's got to be communication,'' he said, ``between law enforcement and election officials in preparation for November.''

http://www.freep.com/news/latestnews/pm20449_20040625.htm

July 12, 2004

Election Day delay options discussed



WASHINGTON (CNN) -- U.S. officials have discussed the idea of postponing Election Day in the event of a terrorist attack on or about that day, a Homeland Security Department spokesman said Sunday.

The department has referred questions about the matter to the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel, said spokesman Brian Roehrkasse, confirming a report in this week's editions of Newsweek magazine.

Newsweek said the discussions about whether the November 2 election could be postponed started with a recent letter to Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge from DeForest Soaries Jr., chairman of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission.

The commission was set up after the disputed 2000 presidential vote to help states deal with logistical problems in their elections.

Soaries, who was appointed by President Bush, is a former New Jersey secretary of state and senior pastor of the 7,000-member First Baptist Church of Lincoln Gardens in Somerset.

Newsweek reported that Soaries expressed concern that no federal agency had the authority to postpone an election and asked Ridge to ask Congress to give his commission such power.

Ridge warned Thursday that al Qaeda terrorists were planning a large-scale attack on the United States "in an effort to disrupt the democratic process." (Full story)

Ridge said he had no specific or credible information about threats to the political conventions. The four-day Democratic convention kicks off July 26 in Boston, Massachusetts, and the Republican National Convention begins August 30 in New York City.

Ridge also said the nation's color-coded terrorist threat level would remain at yellow, or elevated.

Democratic Rep. Jane Harman of California, ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, said Sunday that she believes planning for the possibility of postponing Election Day is "excessive, based on what we know."

"Six days ago, the leadership of the House and Senate intelligence committees and leadership of the House and Senate were briefed on these so-called new threats," Harman said on CNN's "Late Edition."

"They are more chatter about old threats, which were the subject of a press conference by Attorney General [John] Ashcroft and [FBI] Director [Robert] Mueller six weeks ago.

"[Ridge] sounded more like an interior decorator talking about what more we can do under the shade of yellow," she said.

The news that such discussions have taken place raised other eyebrows on Capitol Hill as well.

"I don't think there's an argument that can be made, for the first time in our history, to delay an election," said Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, a member of the Intelligence Committee.

"We hold elections in the middle of war, in the middle of earthquakes, in the middle of whatever it takes. The election is a statutory election. It should go ahead, on schedule, and we should not change it."

But the Republican chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, Rep. Christopher Cox of California, said on "Late Edition" that he sees Ridge's request as part of a prudent effort to plan for "doomsday scenarios."

"We don't have any intelligence to suggest that it is going to happen, but we're preparing for all of these contingencies now," Cox said.

Noting that New York election officials were able to postpone their September 11, 2001, primary election after terrorists slammed hijacked planes into the World Trade Center, Cox said "there isn't any body that has that authority to do that for federal elections."

"So what Secretary Ridge has asked the Justice Department to do is, 'Give me a legal memo, tell me what will be necessary. Do we need to go to Congress and get legislation?' "

What has Homeland Security officials worried is that terrorists could attempt to disrupt the election in the same way that train bombings in Madrid created unrest three days before the Spanish general election, Roehrkasse said.

Although there is no evidence that the bombings influenced the March 11 vote, socialist Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero unseated Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar, whose center-right government supported the U.S.-led war in Iraq.

The country's new government then pulled Spanish troops from Iraq.

http://www.katc.com/Global/story.asp?S=2025427&nav=EyAzOfwA

A loud 'no' to delaying the election


By Jerry Seper
THE WASHINGTON TIMES


A suggestion that terrorism might delay the November election raised loud cries of "no" yesterday from both Republicans and Democrats.
The chairman of the House committee that oversees federal election law said devising a plan to postpone the Nov. 2 presidential election in case of a terrorist attack creates "serious and complex" constitutional problems.

"In the aftermath of September 11, we need to prepare for contingency plans for various situations," said Rep. Bob Ney, Ohio Republican and chairman of the Committee on House Administration, "but I have very serious concerns about giving one federal official or even a particular federal body the power to postpone or cancel a national election.
"Such a proposal would involve very serious and complex issues, many of which I do not think are even yet known. I would, however, be extremely hesitant to endorse such a proposal, especially at this early juncture."
Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge said last week that contingency plans were in the works at Homeland Security to deal with any disruption at the Republican or Democratic party conventions this summer in New York and Boston, or before the Nov. 2 election.
Newsweek magazine reported yesterday that the Justice Department had been asked to define the legal authority necessary for a postponement, if an attack occurred the day before or the day of the election. A Justice Department spokesman denied that any request for a "legal review" had been made.
Mr. Ridge's remarks were included in a warning that al Qaeda terrorists, who killed nearly 3,000 people in the September 11 attacks, had plans for another major attack against targets in the United States, although he had no information on the time, place or method of any such attack.
Homeland Security's review of contingency plans were prompted by a letter by the Rev. DeForest B. Soaries Jr., chairman of the newly named U.S. Election Assistance Commission, in which he told Mr. Ridge that the department should seek legal advice on how to delay the election in the event of a terrorist attack.
In the letter, Mr. Soaries, elected chairman in March after President Bush named him to the commission, said a review was necessary because the government lacked statutory authority to cancel or reschedule a federal election.
He proposed that Congress consider legislation giving the government such power, noting that New York's Board of Elections suspended primary elections in New York on the day of the September 11 attacks. National elections have been held on several occasions during wartime, including the election of 1864 when the nation was divided by civil war.
No one was available yesterday at the commission, and Mr. Soaries did not return telephone calls to the First Baptist Church of Lincoln Gardens in Somerset, N.J., where he is senior pastor.
Mr. Ney said although he was not aware of any requests by Mr. Soaries or the commission to be given such authority, he would be "very concerned" if the commission, Homeland Security, the Justice Department or any other federal body had "the singular authority to make such an inconceivable decision."
"There is no reason to believe that even if there were an attack that the state officials responsible for the elections in that area would be incapable of deciding for themselves whether or not a postponement was necessary or warranted," Mr. Ney said.
Homeland Security spokesman Brian Rochrkasse did not return calls yesterday for comment, but he had said earlier that the department is reviewing the matter "to determine what steps need to be taken to secure the election."
White House spokesman Scott McClellan, on board Air Force One yesterday, said he had not heard "any real suggestion that there would be a delay in the elections."
A spokesman for Sen. Jon Kyl, Arizona Republican and chairman of the Senate Judiciary subcommittee on terrorism, technology and homeland security, yesterday said a decision to delay the Nov. 2 election could not be made now "without knowing the nature and scope of any suspected attack." The spokesman said any ruling would have to be based "proportionally" on events at the time.
"If Washington, D.C., is going up in flames that day, we might have to delay the election, but if the attack is aimed at Mount Rushmore, maybe not," the spokesman said.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, California, Democrat criticized any effort to postpone the election.
"The Department of Homeland Security should not instill fear or inject uncertainty into the election," she said. "If Bush administration officials have any evidence that would warrant considering postponing the election, they should immediately share it with the Congress. Otherwise, they should disavow this fear-mongering.
"Instead of focusing on changing the date of the election, the Department of Homeland Security should focus on reducing the risk of an attack."
The Republican convention in New York and the Democratic convention in Boston have been designated "special security events," making the U.S. Secret Service the lead agency in charge of security. Contingency plans are in the works to deal with any disruption at the party conventions or before the election.
The U.S. Election Assistance Commission collects information and reviews procedures for the administration of federal elections.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040712-115603-5610r.htm

 

[Anonymous]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States will not cancel or suspend the presidential election this November in the event of a terror attack or other catastrophic event, the government's top elections official said on Tuesday.

Individual states may suspend or reschedule elections if disaster strikes, but that would not change voting in other states, said DeForest Soaries, chairman of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission.

"I can't conceive of any circumstances under which a presidential election could be postponed or canceled," Soaries told reporters after a commission hearing.

Newsweek reported on Sunday that Bush administration officials were looking at what legal steps would be needed to delay the election in case of an attack.

The United States has never postponed a presidential election even during national crises like the Civil War.

"We should get the word out that if something happens in a state that is not yours, you should vote," Soaries added.

Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge warned last week that Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda militant group may attack the United States to try to disrupt the Nov. 2 presidential election.

New York state postponed a primary election for two weeks after Al Qaeda slammed two hijacked jetliners into the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001.

Election Assistance Commissioner Ray Martinez said he believed the Constitution gave states the power to reschedule presidential elections or even appoint electors directly in case of emergency.

Soaries said the commission planned to meet with officials from the Department of Homeland Security next week to discuss how to handle an election-day attack. The commission was also gathering information from individual states to see if they had plans in place.

The commission also adopted a "tool kit" to help local officials avoid glitches on Election Day like those that led to a recount battle in Florida in 2000.

The 73-page document provides guidelines for minimizing problems with the punch-card machines that figured prominently in Florida, along with other vote-tallying machines, including the new touch-screen systems that have drawn criticism from computer-security experts.

It should be available on the commission's Web site within the next week, Commissioner Paul DeGregorio said.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=5660631

 

[Melf]

dictator for life bush....(sorry i meant president for life bush)

nice ring to it huh?

 

[Bosbaba]

US May Delay Elections if Attacked!

US 'may delay vote if attacked'

The Bush administration is reported to be investigating the possibility of postponing the presidential election in the event of a terror attack.

US counter-terrorism officials are examining what steps would be needed to permit a delay, Newsweek reports.

Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge last week warned al-Qaeda was planning to attack the US to disrupt the poll but conceded he had no precise information.

A senior Democrat in Congress has said talk of postponement is "excessive".


Doomsday scenarios

In its latest edition, Newsweek reports that Mr Ridge has asked the Justice Department to examine what legal steps would be needed to permit the postponement of the 2 November election.

This follows a letter from the chairman of the new Election Assistance Commission, DeForest Soaries, who urged Mr Ridge to seek emergency legislation from Congress that would allow his agency to reschedule the vote in the event of an attack.


If they do this, boy, my God, they're extremely desperate
Ciro Rodriguez
Democrat Congressman

Mr Soaries noted that while New York's board of elections suspended primary elections on 11 September 2001, "the federal government has no agency that has the statutory authority to cancel and reschedule a federal election."
Homeland Security Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse told Newsweek, "We are reviewing the issue to determine what steps need to be taken to secure the election."

Republican Representative Christopher Cox, who chairs the House Homeland Security Committee, told CNN that it was prudent to prepare for a postponement.

"These are doomsday scenarios. We don't have any intelligence to suggest that it is going to happen, but we're preparing for all of these contingencies now."

Old information

But Jane Harman, the senior Democrat on the House of Representatives Intelligence Committee, said proposing a postponement would be "excessive based on what we know".


She also criticised Mr Ridge's suggestion that al-Qaeda was planning to disrupt the election, saying the warning was based on old information.

The BBC's Justin Webb in Washington says the Democrats' unspoken fear is that the White House will play on the nerves of Americans as the election nears, hoping to gain support from a nation fearful of any change in course.

It is a difficult strategy for the Democrats to counter.

If they appeared complacent and terrorists did strike, they would be politically destroyed, he says.

No US presidential election has ever been postponed.

Abraham Lincoln was urged by some aides to suspend the election of 1864 - during the US Civil War - but despite the expectation that he would lose, he refused.

"The election is a necessity," Lincoln said. "We cannot have a free government without elections; and if the rebellion could force us to forgo, or postpone, a national election, it might fairly claim to have already conquered us."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3885663.stm

 

[SoundDust]

Re: And so it begins......

If Al Qaeda are planning terrorism for the US elections specifically to get Bush re-elected (I'm sure I posted the article here but I can't find it) and Bush is planning to postpone elections if he does then you don't really need a conspiracy to hold it all together just two groups working towards their best interests.

there was something in Private Eye about one such group campaigning to do so, apparently for the reason that John Kerry's policies will give people less reasons to hate America. It was fairly recent iirc, I'll have a look for it at some point when I get the chance

 

[Anonymous]

yeah well, apparently the new buzz word is (since Anti-american lost its popularity when those using it probably realised the history behind the phrase they were slinging at people no doubt) to say it's all conspiracy.

In the kingdom of the blind...

 

[Anonymous]

I'm somewhat baffled.

If the US could organise an election during a massive global conflict in 1944, why can't they do so now in the event of relatively minor terrorist attacks?

 

[SoundDust]

this is what I was looking for

An unrelated videotape of a man describing himself as Al Qaeda's European military spokesman also claimed responsibility for the Madrid bombing, saying it was in retaliation for outgoing Spanish prime minister Jose Maria Aznar's domestically-unpopular support for the US-led Iraq war.

In a shock election result three days after the Madrid bombs, Spain voted in the Socialist party, which has since said it will probably withdraw its troops from Iraq.

"The Spanish people ... chose peace by choosing the party that was against the alliance with America," the statement said.

The statement said it supported US President George W Bush in his re-election campaign and would prefer him to win in November rather than the Democratic candidate John Kerry, as it was not possible to find a leader "more foolish than you [Bush], who deals with matters by force rather than with wisdom".

In comments addressed to Mr Bush, the group said "Kerry will kill our nation while it sleeps because he and the Democrats have the cunning to embellish blasphemy and present it to the Arab and Muslim nation as civilisation".

"Because of this we desire you [Bush] to be elected."

The group is named after Muhammed Atef, also known as Abu Hafs, a close bin Laden aide killed in the US-led war in Afghanistan

 

[Philo_T]

:devil:
I find it most amusing that the chairman of the new Election Assistance Commission, DeForest Soaries' first major action is to investigate not having the election.

Problem solved.
/:devil:

 

[ShadowPrime]

Ah yes... well, this IS the Conspiracy portion of the board, after all...

People on here tend to get rather agitated whenever the term "bias" is introduced -- although I cannot for the life of me see why. We ALL have biases.. viewpoints... philosophies... outlooks ... that we have developed. These are only problematic if they cause us to refuse to address ascertainable facts.

This, to me, is a big YAWNER. If the Bush Administration.. indeed, if ANY administration (at some other similar time) was failing to research the POSSIBILITY of having to postpone elections, in the face of a possible potential post-attack chaotic situation, they would be criminally inept -- ESPECIALLY in light of the terror attacks in Spain, showing (if any such proof was needed!) that Al Queda and company are indeed not insensitive to the timing of elections. And I have NO doubt that, if such an attack took place (say, knocking out the powergrid in a number of major cities, for example), and NO plan was in place, and "voting irregularities" occured, this Board would be filled with sound and fury about the incompetence (or sinister intent) of the Bush administration.

What fascinates as well is the notion that anyone can seriously believe that such a delaying of elections would do ANYTHING but hurt Bush when the eventual elections WERE held (and we all know they would be, ASAP, that the American press would be howling like devils about it from day one!). But again, logic has never been a strong suit of the conspiracy theorists.

Which just goes to show that some here will miss no opportunity to get excited about ANYTHING Bush and company do.

Now, if you want to couch my dismissal of this as evidence of a pro-Bush bias, please explain to me why the government SHOULDN'T be taking a look at this contingency. Why NOT researching it, planning around it, examining the legalities and relevant policies would be a GOOD idea.

Shadow

 

[Anonymous]

I'm okay with a less-than-a-month delay in the case of a massive attack RIGHT ON election day, but I'm not putting it past Bush to use any attack anytime in November to hold onto office.

I haven't read the articles really, but it seems awful creepy to me.

 

[lopaka]

(i've been unable to find the full text of the actual letter from Soaries to Ridge. If anyone has seen it and can post, that'd be great.)

Actually Shadow, I'm not in total disagreement with you: 1) Exploring what-if possibilities and contingencies is not, in and of itself, anything more than one would expect. And 2) trying to figure out (in advance no less), whether Kerry or Bush would get an electoral advantage from a) the election going off with no attack, b) the election held on time despite an attack, or c) the election being delayed for say, two weeks after an attack is speculative in the extreme and frankly unknowable.

But let's get back to basics, shall we?

Constitution of the United States

Article I, Section 4

The times, Places and Manner of Holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, [...]

Article II, Section 3

The Congress may determine the Time of choosing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States

So, short of congress passing some kind of law that would give the executive branch essentially a blank check AND that passed constituional muster, Bush, Ridge, the Election Assistance Commission (created to help avoid another Florida debacle), don't have squat to say about it as far as I can tell. (my constituional law is all self-taught ).

And given how heavy-handed this administration has been in declaring what, as commander-in-chief, Bush, et al can do (see the 'enemy combatants' designation, for exaple) and in general greatly extending the power of the exective branch, the skepticism and even suspicion that people have about this news is not out of line.

 

[ignatiusII]

But it isn't a conspiracy in any sense of the word; it's all very upfront and matter-of-fact. ''This Is How Things Are'' America - and if you don't like it, well...what are you, some sort of traitor? that's it, isn't it? giving comfort and support to the enemy...terrorist sympathiser! You'd damn well better vote Bush! Bullshit. For the majority of his term, Mr. Bush has done little else than take steps to ensure his reelection. THAT is his main priority, and to hell with everything else ( and the fact that there are serious discussions underway that Bush might actually give Cheney his walking papers as he might be a 'liability' in getting a second term is just one example ). In the case of our only real ally, Britain, Blair stepped up to the bat for Bush and has been left to twist in the wind. All that matters is the end result, and to hell with the bodies strewn in the wake of this administration's ( non-existent )foreign policy. John Kerry is by no means what one would call the ideal presidential candidate, but the stakes for this nation have never been higher, and almost anyone, republican or democrat, would be preferable to Mr. Bush. None so blind as those who refuse to see...

 

[lopaka]

Maybe they'll just cancel the elections now...then the terorists wouldn't have any reason to attack before the election...ummm, right?

Hey ignatius, going completely OT, but did you hear about Dr. Malakoff? The guy who was Cheney's personal physician, assured the nation four years ago that Cheney was physically fit to be VP despite three heart attacks and quadruple bypass. THEN declared him fine to return to work after his 4th?

They've now dropped him. Turns out all that time (and in fact until just recently) Dr.Malakoff was gobbling narcotics like those kids from the film Drugstore Cowboy . Inspiring, ain't it?

 

[Anonymous]

Why a change???

Well there is a number 11 connection here.
Bill.

 

[phi23]

Futility in extremis.

In order for a democratic election to take place a date has to be set. So a delay is futile if another date still has to be announced.

Any sabotage plans can be altered to fit any date and time, and there will always be sufficient notice to accomodate any plans set up by the SS (Homeland security).

What/All this does is further empower the progenitors of diplomatic dissassembly.

The Fear will ultimately overcome the right to vote. "who wants to go and put a cross on a piece of paper and be blown up doing it"?

The actions are becomming increasingly more insideous and more blatant, and I aint talking 'bout the terrorists here.

 

[ShadowPrime]

Pi, Pi, Pi...

Earlier, I noted that there was nothing wrong about having biases -- we ALL have them after all! -- unless they keep us from "seeing" the facts. With due respect, I think you are falling into that trap...

What I have read...and maybe I am missing something ... suggests that bipartisan officials are looking into what to do should it become necessary... or at least worthy of consideration... to delay elections because of an ATTACK. Not -- at least as far as I have read... because of a POTENTIAL attack. In other words, no, this is NOT a ploy to just keep delaying the election indefinitely on the basis of illdefined threats.... some sinister ploy by Bush to hang onto power. It simply ISN'T.

Shadow

 

[Melf]

In other words, no, this is NOT a ploy to just keep delaying the election indefinitely on the basis of illdefined threats.... some sinister ploy by Bush to hang onto power. It simply ISN'T.

Shadow

excuse me, shadow!

will the president be able to "rule alone" for the whole of the "state of emergency" or will the military take over?

 

[ShadowPrime]

*SIGH*

Okay, MELF...tell me what YOU would do...

Lets see...lets just suppose that terrorists, on election day, stage attacks that knock out ALL the power in NYC, Philadelphia, Boston... Chicago... San Fran... pick a few more major cities. And not just those cities, of course, but surrounding environs. Creating chaos.

Or worse... more lethal attacks.

I guess in your mind, it is full speed ahead, eh? Sure, lots of people may be unable to get to the polls. To have their votes counted. But too bad for them, right? The show must go on! And of course, YOU would be perfectly fine if that happened...and..say..Bush won the election, right? R-I-G-H-T... *S*

Did you note, maybe... that in the articles referenced, it is made clear that this is an inquiry by a bipartisan commission, and there is discussion of probably needing to go to Congress to get clarifying legislation?

SO..back to you, Melf... please DO explain how you would handle things...in other words, your position is the USA should not plan, not work out, what to do in case a major terror attack disrupts elections. Is that it?

There must be a LOT more tinfoil hats out there than even I thought...

Shadow

 

[Melf]

*SIGH* Okay, MELF...tell me what YOU would do...

Lets see...lets just suppose that terrorists, on election day, stage attacks that knock out ALL the power in NYC, Philadelphia, Boston... Chicago... San Fran... pick a few more major cities. And not just those cities, of course, but surrounding environs. Creating chaos. Or worse... more lethal attacks.

[/b]

(are you sure you want me say what i want think? after all you may/could be a "sleeping troll" alledgedly!. )

political hearsay! please prove it!

ibid[

I guess in your mind, it is full speed ahead, eh? Sure, lots of people may be unable to get to the polls. To have their votes counted. But too bad for them, right? The show must go on! And of course, YOU would be perfectly fine if that happened...and..say..Bush won the election, right? R-I-G-H-T... *S* Did you note, maybe... that in the articles referenced, it is made clear that this is an inquiry by a bipartisan commission, and there is discussion of probably needing to go to Congress to get clarifying legislation?

let the american grassroots people decide!
"maybe"????? :- sorry but you didnt mention that word earlier

ibid again

SO..back to you, Melf... please DO explain how you would handle things...in other words, your position is the USA should not plan, not work out, what to do in case a major terror attack disrupts elections. Is that it?

1) i dont know enough of us electrol practises (but please do enlighten us (and non americans & et all). please!

ibid
I guess in your mind, it is full speed ahead, eh? Sure, lots of people may be unable to get to the polls. To have their votes counted. But too bad for them, right? The show must go on! And of course, YOU would be perfectly fine if that happened...and..say..Bush won the election, right? R-I-G-H-T... *S* Did you note, maybe... that in the articles referenced, it is made clear that this is an inquiry by a bipartisan commission, and there is discussion of probably needing to go to Congress to get clarifying legislation?

let the american grassroots people decide!

again

SO..back to you, Melf... please DO explain how you would handle things...in other words, your position is the USA should not plan, not work out, what to do in case a major terror attack disrupts elections. Is that it?

2) i dont know enough of us electrol pracitices

yet even again There must be a LOT more tinfoil hats out there than even I thought...

by the way!

i think youre insulting the rest of your compatiots, aswell as the rest of the world

i and other posters might take exception of your comment! :grrr:

oh by the way you havent answered my question!


(edited to correct the php tags, at Melf's request... text remains unchanged)

 

[Anonymous]

There was an election in 1864 as well, during a full blown Civil War, and yet people voted.
Is the current population made of less stern stuff?

 

[Melf]

by physicis. the current population made of less stern stuff?

guess so, phys., but lets wait until shadow replys to our posts. please

 

[ShadowPrime]

Physik:

I don't see that it has anything to do with the populace being less ... I don't know.. tough?... whether they ARE tougher or not. It just has to do with the way modern elections are run. AND the potential magnitude of disruption modern terrorists can potentially achieve.

Look... this is getting beaten to death. If you want to spin this as some sort of sinister Bush plot, I do think it is incumbent on you to explain why it would be BETTER for the US govt to..

... NOT plan for the possibility of a terror attack disrupting the fall elections...

... NOT identify any potential problems and consult with Congress re the legal situation.

Otherwise, I am going to stick to my view -- which is that the SMART thing to do IS to make contingency plans, nothing sinister about it.

Shadow

 

[Anonymous]

ER'H!!!!!

LIFE WITH BIG BROTHER
Bush to screen population for mental illness
Sweeping initiative links diagnoses to treatment with specific drugs

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: June 21, 2004
5:00 p.m. Eastern



© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com

President Bush plans to unveil next month a sweeping mental health initiative that recommends screening for every citizen and promotes the use of expensive antidepressants and antipsychotic drugs favored by supporters of the administration.

The New Freedom Initiative, according to a progress report, seeks to integrate mentally ill patients fully into the community by providing "services in the community, rather than institutions," the British Medical Journal reported.