U.S. Mulling How to Delay Elections in Case of Attack

[JohnRM]

U.S. Mulling How to Delay Elections in Case of Attack

WASHINGTON (July 11) - 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-Qaida, Newsweek reported Sunday.

Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge warned last week that Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida 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 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 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."

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."


07/11/04 11:50 ET

Copyright 2004 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters shall not be liable for any errors or delays in content, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon. All active hyperlinks have been inserted by AOL.

Any comments?

 

[downtown]

I wouldnt want to be the person to pull the trigger on this choice. If the elections were delayed for more then 2 weeks, I think that rioting Americans would be a bigger problem then Terrorists could ever be

 

[Yaype]

I was just going to post this same article if somebody else had not already done it.

I think this is something major to worry about. Regardless of who you want in control of the U.S. come 2005, delaying the elections is a troublesome idea. If, and I certainly hope it never happens, this were to happen, the delay better be short and quick with the usual handing over of the reins coming at its typical scheduled date. We better keep our eyes on this, because this is potentially as much of a problem as anything we have seen yet in terms of liberties being taken away in the name of counterterrorism.

 

[Duddha]

And America moves even closer to losing its Republic...

I actually think if a major attack occured the day before or day of a Federal election that the election should be pushed back, but no longer than a week or two.

 

[JohnRM]

Short of a large scale attack, involving the deaths of more than ten thousand persons; the election should continue, regardless. Delaying the election would only signal a success to the enemy and encourage them to attack, again.

 

[Sanaz]

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

I'd be more concerned if all possibilities weren't being explored. Maybe I'm not paranoid enough.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Did anyone know that if the president activates FEMA (which is how martial law is declared nowadays), six months have to pass before Congress can review the decision?

 

[FriendlyFire]

Didn't FDR cancel the elections for the first time in WW2 ?
Which was in fact the darkest days.

Not too worried about a delayed or cancelled election, What would be far more serious is if the election results were disputed again. Ugly fighting and fallout from recounts.
They have to get it right this time or america would be in serious trouble.

Ok canning the election for 4yrs would be unacceptable. GWB dosnt have to support of congress let alone the nation to do so. The US would quickly become paralyised with protest and strikes.

 

[Chairman Meow]

Didn't FDR cancel the elections for the first time in WW2 ?

No, there has never been a cancelled election, even during WWII.

 

[Archer 007]

We cant cancel the election.

 

[Zwelgje]

Postponing an election means that the terrorists have won. That's exactly what they want: disrupting the society.

 

[zulu9812]

I see George Bush is getting his excuses ready early....

 

[Chieftess]

Well, things are starting to get... interesting... (like the ancient Chinese proverb/curse). I don't know if people will riot over a delayed election though. (maybe those who cry "conspiracy theory!"?)

 

[Flak]

Amazing that this country could be invaded (1812), fight a Civil War, fight a World War, yet still hold punctual elections in every case. However a terrorist attack somehow would be allowed to eclipse all of these events and be an excuse for delaying an election. Very convenient.

I see a few possiblitites here:

1. Americans have become huge wimps, especially if they actually support such a thing.

OR

2. It's a conspiracy by those in power to remain in power.

OR

3. Nobody is serious about this. It was a casual brief remark taken out of context by the press (wouldn't be the first time, won't be the last) that is being blown dramatically out of proportion.


I highly suspect #3.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

A few months ago I made a thread stating that the Bush administration would use a terrorist attack to postpone or cancel the elections. The consensus seemed to be that I was a wacked conspiracy nut. But lo and behold, now the administration itself is signalling that thats exactly what it plans to do. What are the nattering naysayers saying now? This is why I never completely dismiss conspiracy theories, occasionally theyre right.

 

[cgannon64]

I'll say what I said last time: Contingency plans need to be made for this sort of thing.

Although this is pretty scary, simply because playing with this kind of fire is never good.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

CG, theyre laying the groundwork. Why does a terrorist attack immediately mean that the elections have to be postponed? What does one have to do with the other? Did Britain or Ireland ever postpone elections because of terrorism? Did any Western country ever do that? Not to my knowledge.

 

[cgannon64]

Did Britain or Ireland ever have a large enough terrorist attack that postponing an election was even rational? You're not going to postpone an election for a carbomb, you're going to postpone it for an attack big enough that it scares people away from the polls.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Abraham Lincolns response to people urging him to postpone the elctions of 1864, during the Civil War:

"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."

 

[test_specimen]

Currently, if you expect the worst, it's exactly what you'll get. The 21st century will probably be known as the "hate to say I told you so"-century for pessimists and cynics.