STORM2K

Exclusive: Election Day Worries
July 19 issue - American counterterrorism officials, citing what they call "alarming" intelligence about a possible Qaeda strike inside the United States this fall, are reviewing a proposal that could allow for the postponement of the November presidential election in the event of such an attack, NEWSWEEK has learned.

The prospect that Al Qaeda might seek to disrupt the U.S. election was a major factor behind last week's terror warning by Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge. Ridge and other counterterrorism officials concede they have no intel about any specific plots. But the success of March's Madrid railway bombings in influencing the Spanish elections—as well as intercepted "chatter" among Qaeda operatives—has led analysts to conclude "they want to interfere with the elections," says one official.
As a result, sources tell NEWSWEEK, Ridge's department last week asked the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel to analyze what legal steps would be needed to permit the postponement of the election were an attack to take place. Justice was specifically asked to review a recent letter to Ridge from DeForest B. Soaries Jr., chairman of the newly created U.S. Election Assistance Commission. Soaries noted that, while a primary election in New York on September 11, 2001, was quickly suspended by that state's Board of Elections after the attacks that morning, "the federal government has no agency that has the statutory authority to cancel and reschedule a federal election." Soaries, a Bush appointee who two years ago was an unsuccessful GOP candidate for Congress, wants Ridge to seek emergency legislation from Congress empowering his agency to make such a call. Homeland officials say that as drastic as such proposals sound, they are taking them seriously—along with other possible contingency plans in the event of an election-eve or Election Day attack. "We are reviewing the issue to determine what steps need to be taken to secure the election," says Brian Roehrkasse, a Homeland spokesman.

—Michael Isikoff

That is some big news IMHO. I will be interested to know what the procedure would be to do such a thing... although that info. will probably never be released.

Not so big IMO.. How foolish would it be to not have a plan in place?

chadtm80 wrote:Not so big IMO.. How foolish would it be to not have a plan in place?

I am not referring to the fact that we have/need a contigency plan as much as the reasons behind making this decision.

???

To not allow the elections to proceed as scheduled despite an AQ attack would be our declaration to the World that we are wimps and chickens and would be precisely what AQ wants. OBL would like nothing more than to see us postpone our elections as proof of the Superiority of his maniacal brand of Islam over the Infidels of the West.

Steve

Aslkahuna wrote:To not allow the elections to proceed as scheduled despite an AQ attack would be our declaration to the World that we are wimps and chickens and would be precisely what AQ wants. OBL would like nothing more than to see us postpone our elections as proof of the Superiority of his maniacal brand of Islam over the Infidels of the West.

Steve

Exactly.

although that info. will probably never be released.

I agree that it shouldn't be unless the time arose that it was needed.
...Jennifer...

I have to agree with Steve here.. If we postpone our elections.. that will have Osama, and all the other terrorists chanting victory because they got what they wanted.

Even if we are attacked.. The elections still need to take place. It would prove how resiliant and how strong as a unity we are.

I do agree we MUST do EVERYTHING possible to make sure they go off as normal.. However to not have a plan on what to do IF the need arose would be rediculous.

Is it me or what? I posted this back on July 2nd and got no response. Now this weekend it is all over the place.

BEER980 wrote:Is it me or what? I posted this back on July 2nd and got no response. Now this weekend it is all over the place.

It hit the media. I heard the story(on TV) for the first time today.

It is as foolish not to prepare a plan, as it is foolish not to have emergency plans in place should Congress be decapitated either partly or on a mass scale.

I also think it is vital that this happens with full consultation of both parties. It would be vital that a plan have full bi-partisan support.

I agree we do not want terrorist to be able to disrupt our electoral process, but if a mass attack happened it would be just as important that a portion of the population not be left out of the election. If postponing it would allow a more thorough electoral praticipation and process, then it must be postponed to insure that.

stormchazer wrote:I agree we do not want terrorist to be able to disrupt our electoral process, but if a mass attack happened it would be just as important that a portion of the population not be left out of the election. If postponing it would allow a more thorough electoral praticipation and process, then it must be postponed to insure that.

This is precisely why an attack directly disrupting the election would be so catastrophic IMHO... the possibilities are endless. If the election were moved to a new day and the attack was very large-scale, the losing party would inevitably contest the results and claim that extenuating circumstances were to blame for his loss, sending us into a state of chaos. Well, I suppose that is the extreme scenario, but there are just too many scenarios to imagine. Needless to say it is critically important to maximize security around that timeframe and do everything humanly possible to prevent an attack that would impact the voting process.

Well, there would be Constitutional issues involved and it's important to note that ALL Elections are run by the States and not the Feds so any local planning should be at the State level with the Feds only providing assistance. Currently, there ARE no provisions for postponing an election and it would require a change to the Constitution to change the date or an act of Congress to establish temporary provisions. But I still say that it would be a horrible idea-although we disagree with the results, Spain still went on with their elections should we do less?

Steve

Aslkahuna wrote:But I still say that it would be a horrible idea-although we disagree with the results, Spain still went on with their elections should we do less?

Steve

Where dignity and morals are concerned, it would seem that continuing with the election regardless of what early November brings is the only way to go, but until we see the nature of the potential attack it would be impossible to say if that is feasible. A biological threat would clearly be one scenario in which voter turnout would be critically compromised on a wide scale. Even a chemical attack in a large city would impact the results on a scale that could easily tip the scales of the race, depending on where and what state. If we go with a more "traditional" attack, ranging from something such as the train bombings up to 9/11, it would seem that the likelihood of changing the outcome (based on alteration of voter turnout alone -- NOT considering the psychological effect on who the voters choose) would not be quite so great.

chadtm80 wrote:I do agree we MUST do EVERYTHING possible to make sure they go off as normal.. However to not have a plan on what to do IF the need arose would be rediculous.

I agree Chad and IMHO--if a situation similar to 911 happenned the day before the elections, the elections should still go on--dont let the terrorists win by disrupting our elections!!! The ONLY reason why it should ever be delayed is if the electorial process is compromised or IOW affected by an attack...as such that there cant be an accurate count-if the system were attacked directly likely electronically or by attack of an important place having to do with elections directly...Then, It would be necessary to have a later election for an accurate count--otherwise, if we postpone elections, they win!