We’ve all been wondering when the trial balloon would be launched, in earnest. Well, today is the day.
American counter-terrorism 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.
So, there you have it. The suckers scribes at Newsweek have taken the bait. But you’ll notice something odd:
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.
They’re gnashing their teeth over the “success” of the Madrid Bombings in influencing the elections. You bet they are. However, nowhere does Newsweek mention, that with all these warnings, they haven’t raised the threat level.
Hmmmm . . . Makes you wonder: you think they might be a bit worried about their poll numbers?
And here’s the kicker:
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.
They want to seek emergency legislation to do this. I’m sure Tom DeLay will oblige them.
Seriously, though: I hate to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but this one, however, is so over the top that you just have to wonder! I mean, if there were a nuclear explosion, ok, I can see it. But vague warnings that lead to legislation?
It’s all politics now, folks.
Update: Corrente has some comments and links as well.
More: Seeing The Forest is taking bets about whether we have an election or not.
More: Reuters, via Yahoo! has some more. But not much. And there is a diary over at Kos that speaks to this. Not to mention Digby And then there is an AP piece that Nick just posted in the comments, here.
Update 7/12/2004: Billmon has some very cogent thoughts about this whole issue. His thought expirement is very much worth a read!
I think it’s all contingency planning. To not have a plan on the shelf, knowing what we now know, would be irresponsible.
. . . to do contingency planning. Claiming that’s their motive now is BS. And we all know it. Three years to plan for this. Heck, they cannot even get e-voting right.
the war on terrorism is expected to take years to accomplish- I have no interest in having a Emperor Bush around that long.
By even proposing this we are telling terrorists that we will allow them to postpone our election.
We should be sending the opposite message … making it clear that under no circumstances will the election be postponed. Also having a republican appointee in charge of the decision is asinine.
The guy making this proposal should be fired immediately.
eom
I’d really be interested in what agonistas (anonymous & familiar) think about this. Specifically:
Damn, I wish we could take a poll.
rather than take a poll, it would be best if we talked about it first.
For starters, I think you have to take this real seriously, as it was writting by none other than Michael ‘izzy-in-the-middle’Isikoff, himself.
Really, I mean, just step back and look at this for what it is: it is a trial balloon. There have been other leaks about this in the past. If I recall correctly, Gen. Franks mentioned in, of all places, Cigar Afficianado. I think in the last few days it’s been bandied about elsewhere. And listen, I DO NOT want to take something like this seriously. But, as I said before, we are talking about a Newsweek Exclusive.
And I wonder what White House squib leaked this one. Oh our great and glorious
suckersscribes will stoop to next.I wrote one just a few seconds ago but Scoop ate it.
Anyway, the point was: remember, this is a trial balloon. Let’s see how the media handles it when it begins to circulate. That, in my opinion, will be the key to unlocking this.
But if you ask me what my gut tells me. Yeah, they’ll try it if they think they can get away with it.
http://www.freep.com/news/latestnews/pm20449_20040625.htm
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.”
Here’s a freeper thread on it from March 16… interesting IMHO
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1099072/posts?q=1&&page=1
Though I too hate to think about it, the venue the WH chose is, as you say, prominent enough to force the issue.
It is a thoroughly tainted proposal, of course–one that would never see the light of day if Bushco thought they were “winning” & that could only get through Congress if the majority managed to shove it through. Which is doubtful, in this case.
I don’t think it’s got a serious chance. Too many citizens are much too upset by the mendacity and incompetence of the last four years, if nothing else. This isn’t Florida in 2000.
Besides, what makes anyone think the Spaniards are unhappy with the results of their election?
Bush/Cheney may be unhappy with it. Spain seems very satisfied.
btw, funny, isn’t it, that the special ops license-to=kill squad in the Nixon WH were known as the plumbers, while in this WH, it’s the leakers. These guys can’t seem to get out of the crapper, n’est-ce pas…?!?
What can be envisioned taking place that it would be necessary to postpone elections?
Spain is actually an example opposite what is being claimed. They held elections in spite of the blasts. It’s a specious argument to say that the blasts were directly related to Spanish troops leaving Iraq, and that the blasts were meant to sway the election to this effect.
Aznar, contrary to popular opinion, sent troops to Iraq anyway. The bungling of the investigation that followed and the obvious manipulation foisted on the public easily explains the election outcome.
To say the bombings had no effect would be ignorant. But to claim to know clearly the motive behind them and then point to these claims as facts is unscrupulous.
These folks are desperate. Are they desperate enough to allow or assist in ‘just the right event’ happening that would validate a postponement? I dunno, and that in itself is saying something.
What would just the right event be?
Anthrax sent to election officials? (cleverly dubious)
‘Verified’ threats specifically mentioning the election? (remember the UBL video offered as proof of his involvement in 9/11? Why hasn’t any independent Arab speaking source transcribed the tape? because it’s unintelligible. I attempted to make knowable what was said on an undercover recording for the State Police in a murder-for-hire case using digital methods. You can’t reveal what is not there. Not even if you’re Buck Rogers)
Just thinkin’ out loud here. But as far as I’m concerned, there can be no valid reason to postpone the elections without having to demote it on the priority list in the first place. Absent that, it could only be a coup.
We have never suspended elections–not even in the midst of a civil war, with draft riots and battles that left tens of thousands dead on both sides. Talk about profiles in cowardice!
I’mm mull them over and let you know. But I think this comment is pretty apt. Never, even through the darkest days of the civil war was an election postponed. Period. This is would be a farce if these folks weren’t so
malevolentuntrustworthy.I like that!
The only thing I feel that would justify postponing the election would be something where the election itself was ruined, where the ability to get to voting booths was life threatening, where we were actually under attack at that moment.
This is a possibility.
but is it probable? I do not think so. At least not yet. And if it did happen, what would that say about Bush’s vaunted efforts to secure the homeland? Has he made the world safer, as he is so fond of claiming?
I didn’t think so.
I don’t think there’s anything preventing it from happening. If illegal aliens are getting into the country, what’s to keep someone from coming across with C4 strapped to their body? What’s to keep many people from doing it?
As for “vaunted efforts”, I think history will testify that no matter how fantastic we think our protection is now, or even how great it could be, we’re only at the tip of the iceberg for what needs to be done, no matter who is in charge and no matter how much money has been thrown at the problem. There is only so much that can be done with the limited resources and tech currently available in the three years since 9-11. I expect there will need to be an additional revolution in technology (nano?, KB advances?, AI drones?) to really tackle this problem at our borders and within.
In the 2000 elections the neo-cons were not in power, and yet they managed to subvert the process and place Bush in the White House.
Now that they are in power, if the need arises, you can rest assured that they will do “something”. Exactly what this “something” might be, nobody knows yet. But remember – it’s much easier for them this time around.
See this is a part of the problem. We start out by discussing what the threshold is for postponing an election. Then we all seem to agree that a nuke would be a reasonable time to postpone an election. However, then you come in and say, sure, but . . . C4 strapped to their bodies. It’s a false comparison. So which is it? A few suicide bombs are going to keep Americans from their public duty? If so, I think you sorely underestimate the American people.(Or perhaps I overestimate them, but I do not think that is the case.)
And how can you say in one breath, that nothing is preventing a nuke from coming across our borders and then comapre it with C4? That’s an outrageous comparison.
And, I am not the one making the ‘vaunted claims’. I am not the one telling the American people that the war in Iraq has made them safer one momnet and then having my surrogates scare the besjesus out of them next with false terror briefings. I personally think that the American people need to have a leader who gives them a little reality check from time to time. One who says: “terrorism is inevitable. They will strike us. But, after all, we are the Americans and we will overcome this. We will not let it keep us from our mission. Nor will we use this as an opportunity to trade in our freedoms for more security.”
The leaders we have now are not leaders. They are fear mongers. And they are willing to peddle any small threat into a larger political victory.
That ain’t my America, buddy. Heck, that ain’t my planet!
Officials discuss how to delay Election Day
Talks stem from recent fears of terror attack timed to election
Sunday, July 11, 2004 Posted: 8:43 PM EDT (0043 GMT)
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, spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said.
The department wants to know about the possibility of granting emergency power to the newly created U.S. Election Assistance Commission, authority that Roehrkasse said was requested by DeForest B. Soaries Jr., the commission’s chairman.
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, New Jersey.
He wrote in April to Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge and national security adviser Condoleezza Rice asking them to seek such legislation from Congress, Roehrkasse said.
Roehrkasse said the recent discussions were sparked by intelligence indicating al Qaeda wants to “disrupt our democratic process.”
Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge warned of such an attack in a news conference last week, saying the warning was based on intercepted “chatter” among al Qaeda operatives. (Full story)
Roehrkasse noted, however, that there was no specific information suggesting such an attack would be aimed at the political conventions or the November 2 Election Day.
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, a member of the House Intelligence Committee, took issue with Ridge’s comments Sunday.
“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.
What has Homeland Security officials worried is that terrorists could attempt to disrupt the election in same way that March 11 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 Spanish election, Socialist Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero unseated Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar, whose government supported the U.S.-led war in Iraq.
I, too, hate to sound like a conspiricy theorist. On the other hand, I don’t want to go trhough life with blinkers on.
We have historical precedents of a government that fabricated an attack against itself to sway the public–the burning of the reichstag in Hitler’s Germany.
For anyone out there that may think they can get away with something like this here in my country–a word of warning:
I will not take something this lying down. And I suspect there are plenty of others who share my feelings.
We WILL have our election.
I too am outraged by this proposal to postpone elections, and very much sympathize with those who say they won’t take it lying down. However, I think we need to remain calm and continue planning our best strategy for each possible move the Bush administration may try.
For example, the proposal to postpone elections COULD be used as a provocation to bring people out into the streets. If that happens, BushCo will have an excuse to declare martial law.
I’m not saying they’ve thought that far ahead, but it is possible. I say we oppose their plan with everything we have EXCEPT any incitement to violence.
I wrote a comment about this a couple weeks ago when the issue came up. To repeat – I think that a massive attack someplace on election day would be a valid reason to postpone the elections in that locality. The elections go on everywhere else, get re run in that one city. SP says that nothing would prevent Americans from doing voting. I certainly could have voted on 9/11, but if I lived downtown – no. Or if I worked in Manhattan but lived someplace way out and used public transport. (entire massive transport mess meant a lot of people working in Manhattan got stuck there for a while.) And if there were a large scale wave of suicide bombings at polling places in my region I would definately think twice about going to vote.
Or maybe not. I remember the atmosphere on 9/11 – everyone was lining up at hospitals desperate to help – give blood, volunteer to go downtown, – anything. Nobody was thinking about it being dangerous. I spent that evening in the Village (they hadn’t shut down access completely yet). It was a very strange atmosphere but I think everyone there would have voted if they could – just as a gesture of defiance. But the logistics would have been crazy – you would have needed more security at a moment when the police were horribly overstretched.
I did not say that we would vote no matter what. I said that a nuclear explosion would be a good reason to postpone an election. But, yes, anything short of that, I think the elections should go on.
“1. If they have a good pretext, like attack on US soil, and if Bush is trailing in the polls – they might.”
Ya know, I could see this happening. My original reaction to the thread was coming from a pre-emptive view as oppossed to stopping the election in progress. Of course, we know it will take more than thugs showing up at election offices threatening workers until they stop counting.
“2. I am afraid they can. At least for a while. Especially with the Army being so pro-Republican in general and pro-Bush in particular. “
I am not so sure the Pentagon is as enamoured with Bush as they once were. He has hung them out there. Remember when they back-doored the Fallujah negotiations? That wasn’t a sign of support. If there is truly a national threat the military is there, no doubt in my mind. Short of that I think they watch it play out at home and let the FBI, what is left of the National Guard, and local responders handle it. Tough call though.
“3. Difficult to predict, from apathy among people to large scale riots and perhaps martial law in certain areas.”
Well, for sure. With so many of the National Guard in Iraq, what would martial law mean?
If the ‘event’ were merely fearful and chaotic I think the public reaction would be more vociferous than if another hugely impactful human tragedy occurred. If the event meant many lost lives, MO is the public would be more compliant and supportive of any action taken by government, including martial law.
If you think we’re upset, check out this morning’s column by Justin Raimondo at antiwar.com.
Damn, never mind. He makes some good points, but he’s gone totally rabid on the supposed persecution of Nader. Sorry, next time I’ll finish reading before I share.
Starting September 8th, the .com Internet will change from a 12+hr to a 5 minute ‘timeout’.
This plays into peoples fears about any attack resulting in coincidence by which ‘next time’ the internet as most people know it will simply go cold.
gory details linked from:
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/07/11/1741225
Like the prior poster, I hate to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but I don’t like feeling like a mushrom either!
This is all just too convenient; I thought these people were supposed to be in jail already!
If there was to be a 9/11 style terrorist attack in the days leading up to the election, and the election wasn’t postponed, wouldn’t there be a huge upsurge in ‘rally round the flag’ mentality?
This could result in Bush winning the election by a landslide as people react to the event, rather than the policies that caused it.
Postponment of the election would give Joe Q Public time to think about why their nation was under attack and give Bushco the old ‘Heave Ho’.
Or do I have too much faith in Joe Q. Public?
Postponing the election is a serious step to take.
Who has the authority to make the decision to postpone?
Is there anyone independent enough?
but it won’t work, IMO.
I wouldn’t put it past the cabal currently in power to do whatever they “think” furthers their agenda.
I just don’t think the public will swallow it. Or, rather, a large enough slice of the populace to thwart the attempt.
4 years, after all, is the standard measure of an education. John Q is ready to graduate.
Reuters Sun Jul 11, 2004 02:56 PM ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – A senior House Democratic lawmaker was skeptical on Sunday of a Bush administration idea to obtain the authority to delay the November presidential election in case of an attack by al Qaeda,
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.
“I think it’s excessive based on what we know,” said Rep. Jane Harman of California, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, in a interview on CNN’s “Late Edition.”
Isn’t it ironic that DeForest Soaries ran against Rush Holt in the 2002 election. Now we have Holt sponsoring a Bill requiring electronic voting to have a verifiable paper trail and we have Sories chairing the newly established Elections Assistance Commission that is supposed to deal with this matter. Humm <scratches head>
All Rights Reserved
Courier News (Bridgewater, NJ)
October 19, 2002 Saturday
SECTION: LOCAL; Pg. 2B
LENGTH: 360 words
HEADLINE: Soaries looks to organize party
BYLINE: Terri Needham, Staff
BODY:
By TERRI NEEDHAM
Staff Writer
The Rev. DeForest “Buster” Soaries left the church at one time because he was turned off by organized religion. He re-entered it to make some reforms and is now the pastor of a 6,000-member congregation.
Soaries, a former New Jersey secretary of state, said he wants to become part of Congress for the same reason.
He complains about the national political system, but thinks he has what it takes to improve it and the Republican Party.
“I think I can make an impact,” Soaries, 51, said Friday at a meeting with the Courier News editorial board.
Soaries, a Republican, is running against incumbent Rep. Rush Holt, a Democratic physicist from Hopewell Township, for the seat representing the newly reconfigured 12th Congressional District.
He identified the following to Courier News editors as important issues:
On Homeland security
Soaries supports the war on terror, the Office of Homeland Security and the resolution to authorize war against Iraq. He said people such as Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein must face consequences for their actions. “The issue is unity versus disunity, as we attempt to navigate this uncharted water,” he said. “Being on the receiving end of a holy war – that’s new stuff for this country.”
On The economy
The government needs to take steps, such as the tax cuts made by President Bush, to stimulate the economy, including strategies that support small businesses, encouraging people to invest and encouraging philanthropy, Soaries said. He believes some borrowing, for reasons such as supporting the war on terror, is legitimate, but thinks tax burdens should be minimized.
On Abortion
Soaries supports the Roe v. Wade decision, but is against late-term abortions and would favor a law requiring minors to get consent from an adult, although not necessarily a parent, before having an abortion.
On Cloning
Soaries supports a ban on human cloning for moral and ethical reasons. But he is for stem cell research, with some restrictions.
o
Terri Needham can be reached at (908) 707-3186 or tneedham@c-n.com.
THE REV. DeFOREST “BUSTER” SOARIES, 12th Congressional District candidate
LOAD-DATE: October 20, 2002
This will be the top story on tonights NBC Nightly News, barring big developments elsewhere:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032619
Nightly News tonight
It’s a doomsday scenario — what happens if the government has to postpone an election in the event of a terrorist attack? Plus, the values debate — what are both sides saying and how will it play out between now and November?
when exactly is the rest of the intelligence report supposed to be released. If they delay the election and the rest of the report comes out-that can’t be good for Bush.
http://scoop.agonist.org/story/2004/7/12/63118/5605
Time’s up in blame game
Ehsan Ahrari | July13, 2004
Asia Times Politics in Washington works in strange ways. A case in point is the Senate Intelligence Committee’s decision to divide its investigation of the US invasion of Iraq into two parts. The first part dealt with the reasons for intelligence failure, or false intelligence, governing that decision. That congressional report, issued on Friday, damned the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in asserting that the invasion was carried out on false intelligence.
However, conclusive statements on the second part – regarding the culpability of the administration of President George W Bush, whether it went to war for the wrong reasons, by creating disinformation about the weapons of mass destruction-related capabilities of Saddam Hussein and his intentions toward the United States – will come out after the November presidential elections. Yet that is the most important part of the investigation.
If an attack happened that would trigger this administration to cancel elections then obviously Homeland Security, the Patriot Act, invading Iraq and Afghanistan would be complete and utter failures.
The main focus of this administration has been protection against terrorism and preventing another 9/11. If the elections were to be cancelled because of an attack it would most definitely highlight the failure of this administration.
If the elections are postponed or cancelled what exactly can the American people do?
I don’t know that Gitmo is big enough to house more half the nation. LOL!
It really depends on the situation. Here are two different scenarios:
Scenario 1:
Following a series of government warnings from the government, there is a rash of bombings in several major metropolitain areas with relatively low death tolls. Due to the alerts, emergency services are even more responsive.
Scenario 2:
Without any warning, large cargo ships filled with flammable goods ram the towers of a major bridge during rush hour, and compromise the structural integrety of the bridge; killing several hunderd people and detstroying a landmark. Emergency response systems are not prepared for an event of that particular nature and scale.
In the US, the presidential election takes place in mid December, not in early November. The election in November is one where the electors are chosen.
Consequently, there is a natural deadline between the popular elections that take place early in November, and the presidential election that takes place a month later.
However, what surprises me about the discussion here is that it seems to ignore a major issue: that a federal agency should not have, or have at best lmited jurisdiction over the state election processes. This was at issue in the 2000 election debacle as well.
eom
Not at all clear that the Nazis did burn it. It now looks like the guy they tried for it actually did do it though without any connection to any political party, just a nut.
Verizon is just changing the update frequency of the .com and .net DNS servers from twice a day to every 5 minutes. But the TTL of cached entry remains 48 hrs.
It just means that changes to the DNS records will propagate a lot faster. There’s no nefarious purpose here.
The nature of the attack, and the preparation of the emergency services to handle it wouldn’t matter too much close to an election IMHO.
The fact that there had been an attack is what would be uppermost in most peoples minds, and that would trigger the ‘rally round the flag’ response.
Just imagine if 2001 had been an election year and 9/11 had been 10/11.
If the election had taken place at that time, patriotic feeling was so high that whoever the Whitehouse incumbent was, they would have had a shoo-in.
But I guess even postponing the election might not have the desired effect either. How long do you postpone for? Til an enquiry into the attack has been completed? The 9/11 enquiry is at nearly 3 years and counting.
Frankly, I put nothing past the Bush criminal enterprise. As Teresa Nielsen Hayden says, I deeply resent it that they’ve turned me into a tinfoil hat conspiracy theorist.
What happened last century when Republicans tried to usurp the rights of the states?
“What happened last century when Republicans tried to usurp the rights of the states?”
It is ironic that the roles of the various states seem to be reversed.
Perhaps the best defense against a coup would be speading the word that any attack in any form on the nation is evidence this administration’s War on Terror, for all its excesses, is a failure.
Attack=Failure
A simple message that requires no thinking, analysis or nuance.
by the way, will you send me an email please. I have lsot your email address in my last computer related meltdown!
With martial law declared and elections cancelled, it may not matter too much what connection people make in their minds with “Failure”
Well “martial law” is a worst case scenario for a hypothetical situation, I doubt it would actually come to that. If there is some sort of public discontent it would be handled by state and federal law enforcement agencies. Just want to clarify my point about the Army – they do want Bush for another 4 years (Fallujah notwithstanding), hence, if such hypothetical situation does happen, they will support him.
Martial law in Quebec
Liberal Party Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau suspended civil liberties in Quebec under provisions of the War Measures Act, using as his pretext the kidnapping of a British trade representative and a Quebec cabinet minister by the Front for the Liberation of Quebec, a separatist group.
Trudeau acted at the request of Quebec Liberal Premier Robert Bourassa, who claimed to have evidence of a conspiracy to assassinate government officials.
Montreal was placed under virtual police-military occupation and troops surrounded government buildings. Trudeau outlawed the FLQ, imposed press censorship and gave the police the right to conduct searches and make arrests without warrants.
Under the state of emergency anyone selling newspapers, handing out leaflets or making a public speech supporting the FLQ or opposing the government’s measures was subject to arrest.
Police began a roundup of members of the FLQ, as well as trade unionists and members of left-wing political organizations. All told, the police carried out more than 600 separate raids and arrested over 400 people.
Authorities stepped up the crackdown on October 18 with the discovery of the body of Quebec Labor Minister Pierre LaPorte, one of the hostages. The next day the Canadian parliament rubber-stamped the martial law order by a vote of 190-16.
The declaration of martial law came under conditions of mounting unemployment and class struggle throughout Quebec and Canada. Unemployment in parts of Quebec stood at over 10 percent. Two weeks earlier military units had been dispatched against striking General Motors workers in St. Therese, who were part of a joint strike by more than 300,000 Canadian and US auto workers.
The state of emergency was relaxed on December 3, after the FLQ released the British diplomat in exchange for safe passage to Cuba for three of the kidnappers and four family members.
The next two essays were written to mark anniversaries — the tenth anniversary of Pierre Trudeau’s invocation of the War Measures Act in 1970, and the sixtieth anniversary of Canada’s imprisoning eight communists in 1931. In both cases, men and women were jailed not because of anything they’d done, only because of their political beliefs.
“There are very few times in the history of any country when all persons must take a stand on critical issues. This is one of those times; this is one of those issues.” — Pierre Trudeau, October 16, 1970
he War Measures Act, which Pierre Trudeau invoked ten years ago this month, outlawed the Front de Libération du Québec (FLQ). The police and armed forces needed only suspect FLQ membership to arrest anyone, anywhere in Canada. Suspects could be held for twenty-one days without being charged, and for ninety days without a trial date being set. When a trial finally was scheduled, normal legal processes were to be reversed; suspects were guilty until proven innocent. Under the War Measures Act, hundreds were thrown in jail. Only two were convicted of FLQ membership. And none of those arrested provided police with information leading to the kidnappers of James Cross and Pierre Laporte.
Canadian “deference to authority,” as Edgar Z. Friedenberg describes it, was never more apparent than in our response to being the first western democracy to suspend civil liberties in peacetime. Four days after Trudeau brought in the WMA, a Gallup Poll revealed that eighty-eight per cent of us either approved of what the government had done or thought it should have gone farther. Only four per cent of those polled were opposed.
The media sometimes refer to themselves as the Fourth Estate. But Canada’s media seem uncertain about what the term means and implies. (In a speech to the British parliament, Edmund Burke listed the various estates of the realm that held control of the government — the Lords Spiritual, the Lords Temporal, and the Commons. But then, pointing to the press gallery, Burke added, “And yonder sits the Fourth Estate, more important than them all.”)
Canada’s media were almost unanimous in accepting the imposition of the WMA. The Halifax Chronicle-Herald, which had earlier asked for martial law (“a military court does not have to concern itself with the niceties and the mores and morals of capital punishment, or the channels or frustrations of criminal law”), was delighted. The Vancouver Sun declared: “At last, government has armed itself to fight fire with fire and match ruthlessness with ruthlessness.”
The two newspapers one might have expected most from lest us down. The Toronto Globe and Mail’s masthead daily proclaims in the words of Burke’s contemporary, Junius, that “The subject who is truly loyal to the Chief Magistrate will neither advise nor submit to arbitrary measures.” On the subject of the WMA the Globe was at first positively mealy-mouthed: “Only if we can believe that the Government has evidence that the FLQ is strong enough and sufficiently armed to escalate the violence that it has spawned for seven years now, only if we can believe that it is virulent enough to infect other areas of society, only then can the Government’s assumption of incredible powers be tolerated.” It wasn’t until later that the Globe began to ask tough questions.
Claude Ryan of Le Devoir initially opposed the use of the act. Its invocation simply confirmed “that Ottawa is the seat of real national government and that Quebec is after all only a rather more troublesome province than the others.” But the murder of Laporte made him reassess his position. The War Measures Act was excessive, he still felt, but perhaps exceptional measures were necessary.
Most editorials said the government wouldn’t have acted as it had without good reason. After all, as The Montreal Star put it, wasn’t Pierre Trudeau himself a civil libertarian? The Edmonton Journal accepted the situation because “we do not have the information available to the Government.” The Kingston Whig-Standard told its readers that the government is “obviously in possession of alarming information.” Le Soleil of Quebec City concluded that “if the authorities chose to resort to such extreme measures it is because they had good reasons.”
The government encouraged the view that it knew things that we, as mere citizens, couldn’t know. John Turner, then minister of justice, told the House of Commons on October 16: “It is my hope that some day the full details of the intelligence upon which the government acted can be made public, because until that day comes the people of Canada will not be able fully to appraise the course of action which has been taken by the government.” (That day still hasn’t come.) Some other cabinet members told Peter C. Newman of the Toronto Star that the real reason the WMA had been invoked was to prevent a coup d’état. The Star ran the story, unsigned, on page one. Other reporters had the story confirmed by their own sources and it was given wide circulation. Trudeau then accused the press and the opposition of spreading false rumours.
The only newspaper in Canada I know of that took an unequivocal editorial stand against the WMA was the Brandon Sun: “Prime Minister Trudeau has struck a great blow for the FLQ. Not at them. No single action can do more to bring people over to the side of violent separatism than the invoking by the Prime Minister of the War Measures Act….”
A few brave columnists shared that view. Alexander Ross, writing in The Financial Post, said “The police action now going on in Quebec makes anything Duplessis ever dared attempt look like bleeding-heart liberalism. If Trudeau can’t produce a really hairy conspiracy… to justify his action, it could have the effect… of making René Lévesque look more credible than ever.” James Eayrs, a Toronto Star columnist, reminded us that the WMA had been brutally employed once before in our history, to deprive Canada’s Japanese citizens of their liberties.
Most columnists, however, sounded much more like Charles Lynch of Southam News, who described Trudeau as an inspiration, “a new kind of hero.” The Globe and Mail’s Bruce West argued that “Those who have taken to the streets and the public squares with their bullhorns to attack the courageous stand of the Canadian Government in this grave hour should be plainly informed that the vast majority of our people are no longer in a mood to indulge in long and academic arguments about possible threats to our civil liberties.” West’s comments appeared on the same page of the Globe on which you will find a photograph; if you look hard enough, you’ll see my own earnest face peering out from a crowd of a few hundred demonstrators gathered in Toronto’s Nathan Phillips Square to protest the government’s action. (I’m just to the right of the bullhorn). If I look puzzled, it’s because the men and women around me are chanting, “Power to the people,” and I’m wondering if they’re aware of what they’re saying. We were being protected from an angry and much larger crowd that wanted to have at us by a circle of police. The papers that morning reported that 90% of Canadians approved of the imposition of the WMA.
Gérard Pelletier, secretary of state in 1970, phoned several important media figures, including George Davidson, then president of the CBC. He later said he called Davidson as an “individual” rather than as the minister to whom Davidson was responsible. Davidson, on the other hand, was sure Pelletier was acting as an official government spokesman. But he insisted that Pelletier’s call hadn’t influenced him. Whatever the truth, it’s clear that after their conversation the CBC began censoring itself in what became the most shameful episode in its history.
On October 15, a day before the WMA was brought in, Peter Trueman, then executive producer of CBC national news, was called into his superior’s office. In his book Smoke & Mirrors, Trueman recalls: “We were to avoid commentary and speculation of all kinds. We were not to use man-on-the-street interviews or shoot film of any public demonstration. We were to air no panel discussions on the October Crisis and were to avoid reporting speculation, particularly speculation about what the government was doing.”
The irony is that the CBC couldn’t even get its censorship act together. The night Pierre Laporte’s body was found, the CBC continued to broadcast the one thing it should have kept quiet about. It was still announcing that the body of James Cross had also been found, long after the news had been officially denied.
In October, 1975, CBC-TV presented a fascinating two-and-a-half hour drama-documentary, The October Crisis, that made up at least in part for the network’s shameful conduct five years earlier. It provided some important new pieces of information. The programme, for instance, included an interview with Eric Kierans, who was a cabinet minister in October, 1970. “It was a clear question of overkill,” he said. Robert Stanfield, leader of the opposition in 1970, told the CBC he personally hadn’t approved of the use of the WMA. His party voted for it because of the Gallup Poll’s figures. “I compromised,” he explained sadly. Robert Bourassa said he hadn’t believed Québec was facing an apprehended insurrection. He’d had to use those words to justify bringing in the WMA.
There was some media reaction to the programme. Peter Trueman apologized publicly not only for going along with CBC censorship but also for criticizing reporter Tim Ralfe, who had angrily confronted Trudeau. “I should have given Ralfe a medal,” he said. A few newspapers that had supported the government in the first place made it clear they now felt differently. The Montreal Gazette, for example, declared, “The use of the War Measures Act to stem the so-called apprehended insurrection in October 1970, was an unjustified act of mass intimidation not supported by the facts available at the time, facts that were manipulated by our highest political leaders to suit their own purposes.”
But for the most part, the media greeted The October Crisis with a yawn. There was no great cry of outrage that Trudeau had refused to be interviewed. Or that following the programme, Mitchell Sharp had said we’d probably have to wait until the year 2000 to get details of the events leading up to the WMA. (Cabinet minutes aren’t made public for thirty years.) We had vicariously experienced Watergate and the WMA seemed small potatoes by comparison.
Somehow it seems to me that what Trudeau did to us ten years ago is worse than what Nixon did to the U.S. What Nixon did hurt himself and his cronies far more than it hurt anyone else. As a result of Watergate, the American Fourth Estate is now, if anything, too cocky, too vigilant in guarding against government abuse. There’s no certainty that the Canadian media learned anything from 1970.
I would guess is that Canada’s Fourth Estate will respond as timidly the next time as it did the last. “On issues of this sort,” James Eayrs writes, “a citizen takes his stand not by a protracted process of reasoned calculation, but rather by instantaneous and instinctive commitment to values he holds because of all that life has made him. Response comes first, then rationale.” The sad fact is that we Canadians aren’t knee-jerk civil libertarians. If anything, we’re knee-jerk authoritarians. Our media merely reflect and reinforce that attitude.
A few brave columnists shared that view. Alexander Ross, writing in The Financial Post, said “The police action now going on in Quebec makes anything Duplessis ever dared attempt look like bleeding-heart liberalism. If Trudeau can’t produce a really hairy conspiracy… to justify his action, it could have the effect… of making René Lévesque look more credible than ever.” James Eayrs, a Toronto Star columnist, reminded us that the WMA had been brutally employed once before in our history, to deprive Canada’s Japanese citizens of their liberties.
Most columnists, however, sounded much more like Charles Lynch of Southam News, who described Trudeau as an inspiration, “a new kind of hero.” The Globe and Mail’s Bruce West argued that “Those who have taken to the streets and the public squares with their bullhorns to attack the courageous stand of the Canadian Government in this grave hour should be plainly informed that the vast majority of our people are no longer in a mood to indulge in long and academic arguments about possible threats to our civil liberties.” West’s comments appeared on the same page of the Globe on which you will find a photograph; if you look hard enough, you’ll see my own earnest face peering out from a crowd of a few hundred demonstrators gathered in Toronto’s Nathan Phillips Square to protest the government’s action. (I’m just to the right of the bullhorn). If I look puzzled, it’s because the men and women around me are chanting, “Power to the people,” and I’m wondering if they’re aware of what they’re saying. We were being protected from an angry and much larger crowd that wanted to have at us by a circle of police. The papers that morning reported that 90% of Canadians approved of the imposition of the WMA.
Gérard Pelletier, secretary of state in 1970, phoned several important media figures, including George Davidson, then president of the CBC. He later said he called Davidson as an “individual” rather than as the minister to whom Davidson was responsible. Davidson, on the other hand, was sure Pelletier was acting as an official government spokesman. But he insisted that Pelletier’s call hadn’t influenced him. Whatever the truth, it’s clear that after their conversation the CBC began censoring itself in what became the most shameful episode in its history.
On October 15, a day before the WMA was brought in, Peter Trueman, then executive producer of CBC national news, was called into his superior’s office. In his book Smoke & Mirrors, Trueman recalls: “We were to avoid commentary and speculation of all kinds. We were not to use man-on-the-street interviews or shoot film of any public demonstration. We were to air no panel discussions on the October Crisis and were to avoid reporting speculation, particularly speculation about what the government was doing.”
The irony is that the CBC couldn’t even get its censorship act together. The night Pierre Laporte’s body was found, the CBC continued to broadcast the one thing it should have kept quiet about. It was still announcing that the body of James Cross had also been found, long after the news had been officially denied.
In October, 1975, CBC-TV presented a fascinating two-and-a-half hour drama-documentary, The October Crisis, that made up at least in part for the network’s shameful conduct five years earlier. It provided some important new pieces of information. The programme, for instance, included an interview with Eric Kierans, who was a cabinet minister in October, 1970. “It was a clear question of overkill,” he said. Robert Stanfield, leader of the opposition in 1970, told the CBC he personally hadn’t approved of the use of the WMA. His party voted for it because of the Gallup Poll’s figures. “I compromised,” he explained sadly. Robert Bourassa said he hadn’t believed Québec was facing an apprehended insurrection. He’d had to use those words to justify bringing in the WMA.
There was some media reaction to the programme. Peter Trueman apologized publicly not only for going along with CBC censorship but also for criticizing reporter Tim Ralfe, who had angrily confronted Trudeau. “I should have given Ralfe a medal,” he said. A few newspapers that had supported the government in the first place made it clear they now felt differently. The Montreal Gazette, for example, declared, “The use of the War Measures Act to stem the so-called apprehended insurrection in October 1970, was an unjustified act of mass intimidation not supported by the facts available at the time, facts that were manipulated by our highest political leaders to suit their own purposes.”
But for the most part, the media greeted The October Crisis with a yawn. There was no great cry of outrage that Trudeau had refused to be interviewed. Or that following the programme, Mitchell Sharp had said we’d probably have to wait until the year 2000 to get details of the events leading up to the WMA. (Cabinet minutes aren’t made public for thirty years.) We had vicariously experienced Watergate and the WMA seemed small potatoes by comparison.
Somehow it seems to me that what Trudeau did to us ten years ago is worse than what Nixon did to the U.S. What Nixon did hurt himself and his cronies far more than it hurt anyone else. As a result of Watergate, the American Fourth Estate is now, if anything, too cocky, too vigilant in guarding against government abuse. There’s no certainty that the Canadian media learned anything from 1970.
I would guess is that Canada’s Fourth Estate will respond as timidly the next time as it did the last. “On issues of this sort,” James Eayrs writes, “a citizen takes his stand not by a protracted process of reasoned calculation, but rather by instantaneous and instinctive commitment to values he holds because of all that life has made him. Response comes first, then rationale.” The sad fact is that we Canadians aren’t knee-jerk civil libertarians. If anything, we’re knee-jerk authoritarians. Our media merely reflect and reinforce that attitude.
A few brave columnists shared that view. Alexander Ross, writing in The Financial Post, said “The police action now going on in Quebec makes anything Duplessis ever dared attempt look like bleeding-heart liberalism. If Trudeau can’t produce a really hairy conspiracy… to justify his action, it could have the effect… of making René Lévesque look more credible than ever.” James Eayrs, a Toronto Star columnist, reminded us that the WMA had been brutally employed once before in our history, to deprive Canada’s Japanese citizens of their liberties.
Most columnists, however, sounded much more like Charles Lynch of Southam News, who described Trudeau as an inspiration, “a new kind of hero.” The Globe and Mail’s Bruce West argued that “Those who have taken to the streets and the public squares with their bullhorns to attack the courageous stand of the Canadian Government in this grave hour should be plainly informed that the vast majority of our people are no longer in a mood to indulge in long and academic arguments about possible threats to our civil liberties.” West’s comments appeared on the same page of the Globe on which you will find a photograph; if you look hard enough, you’ll see my own earnest face peering out from a crowd of a few hundred demonstrators gathered in Toronto’s Nathan Phillips Square to protest the government’s action. (I’m just to the right of the bullhorn). If I look puzzled, it’s because the men and women around me are chanting, “Power to the people,” and I’m wondering if they’re aware of what they’re saying. We were being protected from an angry and much larger crowd that wanted to have at us by a circle of police. The papers that morning reported that 90% of Canadians approved of the imposition of the WMA.
Gérard Pelletier, secretary of state in 1970, phoned several important media figures, including George Davidson, then president of the CBC. He later said he called Davidson as an “individual” rather than as the minister to whom Davidson was responsible. Davidson, on the other hand, was sure Pelletier was acting as an official government spokesman. But he insisted that Pelletier’s call hadn’t influenced him. Whatever the truth, it’s clear that after their conversation the CBC began censoring itself in what became the most shameful episode in its history.
On October 15, a day before the WMA was brought in, Peter Trueman, then executive producer of CBC national news, was called into his superior’s office. In his book Smoke & Mirrors, Trueman recalls: “We were to avoid commentary and speculation of all kinds. We were not to use man-on-the-street interviews or shoot film of any public demonstration. We were to air no panel discussions on the October Crisis and were to avoid reporting speculation, particularly speculation about what the government was doing.”
The irony is that the CBC couldn’t even get its censorship act together. The night Pierre Laporte’s body was found, the CBC continued to broadcast the one thing it should have kept quiet about. It was still announcing that the body of James Cross had also been found, long after the news had been officially denied.
In October, 1975, CBC-TV presented a fascinating two-and-a-half hour drama-documentary, The October Crisis, that made up at least in part for the network’s shameful conduct five years earlier. It provided some important new pieces of information. The programme, for instance, included an interview with Eric Kierans, who was a cabinet minister in October, 1970. “It was a clear question of overkill,” he said. Robert Stanfield, leader of the opposition in 1970, told the CBC he personally hadn’t approved of the use of the WMA. His party voted for it because of the Gallup Poll’s figures. “I compromised,” he explained sadly. Robert Bourassa said he hadn’t believed Québec was facing an apprehended insurrection. He’d had to use those words to justify bringing in the WMA.
There was some media reaction to the programme. Peter Trueman apologized publicly not only for going along with CBC censorship but also for criticizing reporter Tim Ralfe, who had angrily confronted Trudeau. “I should have given Ralfe a medal,” he said. A few newspapers that had supported the government in the first place made it clear they now felt differently. The Montreal Gazette, for example, declared, “The use of the War Measures Act to stem the so-called apprehended insurrection in October 1970, was an unjustified act of mass intimidation not supported by the facts available at the time, facts that were manipulated by our highest political leaders to suit their own purposes.”
But for the most part, the media greeted The October Crisis with a yawn. There was no great cry of outrage that Trudeau had refused to be interviewed. Or that following the programme, Mitchell Sharp had said we’d probably have to wait until the year 2000 to get details of the events leading up to the WMA. (Cabinet minutes aren’t made public for thirty years.) We had vicariously experienced Watergate and the WMA seemed small potatoes by comparison.
Somehow it seems to me that what Trudeau did to us ten years ago is worse than what Nixon did to the U.S. What Nixon did hurt himself and his cronies far more than it hurt anyone else. As a result of Watergate, the American Fourth Estate is now, if anything, too cocky, too vigilant in guarding against government abuse. There’s no certainty that the Canadian media learned anything from 1970.
I would guess is that Canada’s Fourth Estate will respond as timidly the next time as it did the last. “On issues of this sort,” James Eayrs writes, “a citizen takes his stand not by a protracted process of reasoned calculation, but rather by instantaneous and instinctive commitment to values he holds because of all that life has made him. Response comes first, then rationale.” The sad fact is that we Canadians aren’t knee-jerk civil libertarians. If anything, we’re knee-jerk authoritarians. Our media merely reflect and reinforce that attitude.
– Saturday Night, October 1980
http://www.grubstreetbooks.ca/essays/octobercrisis2.html
…(chickadee adjusts her teensy weensy tinfoil beanie)… In the event an horrific event occurs fefore the election, it shouldn’t be too hard to find the perpetrators very close to home. You see it seems to me that any alleged terrorist worth his salt would not carry out any plan that halts or hinders the US election thereby keeping the Bush regime in power. As a matter of fact, you’d think any self respecting terrorist would join the US voting majority and most of the rest of the world population and do anything possible to drive this trigger happy administration from office. In the case of El Qaeda, it’s logical to think the best thing possible they can do at this time, would be nothing.
Half blind and half witted van der Lubbe acted alone in planning, organizing and carrying out the Reichstag fire? Do you have a confirming source, please.
More information, underscoing the involvement of the Third Reich is available all over the web, including http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire (hardly an “alternative news” site.
“Just want to clarify my point about the Army – they do want Bush for another 4 years (Fallujah notwithstanding), hence, if such hypothetical situation does happen, they will support him.”
I can see why you think this and I am not saying you are wrong. Call me unconvinced.
More than a couple retired officers have publicy stated they are squarely against policy in Iraq (I am assuming this represents some actives as well), the resultant effects on the war against terror, and Rummy has always had a tough sell on the transition to a leaner military. Also, what now seems as profetic advice concerning troop numbers in Iraq was blatantly ignored, and it is the troops who are paying the price.
I am sure there are those currently serving who strongly support Bush. But I need more evidence of action to believe the Joint Chiefs and high command really ‘want’ Bush for four more years.
Last but not least and contrary to what the RNC would have everyone believe, not all of those who choose to serve are Republican by affiliation.
I fully acknowledge I could be all wet on this. It wasn’t that long ago when I would not have questioned your assertion. I suppose really it depends on the definition of support and under what conditions. I expect the military to always support the Prez no matter who it is. We do know that is not always the case though. (Clinton vis a vis Somalia and Pakistan, for instance)
So was this farce set up to draw attention from the CIA report afterall?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45162-2004Jul12.html
washingtonpost.com
Lawmaker Doubts U.S. Warnings Of Possible Attack to Stop Elections
By John Mintz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, July 13, 2004; Page A13
A Democratic congressman who receives classified briefings on the threat of terrorist attacks said yesterday that top U.S. government officials’ repeated statements that international terrorists want to disrupt the American electoral process this year “appear to have no basis.”
Rep. Jim Turner (Tex.), ranking Democrat on the House Select Committee on Homeland Security, said that after several recent briefings by U.S. intelligence officials about perceived terrorist threats this summer and fall, “I don’t have any information that al Qaeda” plans to attack the election process. “Nobody knows anything about timing” or the exact nature of any possible attack, although U.S. officials say al Qaeda wants to mount an attack this year, Turner said.
Homeland Security Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse declined to respond to Turner’s remarks. Roehrkasse said the agency stands by comments by Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge at a news conference last week.
Ridge and a senior intelligence official who appeared at the news conference repeated statements they have made for months that al Qaeda wants to undermine U.S. elections. The terrorist network has been emboldened by its belief that it enjoyed a massive victory when, days after the March 11 train bombings in Madrid that killed 191 people, Spanish voters ousted the government, they said.
Although Ridge and the intelligence official said they have no “specific” details on time or place of any attack, the intelligence official said, “Recent and credible information indicates that al Qaeda is determined to carry out these attacks to disrupt our democratic processes.”
Turner’s comments came yesterday as he and the panel’s chairman, Rep. Christopher Cox (R-Calif.), spoke to reporters about their proposed legislation to improve the department’s use of intelligence.
Cox said in an interview that, based on his reading of the classified briefings he has received, Ridge is accurately reflecting U.S. intelligence conclusions.
Some Democrats have suggested lately that top U.S. officials, by raising fears of a terrorist attack to derail the elections, are trying to get President Bush reelected. But they have not cited evidence.
An example of such statements was one by Rep. Robert Wexler (D-Fla.) after Ridge’s news conference: “This administration has a long track record of using deceptive tactics for political gain. One cannot help but question whether their aim was to deflect attention from the Kerry-Edwards ticket during their inaugural week.”
Ridge said such accusations are “a wrong interpretation. . . . These are not conjectures or mythical statements we are making. These are pieces of information that we could trace comfortably to sources that we deem credible.”
Also yesterday, the Homeland Security Department said it informally told the Justice Department that it received a query about the possibility of postponing the election if there is a risk of it being disrupted by terrorism. But Homeland Security said it did not ask Justice to review the legal issues involved.
(An article yesterday afternoon on washingtonpost.com quoted a Homeland Security spokesman saying that the department had, in fact, referred the legal issues to Justice. The spokesman said last night that he had not meant to suggest that a formal review had been requested.)
The idea of postponing the election was initially suggested by DeForest B. Soaries Jr., chairman of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, which was created by Congress to help localities improve their voting systems. Soaries told The Washington Post last week that he had written to Homeland Security expressing his concern about the lack of a formal plan to deal with a disruption of elections due to a catastrophe, such as terrorism. He said he never got a response.
Officials yesterday described as overblown an article in Newsweek magazine suggesting U.S. officials were floating a possible “proposal” to postpone the election. The article set off a round of denunciations and news stories.
“The Department of Homeland Security should not instill fear or inject uncertainty into the election,” House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) said in a statement.
Cox and Turner discounted the likelihood of the country canceling Election Day, pointing out that it could require a constitutional amendment and emergency action by Congress and state legislatures. “Were we to postpone elections, it would be a victory for the terrorists,” Cox said. Added Turner: “The last thing we want to do is suppress [voter] turnout because people think Election Day is a dangerous day.”
National security adviser Condoleezza Rice said the Bush administration is not considering postponing the elections. “We’ve had elections in this country when we were at war, even when we were in civil war. And we should have the elections on time. That’s the view of the president, that’s the view of the administration,” Rice told CNN.
Also yesterday, the Government Accountability Office said in a report to Cox’s panel that Homeland Security’s color-coded threat advisory system is not very helpful to states and localities because it does not convey enough detail about threats.
Staff writer Fred Barbash contributed to this report.
© 2004 The Washington Post Company
There are a ton of articles and essays on this page if you read German
http://www.zlb.de/projekte/kulturbox-archiv/brand/
(the site is from the main Berlin library)
They include reviews of a 2001 book that goes against the existing consensus among historians that Lubbe did it alone. Various critical ones and the responses of the authors.
Not sure just when people started arguing that Lubbe acted alone, but it goes back at least thirty years.
As one review puts it
die in der deutschen Geschichtswissenschaft herrschende Auffassung von der Alleintäterschaft van der Lubbes
or, roughly -’the dominant theory among German historians of Lubbe having acted alone’
It only took 19 people to wreak havoc that killed 3000 people, scared us into almost bankrupting the airlines, brought our economy to its knees, sunk the public into a serious funk, and kicked off a series of wars. A few goofs with C4 under their raincoats could likely do the same in a crowded polling area. Just like a dirty bomb, this would mostly be a psychological ploy. A nuke itself is a whole other story.
I agree we’ll get hit again…it’s only a matter of time; it could be this year, 2 years, 50 years, or 175 years. But are you saying America could not overcome a postponed election? That certainly would not keep us from our mission, either, in the long run. Certainly we should not do it willy nilly on the chance that someone might do something. I only want it done if something actually happens that spoils the election as bad as if someone hid a significant portion of ballot boxes.
Heck, if a nuke went off, could the survivors throw a cardboard box onto a table and continue voting, some on fire and sans limbs? Could someone blow themselves up at a polling booth and everyone left around move up in line to get past the corpses to pull the lever? Yeah, sure on both, but where do you draw the line?
Granted I’m grabbing for an extreme Clancy-ish example, but that’s what these terrorists are all about.