PoLiX Posted July 13, 2004 Report Posted July 13, 2004 What had been merely a rumor has now become fact. The Bush administration has asked for legislation enabling it to postpone the November election as a result of a terror attack. While worded very carefully to suggest that an attack must take place for such a move; I do not see either of the below stories unequivocally state that, if granted, these powers might not also permit elections to be “postponed†on merely a well-publicized threat. Don’t believe the press stories. Read the legislation when it is introduced to see what it says there. If that discretion is included then we are at the edge of an abyss more dangerous than anything we have ever faced. These powers, if enacted, will go to the Department of Homeland Security. DHS would also be the en!@#$%^&*y to decide when, or if, postponed elections would be held. Allowing suspension of the elections on just the threat of a terror attack would create a hole in the legislation big enough to drive an oil tanker, or an open dictatorship, through. Since the legislation has not been seen yet we do not know what it will say. Once introduced, the bill would then go into Senate and House Committees (Republican controlled) where the language could easily be modified to give discretionary power to the Administration. At that moment the Cons!@#$%^&*ution would overtly cease to have any operational meaning at all. The separation of powers would vanish. Judging from the news stories tonight we will probably see the legislation introduced fairly quickly. From the instant it appears, this legislation must be tracked daily, even hourly, at http://thomas.loc.gov. Does any one of us doubt that if threatened or desperate, the administration would use those powers without hesitation? I ask those who read this to stop for a moment and consider what it would mean for all of us on this side of the fence if the Bush administration both acquired and used the power to suspend the election -- with or without an attack. What restraints would be left to prevent some of our worst-case scenarios from coming true? Why even maintain the illusion of democracy? All vestiges of accountability will have been removed. We should each evaluate our own situations accordingly. Hopefully most of us will see that we have no choice but to bond together more than ever before. To quote Ben Franklin: “We must all hang together or else we shall surely all hang separately.†This is the moment at which it all becomes very, very real. Although there is strong Democratic Party opposition appearing with derisive statements from Rep. Jane Harman and Sen. Diane Feinstein, my initial !@#$%^&*essment, after watching CNN, FOX and MS-NBC, is that the press is already “selling†us this legislation. Fortunately, early stories also report that the act would also require a cons!@#$%^&*utional amendment. However, with this Supreme Court we can be !@#$%^&*ured of nothing. Yet, knowing this, we can be sure that there will be many chances to fight and beat this travesty. There will be many places at which our skills and resources can function to create and implement a coordinated response. All the efforts put into 9/11 and into the anti-war movement will need to pale by comparison with the effort that must be put forth to prevent this legislation from passing. Every lesson learned about organizing; mobilizing; reporting; strategy; education; and influencing congress (if that’s possible), needs to be remembered and applied now. There will be many tests to come. May whatever form of divinity each of us holds dear give us guidance, wisdom and strength as we consider this. For almost three years FTW, along with many other brave souls, has been saying that 9/11 was just the beginning. Tonight it seems that the next stage – whatever that will turn out be – is knocking tonight at everyone’s door. Do not give up. Do not be afraid. If all this is true and comes to pass then everything is as bad as we have been saying all this time. So we had that much of a head start, didn’t we? We are not defenseless. The cause is not lost. There is always a sense of relief when a dreaded event finally arrives because – only in that moment – can anything be done about it. I don’t usually quote Dianne Feinstein but she was right when she said that America holds elections in the middle of wars, earthquakes and disasters. No matter what, we must demand an election this November. Even the debates about which candidate is or isn’t better, or whether one will or won’t make a difference, are now moot. Stop. Catch your breaths. Steel your hearts and minds in preparation. Soon we’re all going to find out what we’re made of. If we do not have an election this November then the world we have been fighting to change until tonight will become only a “pleasant†memory compared to the world that will follow. Mike Ruppert
Jauggernaut Posted July 13, 2004 Report Posted July 13, 2004 In one ear, and out the other. I am Canadian. Very intereseting article.
MonteZuma Posted July 13, 2004 Report Posted July 13, 2004 Thinking out loud: The middle of a crisis may not be the best time to make rational decisions anyway? Maybe this should be the subject of a referenda?
»CypherJF Posted July 13, 2004 Report Posted July 13, 2004 most of america would completely ignore this news; it's never good. The executive branch has gained a lot of power through recent legislations which, quiet frankly are scary. I vote by absentee anyways :/
Vile Requiem Posted July 13, 2004 Report Posted July 13, 2004 It has long been a grave question whether any government, not too strong for the liberties of its people, can be strong enough to maintain its own existence in great emergencies. On this point the present rebellion brought our republic to a severe test; and a presidential election occurring in regular course during the rebellion added not a little to the strain. If the loyal people, united, were put to the utmost of their strength by the rebellion, must they not fail when divided, and partially paralized (sic), by a political war among themselves? But the election was a necessity. We can not have free government without elections; and if the rebellion could force us to forego, or postpone a national election it might fairly claim to have already conquered and ruined us. The strife of the election is but human-nature practically applied to the facts of the case. What has occurred in this case, must ever recur in similar cases. Human-nature will not change. In any future great national trial, compared with the men of this, we shall have as weak, and as strong; as silly and as wise; as bad and good. Let us, therefore, study the incidents of this, as philosophy to learn wisdom from, and none of them as wrongs to be revenged. But the election, along with its incidental, and undesirable strife, has done good too. It has demonstrated that a people's government can sustain a national election, in the midst of a great civil war. Until now it has not been known to the world that this was a possibility. It shows that, even among candidates of the same party, he who is most devoted to the Union, and most opposed to treason, can receive most of the people's votes. It shows also, to the extent yet known, that we have more men now, than we had when the war began. Gold is good in its place; but living, brave, patriotic men, are better than gold. Abraham Lincoln, November 10, 1864This was in the middle of a fugging CIVIL WAR. Postponement can only mean something fishy's going on...like....i dunno...perhaps this... It is not possible to find a leader more foolish then Bush, who deals with matters by force rather then with wisdom. 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 civilization. Because of this we desire Bush to be elected al Queda statement, 3/17/04 I don't want to imply that Bush would use terror for personal gain...oh wait...he did already by, among other things, trying to using 9/11 images in campaign ads, and that little thing called the Patriot Act, and that Big Mess called the Iraq War, etc etc etc
Yupa Posted July 13, 2004 Report Posted July 13, 2004 http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselect...ion-delay_x.htm on the side: our media REALLY needs to stop giving terrorists ideas
PoLiX Posted July 13, 2004 Author Report Posted July 13, 2004 That just got posted too. Nice find SuSE :-P reply to your side: Our media also needs to span all sides of stories, rather then just what its owner wants.
Live-Wire Posted July 16, 2004 Report Posted July 16, 2004 The US media, run by democrats, so intensely tries to be fair and unbiased (not to mention laws that require equal airtime devoted to both candidates), that it overcompensates and shows a conservative bias. Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them (Al Franken) gives some nice stats on how often good and bad things about the candidates were reported. Don't have it in front of me - pick up a copy for yourself.
Slowking Man Posted July 16, 2004 Report Posted July 16, 2004 OHNOz! bush WanTZ tO takE OVr teh uS!!11!!11 Of course, we just have to hope that the U.S. isn't as easily influenced as Spain and the Philippines.
Live-Wire Posted July 17, 2004 Report Posted July 17, 2004 This article is pretty rediculous btw, and I don't agree with it. What should we be expected to do if there is a major terrorist attack on election day? What if the trains get stopped and the planes get grounded, or we lose electricity? We need to have a plan for what happens. Maybe Bush would like to use it to impose dictatorship, but intentions aside, Congress needs to figure out what to do.
Recommended Posts