Lawmakers want to delay election if...

[spursfan101]

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."

Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge warned last week that Osama bin Laden (news - web sites)'s al Qaeda network want to attack within the United States to try to disrupt the election.

Harman said Ridge's threat warning "was a bust" because it was based on old information.

Newsweek cited unnamed sources who told it that the Department of Homeland Security asked the Justice Department (news - web sites) last week to review what legal steps would be needed to delay the vote if an attack occurred on the day before or on election day.

The department was asked to review a letter from DeForest Soaries, chairman of the new U.S. Election Assistance Commission, in which he asked Ridge to ask Congress for the power to put off the election in the event of an attack, Newsweek reported in its issue out on Monday.

The commission was created in 2002 to provide funds to states to replace punch card voting systems and provide other assistance in conducting federal elections.

In his letter, Soaries wrote 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."

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."






 

[Joe Vancil]

Whoa, WHOA, ***WHOA***!

*NO* election delays.  *NONE*.

This is a step - and on a slippery slope, mind you - away from martial law.

 

[westkoast]

I don't see why this is even brought up.  We have not been attacked since 9/11.  The Iraqi interim government hasn't been attacked enough to warrant them to do anything much different and they are in the heart of the war zone.  So why should we postpone our elections if a place gets attacked.  Im sure Al Queda is plannin to go after Florida :rolleyes:  Besides, all the legal steps that would have to be taken for the election to be delayed would be a nightmare.  Sounds like more BS scare tactics.

[spursfan101]

Yep, scare tactics is right. And pretty soon, were going to be reminded how since the War on Terror, there have been "no terrorist attacks on US soil."  

Well, if memory serves me correctly, after the first World Trade Center attack in the 90's, there were no terrorist attacks against the US UNTIL September the 11th.  Your talking YEARS.

Bring our boys home GW.  1,000 US soldiers dead...and counting... :nonono:  

[JoMal]

Some points to consider about this new "threat" from Bush:

1. Considering the unity within the Arab terrorist organizations since Bush's "war" began, especially after invading Iraq on completely false pretenses and intelligence, Bin Laden might be more interested in keeping Bush in office then not.

2. Bush's inept handling of this "war" has favored the terrorists more then disrupted them. They have been flooded with new recruits. They have a centralized location for carrying out attacks now in Iraq. Why would they work to remove the known bozo for an unknown new guy?

3. The terrorists are smarter and slyer then Bush and his handlers, and have proven time and again they can manipulate him into doing the wrong thing over and over. This type of control is hard to achieve with supposedly the strongest country on the planet and they will try to get at least another four years use out of Bush at all costs.

4. Bush might be stupid, but he also is desparate. If Bin Laden does not cooperate, and launch an attack against the U.S. around election time, Bush will have to orchestrate an attack himself which he can then blame on the terrorists.

5. We are not living in an era of confidence in the United States government. We have already lost many of our constitutional rights and moving or even eliminating the election would not be a stretch for this administration.

Personally, I am scared for the future of this country should Bush be reelected.