Bush Calls off 2008 Election: Is America Headed Towards a Civil War?

[Anttech]

Senario

Al-queda, who are laughing at the state of US Politics and the bigger and deeper divide in the USA. Attack the US months before the 2008 election, knowing that the power hungry neocons will cease the oppertunity and call off the elections. The Neocons fall for the bait and call them off saying it is in the interest of national security. Bush almost seems gleeful when he speaks to the american people that this will happen indefinetly, until we can safely say that this threat to america is taken care of...The world watches as America becomes more restless... Everyone takes sides, and a polarised America become even more polarised... Civil War is a brewing.What would you do? Is this Senario really that far feached?

I would like to hope so, but its closer to home than is comfortable

 

[Pengwuino]

Is this Senario really that far feached?

Not to brainwashed liberals

 

[vanesch]

Al-queda, who are laughing at the state of US Politics and the bigger and deeper divide in the USA. Attack the US months before the 2008 election, knowing that the power hungry neocons will cease the oppertunity and call off the elections. The Neocons fall for the bait and call them off saying it is in the interest of national security. Bush almost seems gleeful when he speaks to the american people that this will happen indefinetly, until we can safely say that this threat to america is taken care of...The world watches as America becomes more restless...

And then the men in white coat come in, and say: Georgie boy, time for your pills, be a good boy now

 

[Tide]

The real scenario is that King Albert and the Council of Ministers have secretly been developing nukes, nerve agents and super-computer-viruses. In their zealous and steadfast desire to reach out to new friends and form treaties they have secretly allied themselves with al Qaeda. In 2008 they activate their plan and launch a pre-emptive strike on the United States ...

OH -- I guess that answers your question! :)

 

[russ_watters]

It's about as likely as the similar one I heard about Clinton planning to use the Y2K disaster to sieze dictatorial power (hence his expansion of FEMA's powers). :uhh:

Now where'd I put those extra pills I've been saving...?

 

[Lisa!]

And then the men in white coat come in, and say: Georgie boy, time for your pills, be a good boy now

:rofl: :rofl: I hope this story would end the way you're saying not this way:

"Hey guys, take your pills, because Al-Queda is attacking US." :uhh:

 

[ComputerGeek]

Not to brainwashed liberals

not to turn this into a political flame fest, but Liberals are the ones skeptical about Bush and the republicans. that is not brainwashing. Conservatives who think that Bush is doing a good job are the brainwashed ones.

they not only are in a small minority by all polls, but they always give bush and the congressional leaders the benefit of the doubt, no matter what.

 

[cronxeh]

Senario

Al-queda, who are laughing at the state of US Politics and the bigger and deeper divide in the USA. Attack the US months before the 2008 election, knowing that the power hungry neocons will cease the oppertunity and call off the elections. The Neocons fall for the bait and call them off saying it is in the interest of national security. Bush almost seems gleeful when he speaks to the american people that this will happen indefinetly, until we can safely say that this threat to america is taken care of...The world watches as America becomes more restless... Everyone takes sides, and a polarised America become even more polarised... Civil War is a brewing.


What would you do? Is this Senario really that far feached?

I take an AK-47 and assassinate everyone in executive branch.

 

[moose]

not to turn this into a political flame fest, but Liberals are the ones skeptical about Bush and the republicans. that is not brainwashing. Conservatives who think that Bush is doing a good job are the brainwashed ones.
they not only are in a small minority by all polls, but they always give bush and the congressional leaders the benefit of the doubt, no matter what.

Most conservatives are the ones who think he isn't destroying the country and think he is doing an OK job. I don't see any evidence that he ruined our country, so hmmmm, also, what brainwashed me? O.O

 

[deckart]

I take an AK-47 and assassinate everyone in executive branch.

Stupid comments of murdering the president on a public forum like this will likely put your ass on the FBI watch list. But, hey, maybe you belong on it.

 

[pattylou]

Yes it is too far fetched.

The idea was floated by the administration a year + ago, to delay the 2004 election in the event of a terrorist threat. So in one sense such a scenario has crossed their mind.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/11/election.day.delay/

But I think he'd have to have support for that sort of idea, and he has less and less support with every passing week.

Things could turn around, he could respond "stongly" to a terrorist attack and enjoy great numbers again, but without that kind of support I think your idea won't be tolerated by people. It wasn't well tolerated a year ago, and he had over 50% support then. Now he is below 40%.

 

[cronxeh]

Stupid comments of murdering the president on a public forum like this will likely put your ass on the FBI watch list. But, hey, maybe you belong on it.

Heh maybe. But I certainly won't be one of those "silly people" that sit at home and go like "awww I knew this was going to happen!"

Trust me.

 

[deckart]

Heh maybe. But I certainly won't be one of those "silly people" that sit at home and go like "awww I knew this was going to happen!"
Trust me.

What exactly do you mean? Could you be a little more specific?

 

[cronxeh]

Lets just say it should never be an option for any President that he will stay longer than 2 terms in the office.

 

[SOS2008]

not to turn this into a political flame fest, but Liberals are the ones skeptical about Bush and the republicans. that is not brainwashing. Conservatives who think that Bush is doing a good job are the brainwashed ones. they not only are in a small minority by all polls, but they always give bush and the congressional leaders the benefit of the doubt, no matter what.

Ah, you are still fairly new to the forum, so you probably don't know he is just being his usual troll self. Just put one of these in reply to his posts, and maybe he'll go away. (We're saving the pills for Georgie).

 

[Anttech]

Yes it is too far fetched.

I hope so, so what do you think will happen if new york is attacked in 2008? If Bush got the backing of the Military then your voices wouldn't matter...

 

[cronxeh]

I hope so, so what do you think will happen if new york is attacked in 2008? If Bush got the backing of the Military then your voices wouldn't matter...

less talk more action

 

[Mental Gridlock]

Wait a second.. doesn't it say in the constitution somewhere that there is to be an election every four years? I didn't know saying "nah, we're not in the mood to have an election this time around" was an option. What are they going to do away with checks and balances while they're at it?

 

[pattylou]

I hope so, so what do you think will happen if new york is attacked in 2008?

Well, I think he'd make a speech and galvanize a certain proportion of the populace and see some strong support in congress... And he'd also see some strong opposition. The country would be even more divided than now, and there'd be such outrage that I think ... Oh I don't know... I think there'd probably be an increase in all sorts of violent rhetoric, and maybe even actions within our own country. I think the 49% of us that *really*, *really* dislike this administration, and who have had *more* than enough, well that amounts to tens of millions of people and I expect all bets are off that we'd just go along and say "OK then. We'll just wait it out." I expect a few of those tens of millions would have other ideas.

If Bush got the backing of the Military then your voices wouldn't matter...

Are you suggesting he'd use the military against the US population?? What *are* you saying with this?

 

[Mental Gridlock]

If the terrorists are fighting against freedom and democracy, and then we suddenly turns USA into a totalitarian country, then doesn't that mean that the terrorists are victorious?

 

[Anttech]

Are you suggesting he'd use the military against the US population?? What *are* you saying with this?

Hmmm… I am merely pointing out that if this situation came about he would only need the support of the Military forces.
Sure this is a total hypothetical scenario, and will never happen. BUT as an American which most of the people here are, you shouldn’t feel that your democracy isn’t vulnerable to the evils that Man can do.

I want to highlight again something I highlighted in another thread.

http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/08/aspa080302.htm

'Hague Invasion Act’

Why is this necessary? If your government is peace loving and democratic, why would it need this clause? Why on Earth would any president feel it needed to ratify a Law that made it LEGAL to undermine the INTERNATIONAL Court? Unless it felt that it could act outwith these laws

We all live under the same Flag ‘so to speak’, in the western world, the flag of Democracy, The flag of Human rights, The flag of INTERNATIONAL law.

Power can warp anyone….

 

[Anttech]

If the terrorists are fighting against freedom and democracy, and then we suddenly turns USA into a totalitarian country, then doesn't that mean that the terrorists are victorious?

Thats the point, and I am glad you see this...

 

[pattylou]

Hmmm… I am merely pointing out that if this situation came about he would only need the support of the Military forces.

I'm still not with you. How would he use those forces to enact his goal?

I have little illusion that democracy is any less vulnerable than any other system of government.

 

[Anttech]

pattylou:

If any state, democratic or not, desires to boycott its lawful obligation to have an election for the next government, the only necessary ally it needs is the countries military force. If this is behind its decisions then the voice of the people isn't as important... Especially when you have a MIGHTY military

That’s what I am pointing out

 

[Informal Logic]

There was a better chance at that in 2004, and not even then.

In the wake of the bogus NYC alert, did anyone catch the CNN report about the timing of terrorist alerts occurring the day after a negative story in the media? Of course there is no proof for the correlation, even 10 times as odd coincidence. At least anyway now there is a negative story for the WH almost daily.

 

[Anttech]

Lets hope it doesn't happen, I doubt it will... BUT one day the US will capitulate to internation Law wheher you want to or not... Law of the "jungle" my friend, and Bush will have to answer to the CRIMES he has comitted to the rest of the world... we are ONE world !

Peace!

 

[russ_watters]

If Bush got the backing of the Military then your voices wouldn't matter...

The military is a volunteer force of ordinary citizens, who pledge their allegiance to The Constitution, not the President. What is your basis for thinking they would back someone who violated the Constitution and attempted to sieze dictatorial power?

 

[cronxeh]

The military is a volunteer force of ordinary citizens, who pledge their allegiance to The Constitution, not the President. What is your basis for thinking they would back someone who violated the Constitution and attempted to sieze dictatorial power?

Well I'm pretty sure the minute the President gave an unconstitutional order, an officer closets to him would place him under arrest or get a staff sergeant to do so

 

[oldunion]

If the terrorists are fighting against freedom and democracy, and then we suddenly turns USA into a totalitarian country, then doesn't that mean that the terrorists are victorious?

stop watching so much cnn its not as easy as that.

 

[rachmaninoff]

Well I'm pretty sure the minute the President gave an unconstitutional order, an officer closets to him would place him under arrest or get a staff sergeant to do so

No, actually that's the power of the courts and the judicial branch. The ones the President's cronies accuse of being "activist" and "unamerican".

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I'm still not with you. How would he use those forces to enact his goal?

The military is a volunteer force of ordinary citizens, who pledge their allegiance to The Constitution, not the President. What is your basis for thinking they would back someone who violated the Constitution and attempted to sieze dictatorial power?

If a significantly major incident or number of incidents occurred the president could call for instituting Martial Law.
This could legally suspend the election process as far as I understand it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_law
Ok.. In 1861 the courts in Maryland rejected Lincoln imposing martial law but he ignored them. It was decided by the Supreme Court in 1866 that the imposition of martial law, or suspension of habeas corpus, was unconstitutional as long as local courts are still open and running. The current US administration has used it's power to suspend habeas corpus already.

 

[russ_watters]

Exigent circumstances, Ape: For the civil war, there was a very real threat to the existence of the US, and even then, Lincoln did not have the unequivocal support of the military.

While I could conceive of postponing the election for, perhaps, a day due to a massive terrorist attack (one of similar scale to 9/11), nothing short of an atom bomb in DC on a workday would be a good enough reason to actually cancel it (or, rather, postpone it long enough to miss inauguration day in Jan).

Remember - the question is not what justification could Bush use, it's what justification would the military accept. The scenario would go something like this:

Terrorists take down the Sears Tower on the morning of election day. Bush institutes martial law and "postpones" the election. Days pass and Bush makes no plans for when the election will happen. People in government start grumbling about it. After 2 weeks with no commitment, the grumbing becomes a roar and leading congressmen petition the USSC to issue a warrant for his arrest. The US Marshalls are called to the White House to arrest him. The Marine Corps company and USSC guarding the White House...let them in and escort them to the west wing, where they arrest him.

 

[Anttech]

OR...
Bush shares his plans to increase military spending by 1000% even the most uncorruptable people are curruptable...:tongue2:

 

[loseyourname]

OR...
Bush shares his plans to increase military spending by 1000% even the most uncorruptable people are curruptable...:tongue2:

That would require the cooperation of at least 51 senators and a majority of the House, none of whom would be likely to be re-elected after cooperating. Bush cannot increase spending by himself.

And why would that corrupt the military anyway? They get more cool toys and more wars to fight? They get paid either way.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Exigent circumstances, Ape: For the civil war, there was a very real threat to the existence of the US, and even then, Lincoln did not have the unequivocal support of the military.
While I could conceive of postponing the election for, perhaps, a day due to a massive terrorist attack (one of similar scale to 9/11), nothing short of an atom bomb in DC on a workday would be a good enough reason to actually cancel it (or, rather, postpone it long enough to miss inauguration day in Jan).
Remember - the question is not what justification could Bush use, it's what justification would the military accept. The scenario would go something like this:
Terrorists take down the Sears Tower on the morning of election day. Bush institutes martial law and "postpones" the election. Days pass and Bush makes no plans for when the election will happen. People in government start grumbling about it. After 2 weeks with no commitment, the grumbing becomes a roar and leading congressmen petition the USSC to issue a warrant for his arrest. The US Marshalls are called to the White House to arrest him. The Marine Corps company and USSC guarding the White House...let them in and escort them to the west wing, where they arrest him.

I understand. I was typing that up and my co-worker relieved me before I could really add any comment to it.
The thing is ofcourse that I didn't find anything regarding whether or not elections would be held up due to the institution of martial law. What I did find is that technically martial law is illegal though it could be pointed out that it's already been established in the past and to a very limited degree by the current admin. We have approximately three years to go for things to escalate further though the current political climate would make it rather difficult to push the envelope further.
There would have to be a rather major incident as I stated before and what would be more conducive to pushing martial law and a hold on the elections to boot would likely be a series of incidents. The easiest to justify both that I can think of so far would be attacks or threats of attacks on voting stations. An escalation toward something in line with a civil war may also be strong enough to allow the current admin to hold off elections. In this case the civil unrest due to holding off of elections could possibly be manuevered artfully enough to perpetuate the hold in and of itself though hopefully congress would be smart enough to realize that this would just become a self perpetuating cycle. It's not that hard to imagine though a group of radicals say protesting electronic voting machines by bombing or attacking stations where they are used. Paranoia over another "stolen election".
I'm thinking that an arrest of the president would not come off nearly as smoothely and efficiently as you would indicate. While the grunts and lower level officers may well be quite willing to allow it I doubt anyone in the higher ranks really wants to be responsable for such a decision or even among those in congress. I'm thinking it would be held off for some time and perhaps quite a while if the circumstances of what led to the situation were right.
One way or another I'm quite sure it would lead to a civil war like scenario and people deserting the military. If a "state of war" could some how be instituted then the number of military willing to risk being shot for treason might be rather low.

Just throwing around scenarios. I don't think it is very likely to happen but I think the feasability of pulling it off isn't quite as low as some of you think.