Bush's War against Civil Liberties

[JohnDubYa]

Under the constituition, the federal government does not have legislative jurisdiction sufficient to legally delay voting taking place in the states.

But I think the argument is that a terrorist attack constitutes an emergency situation involving national security.

I guess the Supreme Court will ultimately decide the issue.

 

[Prometheus]

I guess the Supreme Court will ultimately decide the election.

Again. I hope not.

 

[pelastration]

But I think the argument is that a terrorist attack constitutes an emergency situation involving national security.

1. And the question remains : When is an attack (a violent event?) a terrorist attack? Is it the size of the event, the number of victims, the symbolic place ... ?

2. In the Madrid train blow the Spanish PM was pointing straight to ETA (that was the Bask organization he was fighting against all the time). Similar Bush would point to Bin Laden, his 'natural' enemy.
After two days the Spanish media started to point to Al Quada. The Spanish PM didn't like that because of his sending troops to Iraq. He preferred it was ETA. If the findings would not have been that fast the Spanish PM would have won, now he lost.

 

[JohnDubYa]

1. And the question remains : When is an attack (a violent event?) a terrorist attack? Is it the size of the event, the number of victims, the symbolic place ... ?

I don't know. I guess someone will have to define it.

2. In the Madrid train blow the Spanish PM was pointing straight to ETA (that was the Bask organization he was fighting against all the time). Similar Bush would point to Bin Laden, his 'natural' enemy.
After two days the Spanish media started to point to Al Quada. The Spanish PM didn't like that because of his sending troops to Iraq. He preferred it was ETA. If the findings would not have been that fast the Spanish PM would have won, now he lost.

So in this case, an election postponement would have hurt the incumbent, right? The Spanish, like the US, sent troops to Iraq. When AL Quada bombed Spain, it hurt the incumbent government when the election was not held right away. So a similar delay would hurt Bush, right? Or how does this theory go?

 

[pelastration]

So a similar delay would hurt Bush, right? Or how does this theory go?

It's a spinning dime. What side will it fall?
If it's Al Quada or seems to be them Bush can have advantage or not. Some posters here said it would hurt him, but I am nor sure. Bush propaganda machine would try to monopolize the media and point to failed security of CIA & al. and would ask more powers. Probably Bush will be (s)elected again.
If it's not Bin Laden - but a Veigh-like US militia or Black Panther type group - the results of the investigation would be kept secret as long as possible by the Bush Administration till the elections are done.

 

[JohnDubYa]

Bush propaganda machine would try to monopolize the media and point to failed security of CIA & al. and would ask more powers. Probably Bush will be (s)elected again.

Again, if Bush is naturally going to label any attack as pointing to Al Quada, then he would not want to postpone elections, for this would give time to the media and government to identify the real culprits.

There is a huge inconsistency here. If an Al Quada attack is going to help me win an election, the last thing I want to do is postpone elections if an attack occurs. I want to label the culprits as Middle East terrorists and ride the surge in popularity as quickly as possible.

Or so the argument would go.

 

[pelastration]

Again, if Bush is naturally going to label any attack as pointing to Al Quada, then he would not want to postpone elections, for this would give time to the media and government to identify the real culprits.

There is a huge inconsistency here. If an Al Quada attack is going to help me win an election, the last thing I want to do is postpone elections if an attack occurs. I want to label the culprits as Middle East terrorists and ride the surge in popularity as quickly as possible.

Yes, I agree it would be a question of timing relative to the type of event and magnitude. If it would be X then Bush react direct, if Y it would be another way. I am sure the 'thinktanks' have all scenarios.

 

[JohnDubYa]

Yes, I agree it would be a question of timing relative to the type of event and magnitude. If it would be X then Bush react direct, if Y it would be another way. I am sure the 'thinktanks' have all scenarios.

Every time I point out an inconsistency, the target changes.

Here is what you posted earlier:

OK. A cynical question. Sorry for that but I consider politics today that way. Who would profit (election-wise) from a terrorist attack? Bush or Kerry?

IMO Bush. He would be again "the President", "the Leader", "the Chief-in-Command".

I don't see anything in there about think tanks and timing.

And no one seems to have acknowledged the inconsistency I pointed out in my earlier post:

But terrorists don't have to stop the election process, only influence it. If they could pull off a terrorist strike near election day, they could cause Bush to lose support and the Presidency. Would this not influence our elections?

So how 'bout it?

 

[pelastration]

Every time I point out an inconsistency, the target changes.
I don't see anything in there about think tanks and timing.
And no one seems to have acknowledged the inconsistency I pointed out in my earlier post

The target stays but I just add some aspects.
Bush is surrounded by thinktanks (such as PNAC). Kerry too.

Bush has interest to have a juridical framework for the possible event of an attack. If such attack happens he can decide what happens: Postpone elections or not. What he will do will depend from the facts (size, place, victims, etc.) and what will be in his advantage.

So I am not sure at all that an attack would harm Bush.
He can use many simplistic arguments.

There is no inconsistency in this logic.

 

[JohnDubYa]

Oh, aspects. Okay, fine.

Now how about answering to the following inconsistency?

But terrorists don't have to stop the election process, only influence it. If they could pull off a terrorist strike near election day, they could cause Bush to lose support and the Presidency. Could this not influence the outcome of our elections? Does this not give terrorists power? And if so, what do you propose we do about it?

 

[loseyourname]

I propose we ignore the terrorists, leaving their act limp and meaningless, and vote for whoever we were going to vote for anyway.

 

[JohnDubYa]

I propose we ignore the terrorists, leaving their act limp and meaningless, and vote for whoever we were going to vote for anyway.

Good plan, if you can get everyone on board. You have four months. :)

 

[the number 42]

The reasons for rewriting the laws is a moot point. Surely the important thing is that the Bush administration is redefining what it means to be free in the US. I certainly hope you guys don't have any further catastrophies - we are told over here that an attack on the UK is inevitable - but I think that what is happening to your constitution is quite alarming enough.

 

[russ_watters]

I heard right wing crackpots arguing when Clinton re-structured FEMA that he was setting himself up to sieze dictatorial power. I didn't buy that either.