Preparing the Coup? – Moon of Alabama

July 11, 2004

Preparing the Coup?

From Newsweek: Exclusive: Election Day Worries

American counterterrorism 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.

…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.

…[Chairman of the newly created U.S. Election Assistance Commission], 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 [to cancel and reschedule a federal election]

With the appropriate legal opinion from Mr. Ashcroft, an October surprise and more white powder scare plus some support from that darn liberal media the commison could probably push the election a few days, or a few months, or ….

Background: The U.S. Election Assistance Commission was enacted in 2002 through the HELP AMERICA VOTE ACT OF 2002. The four commisionars are selected bipartisan. The main reason for the the creation of this commission was to "… establish a program to provide funds to States to replace punch card voting systems". The Vote Act says: Any action which the Commission is authorized to carry out under this Act may be carried out only with the approval of at least three of its members. The chairman of the commission: DeForest "Buster" Soaries is the senior pastor of First Baptist Church in Somerset, N.J., and previously served as secretary of state in New Jersey. Another commisionar, Paul DeGregorio, served as an assistant to John Ashcroft during his first term as Missouri Attorney General

BTW: Do you need a Beanie?

Posted by b on July 11, 2004 at 20:39 UTC | Permalink

Comments

Italics aside
If Blair survives the next seven days, then BOOM.

Posted by: Cloned Poster | Jul 11 2004 20:47 utc | 1

Of course, this was/is in the cards.
The thing that puzzles me is the right’s reasoning on this, and if the country will buy it.
I mean, how much more do terrorists influence an election than by cancelling it altogether? Without even lifting a finger, just by those vague, ominous threats?

Posted by: SusanG | Jul 11 2004 20:57 utc | 2

I mean, how much more do terrorists influence an election than by cancelling it altogether? Without even lifting a finger, just by those vague, ominous threats?
Susan, they don’t care. They’ll do anything to hold onto power- they figure they can think of a way to spin it later.
Good for Newsweek for printing it.

Posted by: fourlegsgood | Jul 11 2004 21:13 utc | 3

Trying not to be too redundant here. AlQaida and other shadowy undefinable groups are created by our own spooks. They are in large part a fiction used to keep the citizens in line.
Now Susan G, we can cancel the elections and blame it on…guess who. Convenient, eh?

Posted by: rapt | Jul 11 2004 21:22 utc | 4

so, do you think they’ll LIHOP or MIHOP? I’m betting the latter.
On another topic, I was away for a week or so and now that I’m back, I’m confused about the various Whiskey Bar annexes. Can you guys fill me in? I’m really happy, btw, that several of you have taken the initiative to create a place for us barflies to continue the chatter.
–s.u.

Posted by: semper ubi | Jul 11 2004 21:26 utc | 5

Sigh. I swear, if the American people swallow this without massive protest, I’m gonna … I’m gonna ….
What? Just what are we going to do?
At the Annex, I suggested just doing everything in our power to STOP the system altogether. Don’t work, don’t buy anything, don’t send kids to school. Just STOP. Then head for DC and camp out in massive numbers.
Who’s gonna stop us? The National Guard? They’re all in Iraq? The cops? They’ve endorsed Kerry.

Posted by: SusanG | Jul 11 2004 21:40 utc | 6

There were elections during the American Civil War. Maybe modern Americans have become drugged zombies who shrug off talk of postponing elections. More likely, the media is catering to their GOP base by not examining the War on Terror. The real question is the modern right wing, offspring of 1860 South Carolina Successionists, planning a Coup with Al Qaeda once again their scapegoat. After Johnson, Carter, Clinton and Bush II Presidencies sometimes I think the North really lost the Civil War.

Posted by: Jim S | Jul 11 2004 21:54 utc | 7

I would say there is at least a ray of hope in this Newsweek story – incredibly enough, it is being printed in a major media magazine. This is miracules by it self, isn’t it?! Only a few months ago, I am sure, it would not have been printed.

Posted by: Fran | Jul 11 2004 21:58 utc | 8

Fran —
I agree — seeing this in Newsweek is very good news. How will the rest of the media play it?
John Kerry and John Edwards will both be on 60 Minutes, btw.

Posted by: ck | Jul 11 2004 22:07 utc | 9

Jim S —
The USA has been closely divided for the past 100 years. The New Deal Democratic majorities depended on the Southern Dixiecrats — and keeping them on board meant sweeping Civil Rights under the rug.
To his credit, LBJ changed all that. To their discredit, the GOP became Cofederate GOP, and the Party of Jefferson Davis.
I’m hoping that whatever Al Qaeda is planning, the Feds will be able stop it. I don’t believe that BushCo would actually stage a terrorist attack themselves — but you can’t put anything past this crew.

Posted by: ck | Jul 11 2004 22:12 utc | 10

The DailyKos has a thread on the Newsweek article.

Posted by: ck | Jul 11 2004 22:51 utc | 11

@ 5:40 susang
i must have missed this @ annex. i agree completely and just suggested a prolonged moritorium over there. this same thought about a massive shut down on nov4 if bush stays or some organized revolt has been occupying my thoughts for a while. yet i’m not hearing any preparation for it. we need to organize. we can’t just roll over.

Posted by: annie | Jul 11 2004 23:16 utc | 12

Bernhard: “BTW: Do you need a Beanie?”
No matey…
What I need is a “get out of jail free card.”
Which is to say: Show me the God damn exit. And no…I don’t accept that there is no exit. Show me the bloody exit. Preferably: stage left. Pronto…like–right now dude.
[Aside: Is it too late to sell my vote to the highest bidder?]

Posted by: koreyel | Jul 11 2004 23:44 utc | 13

Well, here you have the real Repub explanation of why Diebold vote-fixing machines are *needed*. They’re here to correct the effects of a future terrorist attack, by restoring the voters’ initial will.
/sarcasm off
There were elections in 1916 and 1940, when war was ravaging Europe and it was to be feared the US would be drawn into the massacre. There were elections in 1812, 1864, 1944, 1952, 1968 and 1972 during actual wars. Draw your own conclusions about the possibility of having presidential elections during times of crisis (and I don’t even speak of mid-term elections!).
SusanG: a general massive strike can indeed be a quite powerful way of bringing down a government. The only real problem is that this doesn’t happen much, and even less in our Western societies. I mean, if the Italians and the French, who are masters at striking, couldn’t even manage to do this in the last 50 years, I don’t really see how the Americans could pull it off – I would be mighty surprised and impressed, to tell the truth.

Posted by: Clueless Joe | Jul 11 2004 23:48 utc | 14

ck — “I’m hoping that whatever Al Qaeda is planning, the Feds will be able stop it.”
me too. I’d be a whole lot more impressed if they actually stopped an attack than succesfully warning of one.
I’m also don’t think they would stage an attack, but I do fear theylll claim to have foiled one. I don’t think they’d manufacture such a claim out of thin air, but rather find some Padilla-type and overinflate his intent x1000, leaving us to only marvel at their ability to protect us.
annie — I support the idea to shut down the country after a postponed election. We should have done this last time. I, for one, would like to have seen United & American go bankrupt thanks to their security lapses.
If no pre-election attack occurs, I predict they’ll go to orange right before Nov 2 in hopes of keeping people from going to the polls at all. I’m sure they’ll be more specific with that warning, ensuring we know that the dangers only exist in solidly-blue state urban areas.

Posted by: dirtgirl | Jul 11 2004 23:57 utc | 15

Hmmm… I think Newsweek (or should I just call it Newsweak?) floated the story for the Administration to see how it would go over — see if people would protest very much. If the reaction is “well, yes, of COURSE we’ll have to postpone elections is something like THAT happens” then I believe they will have their answer, and we can expect something good and horrifying in November. Of course, if kerry loses, we’ll get something pretty horrifying in November regardless…

Posted by: semper ubi | Jul 12 2004 0:49 utc | 16

The only way I can even begin to cope with all this speculation is to continue trying to act from a detached perspective.
To not become attached to the outcome of my actions. But to never cease acting from my heart and my passion, to follow my bliss, to see the shit out there and do my best to compost as much of it as I can manage and be ready to accept whatever the outcome anyway.
To try to overcome fear by remembering my interconnectedness and offering to love (but not passively acquiescence to) even GWB & his vice et al.
A big commitment, but I can only keep trying. Then to continue as long and as best I can after it all unfolds.

Posted by: Juannie | Jul 12 2004 1:34 utc | 17

Talking with a friend this afternoon about the Newsweek story – she said “I’m always surprised that they are not good enough to prevent these stories getting out – or maybe I am frightened about what they must be doing that does not get out?” What frightens me is that they have made the assessment that there is no way we can stop them so why hide …
A question for the US posters here – I am up in NH & VT and clearly we are not a hot target for terrorists (besides our black bears would get them first!) and I know the contacts who live and work in DC for example were seriously worried about terrorist attacks for quite a while after 9/11 but do you feel that in your part of the country, that fear is really there anymore? I don’t pick up a lot of that and hear more jokes about the changing colors and distrust of the whole system but I’d love a reality check from other regions.

Posted by: Siun | Jul 12 2004 1:42 utc | 18

don’t think it would serve terrorists to subvert this election. as far as a stike , i think we underestimate ourselves. over 1/2 the population wants bush out. i’m assunming there aren’t a lot of la ti da voters. if this election gets hijacked before or after we need to be on top of it and not caught off guard like 2000. we need to have an organized plan. in seattle we had a pretty strong alliance set up by the time the caucuses came around because of all the dean organizing. i think we underestimate our power and believe me thats what the rethugs are banking on. catching us off guard, falling back on terra terra. this is total BS and we ahve to say NO . loudly.

Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 12 2004 1:58 utc | 19

that was me @9:58

Posted by: annie | Jul 12 2004 2:13 utc | 20

I think they have 3 things to pull:
1. Osama capture
2. Replace Cheney with Rudy
3. Another attack here
#1 would have to happen by August I think for them to gauge the bump in the polls. #2 before early October. And #3 could be right before the election if all else fails. There’s always Diebold, but I don’t think they’ll rely on that.

Posted by: mats | Jul 12 2004 2:23 utc | 21

Annie – you are so right! I think we need to prepare the ground and organize some form of response. I’m going to poke about to see if I find any planning … maybe we can all see if there’s anything out there and also share ways we can start stuff ourselves. One concern I have it that a lot of the standard organizing power is being focused right now on the conventions … when the real fight may be Nov 4.

Posted by: Siun | Jul 12 2004 2:31 utc | 22

Siun, I think the fear is still here in NYC.
It doesn’t help to see the occasional times when three cops are on every corner near Penn Station, Grand Central and Port Authority. It also doesn’t help that despite all the times I’ve heard on the national news that flights are no longer allowed to go over Manhattan, I watch them fly straight up the length of the island, basically tracking 6th or 7th Avenue (low, usually on approach to LaGuardia) just about every day.

Posted by: mats | Jul 12 2004 2:32 utc | 23

I’m almost not quite sure how to feel about this latest elections thing.
Of course, it’s astonishing and beyond that anybody could even think of postponing elections and suspending the Constitution! (staggers)
On the other hand, these people have planned for so many things that are even more insane than the concept of postponing an election in the case of a terrorist attack that I could see how for some of these people in their offices in DC it would a not-so-farfetched concept in their scheme of things. We’ve gone to war with a country that was no threat to us and has done nothing to us. We accept all kinds of utterly insane things in the context of that war. In some way, thinking of the possibility of postponing an election if we have a terrorist attack, or even making a plan “just in case” (and one begins to think of all the other “just in case” plans that are far more wacko that they must have stored over there in their offices…) seems practically normal by comparison to the rest of the stuff that’s been accepted as ways to behave. So while it’s staggering to even suggest it, to even conceive of the concept of it, is it staggering to these folks among all the other insane things they have called acceptable?
One thing that is for sure though, to me, our fear and paranoia meter is reaching astronomically dangerous levels. I wonder what horrible things that is going to do to us, doing to us as I type on this keyboard, what terrible effects that is going to have on all of us, from the macrocosm of this blog to the whole big international picture and every little thing in between.

Posted by: x | Jul 12 2004 2:43 utc | 24

… maybe we can all see if there’s anything out there and also share ways we can start stuff ourselves.
most of us make the rounds amongst Billmon, Atrios, Kos of course,…by all means let’s utilize the power of the blog, let’s get some info on grassroots efforts out there before it’s too late, although today may be too late.
(and turn any non-blog participants amongst your friends, family, colleagues into viewers of your favorites simply by mentioning Newsweek and emailing the links…)

Posted by: route66 | Jul 12 2004 2:44 utc | 25

Here’s one suggestion I have if the elections are held and we fear the voting turnaways, irregularities and so forth at precincts in swing states:
Film it all.
If we could have one person all day at every precinct in every swing state with a camcorder, it would (a) be a deterent to hanky panky turnaways because turnaways could be interviewed; (b) a documented archive to be put together later if there’s ever a legal question.
This is similar to the idea behind the great documentary, This Is What Democracy Looks Like, the film that was spliced together from hundreds of volunteers during the 1999 WTO protests in Seattle.
As to what to do if the election’s cancelled … hmmm, still thinking on that one.

Posted by: SusanG | Jul 12 2004 2:56 utc | 26

@mats and siun:
As a rural upstate NY’r, the Finger Lakes area, there’s a strange disconnect here. Everyone here is confident we’ll never be targeted, and most people I know see NYC as another country, thanks to the long term upstate/downstate wars. The view from here on 9/11 was probably similar to the view of someone in rural Ohio, or Montana, or West Virginia, that something like this will never happen where “we” are, but still collectively horrified in a distanced way.
It’s very hard to get folks here to see a larger perspective; believe me, all the protesting we did here over the last two years seemed to fall on the ears as “why should we care, it won’t affect us.”
I fear that is the crux of any ideas to motivate protest, preparation, education…there’s still a large portion of this country’s population that lives in areas they feel are “safe.” Not to mention, everyone here knows the election inspectors, they are long time community stalwarts, who would never do anything “illegal.”
So how to deal with this?

Posted by: nearpass | Jul 12 2004 3:05 utc | 27

Mats … thank you for the NY report. I know I was in NYC about a year ago (to go to Def Poets – wow!) and we walked through Times Square and I was astonished. I lived on the west side for many years and I had never in my life seen so very many cops as I did that night. I can imagine that having been through 9/11 and then seeing the police presence every day would not allow for an easing for fear.
The plane thing is sadly not surprising … I know that each time I have to travel, I go through this debate with myself about whether I think all the security talk is hype and I can fly without fear (except of the usual airline food and lack of service) and then the worry that maybe it is not at all safe. These are my night before flying thoughts … but it is part of the crazymaking I think X is referring to above as well.
So what’s your take on how NYC will get through the convention?

Posted by: Siun | Jul 12 2004 3:06 utc | 28

Hi Siun-
I spend time in different parts of the country. One place is downtown Manhattan, and I was there when 9/11 happened and watched the whole thing from home. Was part of the sealed off area, etc etc., the first vigils, etc.
Then I go elsewhere — like DC or California. What do I find? New York is kind of a tough place to live anyway. For the people I knew, for the most part, we got on with our lives. It was like it was one more thing to deal with. And the city responded with all heart, in maybe only the way NYC would in its unique way.
DC on the other hand was sheer paranoia. And it almost seems like the further away I go from NYC the more paranoid people are about this stuff. It’s like earthquakes in SF — if you live there it’s a part of your life. Outside the place people shake their heads and wonder how anybody could live there, with the earthquakes and all…
The problems is all the stuff our government is doing seems to be the exact opposite of the FDR maxim: the only thing we have to fear is fear itself. And in that I think they know just what they’re doing, and at the same time are really that paranoid themselves. I can only say that I feel this situation is pathetic, and as long as we are stuck in a cycle of fear, to some extent, hopeless. (But we don’t have to be part of it, that’s our hope.)

Posted by: x | Jul 12 2004 3:24 utc | 29

It’s very hard to get folks here to see a larger perspective; believe me, all the protesting we did here over the last two years seemed to fall on the ears as “why should we care, it won’t affect us.”
i think the tide is turning. look at how many people went to see moore’s film in areas that surprised.
personally i don’t worry about an attack, i worry much more about the people we are attacking. as far as filming the voting precincts i don’t know how effective that will be, this is why the nader vote scares me and why the thugs are $$$ him. not so much because he will take votes away from kerry but because they have a safe place to dump votes when they cheat. it will be a lot less obvious than wondering how all those dems showed up and voted for bush.
as far as the plan for nov4 if bush stays in, and i would put NOTHING past them to pull that off,does anyone have any connection to moveon. i know some democracynow folks cuz i used to work on the dean campaign. yeah, everyone is focused on the election. when i think of our reaction after 2000, those 3 weeks of just waiting , oh we can’t do that again. we have to hit the streets. for as long as it takes, or something, total shutdown

Posted by: annie | Jul 12 2004 3:26 utc | 30

just another note: if, however, there’s another nyc event — all bets are off. It will be a total disaster. And the economic effect that will have will affect everybody imo.

Posted by: x | Jul 12 2004 3:33 utc | 31

the most plausible reasons, up front, that I see for the nutcase wing of the republican party currently in power are the following:
1. as TNR article mentioned, the Bush League is trying to engineer a “capture” of some “high value target” to coincide with the democratic convention (and, btw, make sure you copy this article and tell everyone you know…knowledge is a good weapon for mass action against these thugs.)
2. Ridge’s latest psy ops fear up is to set the stage to parade this “success” and steal headlines, etc. during the dem convention.
3. the talk of cancelling or postponing elections sets the stage for massive police presence at the polls, with lots of long lines to discourage working people, with people checking i.d.s and possibly intimidating “suspicious” voters in hopes of depressing the turn out, since, historically, larger turnouts mean dems win.
4. this could occur with or without an attack.
5. an attack may occur on election day to, again, depress turnout, or, if Kerry wins, to allow Bush to “suspend” the election count because of an attack.
or maybe not.
but, yes, the Bush mantra is “the only thing we have is fear itself.”
how different than FDR.
again, all over the net and in real time, talk that I hear is that mass action WILL occur if Bush tries another coup.
no one has to call for a national strike, but it can happen among millions and millions of people because it is already something we see as one of our only nonviolent recourses.
it is the least people could do for the sake of our very democracy.
in case you’re interested, you can find a peace and justice group near you. these are groups that have been regularly chartered buses to DC for protests. other local groups, like now, and code pink, and even your local dem and green and libertarian headquarters could be other places you could find transportation plans.
if or when such a scenario might occur, no doubt alternative media would cover the events.
I have no doubt that lots of Americans would not give a damn and would go about biz as usual. However, I also know that millions DO give a damn and will take nonviolent action.

Posted by: fauxreal | Jul 12 2004 3:47 utc | 32

fauxreal–
I remember the MoveOn technique for establishing gathering spots for protests just before the war. Seems like a good place for that too.
I think a lot more people than we expect will give a damn. It really is a shocking concept.
Re fear meme: maybe that’s one very important way Kerry could show himself as totally different from Bush: give us hope and not fear. Hope we will not be stuck in war after war, hope that there is a way out of the deepening cycle of violence and fears of terrorist attacks in response to these policies (and the Israel/Palestine situation).

Posted by: x | Jul 12 2004 3:57 utc | 33

I wish they’d just go ahead, announce the creation of the Fascist States of America and be done with it.

Posted by: Lupin | Jul 12 2004 5:54 utc | 34

I promised myself I would stop posting, weaned myself off the Annex. Then TrackBack at the Bar led me here, and damn it, the place feels more like home to me.
I don’t have anything original to say about the topic, unless you want to see me say the Cheney-word as many times in print as I’ve said out loud since the Newsweek story broke. I should have seen it coming, after seeing this two weeks ago…

Posted by: philippa | Jul 12 2004 6:25 utc | 35

Sorry, expired link. Try this one.

Posted by: philippa | Jul 12 2004 6:29 utc | 36

Safire – of all – in his todays OpEd in NYT:
All our July chin-pulling about polls and veeps and C.I.A. missteps has little to do with November’s election, which will be decided by unforeseeable events.
What does he know?

Posted by: Bernhard | Jul 12 2004 6:31 utc | 37

from philippa’s link:
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.
Why on earth did they create a new federal voting commission? Why did we need one? Why did they say we needed one?
Anybody know anything about this Soaries person? Must be a far rightie. Like somebody said someplace, we didn’t even stop elections during the Civil War.

Posted by: x | Jul 12 2004 6:36 utc | 38

Dr. DeForest B. Soaries, Jr.
Check out the names of his twin sons, bottom of the resume 🙂

Posted by: x | Jul 12 2004 6:43 utc | 39

About the US Election Assistance Commission

Posted by: x | Jul 12 2004 6:47 utc | 40

How about this? 43 has a lot to prove to 41. How better to do this than to win in 2004? But you can only do this if the election is actually held…. So I can always count on 41’s vanity to help him uphold the holding of that election. He may try to steal the election–this apparently counts for something in the Bush household–but you can’t steal an election that isn’t held, you can only steal the office itself.

Posted by: alabama | Jul 12 2004 6:51 utc | 41

@x –
could you please read what´s posted before commenting?

Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 12 2004 7:07 utc | 42

oh sorry, my anonymous friend. I did skim right by those links didn’t I? Still like the names of his sons 🙂

Posted by: x | Jul 12 2004 7:21 utc | 43

Billmon’s got an interesting take, as usual, on this, over at his place right now

Posted by: x | Jul 12 2004 8:12 utc | 44

Interessting post by Digby about extra-constitutional continuity-of-government exercises.
If this is any guide at all, there is absolutely no reason to believe that they would hesitate to suspend elections, institute martial law and stage a coup. Indeed, it appears they’ve been training to do just that for more than 20 years.
more and additional links.

Posted by: Fran | Jul 12 2004 16:05 utc | 45