The blog pundits are already in overdrive over this story;
Newsweek – 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…
James Joyner discusses the legal aspects.
Some of the voiced concerns are that this will give the tin-foil hat crowd “another conspiracy to latch onto” (who gives a rip?), that doing such a thing will mean the “terrorists will be handed a victory” (eh… no.), as well as worries that such legislation could produce “self-fulfilling prophesy”. (Since when have terrorists needed an incentive?)
As a Canadian living under a parliamentary system where federal elections are set pretty much arbitrarily by the governing party, and usually at a time chosen to give them an advantage over the opposition – I can’t get too bent out of shape over the idea that an election commission be granted bi-partisan authority to consider postponement of a set election date in the event of a national emergency.
It’s very easy to sit back and state that “short of a nuclear attack” nothing should interfere with the democratic process. But what of an attack that took down the power grid for two days a la the summer of 2003 or caused the death of a candidate and his running mate?
It seems to me that not having a contingency plan in place to respond to such a catastrophe in a controlled manner is more dangerous than the alternative. If you buy the arguments that it would be too disruptive and politically inflammatory to delay a presidential election for two or three weeks under emergency legislation, consider the contraversies involved with going forward with an election in a nation in grief, fear and chaos, while individuals of varying authority make decisions on a “seat of the pants” basis.
The nature of Islamic fascism is to be unpredictable, to attack civilian targets and cause the most disruption possible. Rigid systems are the most vulnerable to this type of threat. It’s all well and good to stand behind dogmatic resolve to see an election through come hell or high water… but in the reality of a post 9/11 world, not to have a legal contingency plan for the worst-case scenerio seems naive and foolhardy.