Will Bush Cross the Line? According to Whom?

Lew Rockwell says, "I still think the Bushites will retain a (smaller) majority in both the House and the Senate, through spending, gerrymandering, voter turnout, and dieboldism."

Most analysts disagree, predicting something like a 15-seat gain for the Democrats, and maybe as many as 32. But that doesn't take the "dieboldism" into account. If the Republicans really are able to cheat with the voting machines, they could do one of three things:
1. Keep their majority(ies), with some very narrow victories in some races, and "upsets" in others. This could lead to mass protests, as many won't believe the results.
2. "Save face" by losing their majority in the House, but just by one or two seats, while keeping the Senate. The "better than expected" result will be a last-ditch effort for Bush to rebuild some political capital and preserve Rove's reputation. Those who doubt the honesty and accuracy of this outcome will be smeared as whiners and conpsiracy theorists.
3. Intentionally cause "malfunction" in the machines, by making some results go, say, 90-10 for the Democrats. Or make it look like the widespread cheating was done by Democrats by having them win some races by statistically unbelievable margins. This will lead to mass confusiona and demands for re-doing the election.

If the election is rigged, there will be protests - some of which might get out of hand either spontaneously or through agent provacateurs. It is possible that the behavior of these "left-wing extremists" will mean Bush will "have no choice" but to use new powers granted to him in the latest Defense Authorization Act. As Frank Morales writes,

Section 1076 of the massive Authorization Act, which grants the Pentagon another $500-plus-billion for its ill-advised adventures, is entitled, "Use of the Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies." Section 333, "Major public emergencies; interference with State and Federal law" states that "the President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the United States, the President determines that domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of ("refuse" or "fail" in) maintaining public order, "in order to suppress, in any State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy."

For the current President, "enforcement of the laws to restore public order" means to commandeer guardsmen from any state, over the objections of local governmental, military and local police entities; ship them off to another state; conscript them in a law enforcement mode; and set them loose against "disorderly" citizenry - protesters, possibly, or those who object to forced vaccinations and quarantines in the event of a bio-terror event.

Allen Roland asks,

What would a morally bankrupt, criminal, and arrogant person with a casket full of millions do in order to retain power? What would a person who is willing to violate the Geneva Conventions, torture and degrade people, and watch as an entire American city slowly drowns on live television do to retain power? And what would someone like this, with an endless supply of resources and money, with the highest security clearances and running a campaign from the national seat of power, be able to achieve?

And, admitting this is getting into tin-foil hat territory, speculates:

The possibility of something sinister delivered as a diversion is not unthinkable, given this crowd and what they have already done. But how far would they be willing to go in order to retain power and thus avoid prosecution for crimes already committed?

If recent developments are any indication, we may be looking at something so drastic that I am fully ready to attire myself from head-to-toe in all manner of paranoia. There is logic here, and it is measurable, adding fuel to my near panic.

When the President recently signed the Military Commissions Act (better known as the Stalin “No Man, No Problem” Decree), amounting to the end of habeus corpus, my panic became palpable. This law is so antithetical to the principles of democracy, that to even put pen to paper in order to sign this farce of a bill into law amounts to treason, in my humble opinion.

This law literally gives the president alone full authority over all branches of government to decide who is an enemy of the United States and who is an ally. It grants the president power over that person's freedom, property, and basic human rights -- short of organ failure (as if murder in secret can be objectively investigated for signs of "organ failure" type torture). The operative word here is "secret" and the frightening reality is that if one considers the crimes this administration has already committed by the light of day, imagine what happens when night falls.

For whom was this law really passed, and why was it so urgent before the election? Add to the MCA the passage of HR 5122, which has buried in it authority for the president to federalize the National Guard. Again, for what purpose is this law needed, and why was it so urgently needed before the election? Are there not other, more pressing, more obvious issues to deal with?

My panic continues from my initial question to what, for lack of any real answers, my imagination addresses.

If there is no insurrection, then why suspend habeus corpus? Unless it is a contingency plan for a possible insurrection. Why pass this before the election, urgently, as though the country were on fire and despite the begging of the world? Perhaps the contingency planning for an insurrection is taking into account what the exit polls will once again fail to deliver. Perhaps the answer is as simple as it is historically supportable: (a) if the GOP cannot give up control of Congress, (b) and there is ample proof that they will retain control of Congress through election fraud, then (c) faced with a no longer sedated public, this brave new America of the GOP might require extreme measures in order to secure peace in the event of an uprising, (d) perhaps through something like domestic policing measures.

Using force against Americans in order to suppress dissent and uphold a stolen election. On paper, a lot of "Middle America" would be shocked and appalled. Many gun owners would say this is just cause for revolution. But if Bush does this very thing in 2006, would citizens from "red" states, counties, and suburbs believe it? Maybe this will be where the President finally crosses the line. Or maybe there are still enough people that "trust the system" who will insist a) the election wasn't stolen, and b) the "lawless" protesters deserve whatever they get.

Perhaps the Republicans won't cheat at all.But it is a scary thought how so many Americans have tolerated so many of Bush's attacks on their freedoms and still believe they free. I think the Republicans could rig the election, suppress protests, and get away with it. Fear would silence some who would fight back, but many of us will just contentedly go about our lives as if nothing happened, thinking they are free.

Speaking of freedom, in case you haven't heard, the United States now ranks 53rd among all countries in press freedom, and can now be called an "extensive surveillance society" just slightly better at protecting privacy than Russia, China, Malaysia, and, uh, the UK.

And Homeland Security has a plan that could prevent law-abiding American citizens from leaving or entering the U.S.

It seems that anything is possible these days.