A Democratic take on the War on Terror

I noticed this interesting quote in an editorial about the idea of delaying elections in the event of a major terrorist attack.

Rep. Jane Harman said talk of postponing the election is "excessive, based on what we know," and she described Ridge's latest cries of alarm as "more chatter about old threats."

I don't think the threats are all old. Al Qaeda and others still wish us ill and will mount an attack if they can. From what I know to assume that they cannot is folly. The War on Terror isn't over yet. As to the issue of delaying an election in the event of an attack, this is something that I definitely think that we should be considering. We should have clear rules on how such a decision should be made and who was authorized to make it. If on Nov. 1st nuclear weapons went off in several U.S. cities (unlikely but a useful extreme example) I don't think anyone would expect that we could hold national elections on Nov. 2nd. On the other hand, very few would advocate delaying the elections over mere threat of attacks or even an isolated small-scale attack. Between these two extremes is a vast gray area. We should consider, rationally, how this gray area should be handled and how it is done. This is not a threat to the constitution, rather this is a way to strengthen it by putting rules in place before catastrophe so that rule of law can prevail even during a catastrophe.