We’ve had presidents before who have presided from locations other than the Executive Mansion. If Bush refused to vacate upon a loss, Kerry would travel to a friendly state, get sworn in by some local judge, then move into the Columbia House (sorry, VP Edwards) and run things from there.
And as if being the president-from-afar weren’t cool enough, he’d also get ten CDs for a penny!
How 'bout 'em? Unfortunately, Indonesian militias trashed the country when they voted to leave. This is a particularly bad example of the bullet helping the ballot IMHO.
It’s not much, but here’s my contribution:
My impression from my 1st Lt. brother (Army) is that there’s simply no way the military would consider supporting this kind of action. There’s a book, and on matters that really matter, like this, it gets followed.
As a purely selfish point on their part, the military wants to be viewed as the lawful and legitimate extention of the proper authorities. Supporting something like this would sow immense discord in the ranks (with many units probably simply sitting down on an order to protect an insurgent president), as well as undercutting the internal authority of the top brass and the willingness of the populace to support them.
But I saw “Seven Days in May” (the original, not the crappy remake), the military is just itching to take over. 
But it does seem we’re getting a head start on our election conspiracy threads that we had started up back in 2000.
It seems like this kind of discussion has come up around every election since the Nixon administration. But has there ever been a time in the history of the United States when the military has challenged the concept that it is subordinate to lawful civilian authority? Even during the Civil War? Even when Truman fired MacArthur? Even when presidents have been assassinated? It’s just out of the question to imagine that a general who has spent 30 years obeying the law would wake up some morning and decide to commit treason. And if one deranged guy did, there are enough other generals and admirals to crush him instantly. If Jan. 20 rolls around and there is a serious dispute about who the President (and Vice President) should be, I don’t think there’s any doubt that the Speaker of the House, as third in line, who would already have been seated with the rest of the new Congress, would act as president until the matter was resolved. And if Bush refused to leave the White House, there would be no need to call it a constitutional crisis; the White House usher could call the D.C. police and have him arrested for trespassing.
If Bush lost the election and it were certified in favor of Kerry, on January 20, 2005 Kerry would be sworn in as President and Bush would then be obligated to leave the White House. If he did not he would be guilty of criminal trespass and would be arrested, regardless of his wishes or desires.
Nobody said that the President had to live in the White House. Kerry would be able to execute his duties elsewhere until Bush had been cleared from the White House.
If the military chose to defend Bush at that time they would be in violation of their oath to defend the Constitution and everyone involved would therefore be subject to court-martial for mutiny and/or treason, and then we would be in a world of hurt because we’d be looking square in the face of a civil war, and Lord have mercy if that happens again. 600,000 plus people killed with single shot muskets and swords? That would be a drop in the bucket compared to modern warfare.
One more thought: Apart from all the other issues, why would anyone assume that the military would reflexively support a president who ordered them to keep him in office illegally? This president is the guy who’s getting American troops killed in an undeclared foreign war that was begun under false pretenses. You think maybe the generals wouldn’t see any good reason to take his side against the rest of the country?
The American Revolution wasn’t won by an armed populace. There is plenty of doubt about how well armed the colonies were in the first place and guns in the hands of civilians tended to be hunting rifles rather than battle muskets.
The idea of Americans winning a guerilla war against the Brits, like the idea of Vietnamese winning a guerilla war against the Americans, is a myth. In both cases there were regular forces ( the Continentals and the People’s Army of Vietnam or NVA ) to face their enemy in open battle. Giap discounted the contribution of the Viet Cong. Washington said that he had never witnessed a militia make itself useful in battle. Those are exagerations but the irregulars were more useful off the field of battle. Repressing dissent mostly.
The point of contention was not about morality, but about possibility. Clearly, the East Timor example clearly shows that an untrained, armed population CAN overthrow a numerically inferior, tactically superior foe.
[/hijack]
This is so silly.
If Bush tried to remain in office after losing an election, he would have zero support. No Republican in the House or Senate would support him, all Supreme Court decisions on the issue would be 9-0, and no one in the military would pay the slightest attention to any orders he issued. He would be removed from the White House on January 20 in handcuffs, and sent to prison for treason.
This is the problem with a board like the SDMB, with so many extremists (not necessarily you, Revtim). When too many people agree with each other, they can start to form a groupthink mentality that resembles folie a deux.
There would be less support for this than for a violent overthrow of the government and imposition of a Marxist dictatorship. It simply cannot happen.
Regards,
Shodan
Also, the military is heavily dependant on the civilian authority for funding. You can’t pull half the world’s defense funding out of thin air. In third world countries and ancient Rome, wealthy private citizens could bankroll their own armies. The US military could not just have some generals go one way and others go another without severly disrupting their cash flow and screwing both sides in this scenario.
I hope you’re right Shodan and I’m wrong, but I doubt it. Too many people out there justify whatever the president they support says or does under any condition for opposition to be unanimous, IMO.
I fully agree that this is an extremely unlikely scenario, but I’m with Revtim here. If they could get the US Army soldiers guarding Abu Gharib to torture people (in blatant violation of the codes of military justice, not to mention international law and basic human decency), then I have no doubt that if Bush told the Marines to surround the White House and defend him against all comers, he’d find plenty who were willing to do so.
He might find “plenty”, but he isn’t going to find “enough” and eventually those soldiers will want provisions, money, seeing their families, stuff like that.
It’s one thing for a fairly small group of soldiers to apparently violate the law as in Abu Gharib and a whole other thing to get enough to start a coup.
I would have felt a whole lot better about this if the OP could have spelled “what” correctly in the title.
I think you’re both right. I read your first post as talking about citizens, and **Shodan **talked about other high level members of the government. Sure, quite a few of the former would support Bush, but I can’t see how ***any ***of the latter would-- including high level military types.
To clarify, I meant that I think there indeed would be some high-level govt/military support for a president who did what was described in the OP. IMO, they would indeed break the law and violate the Constitution in support of such of thing, especially if it’s framed as a response to terrorism and/or war. I have no clue how much support there would be, but I’d be very surprised if it were zero. I would hope that it’s not enough for it to be successful. Hopefully nowhere near enough.
There has been NOTHING done by any President in this country as extreme as attempting to name himself dictator. Your comparison is fundamentally flawed. Further, it frightens me that you would consider the people that disagree with your politics to be THAT unreasonable.
Prove that “they” “got” the US Army soldiers at Abu Gharib to do anything. All conclusions thus far have been that they were rogue soldiers, acting on their own, and violating orders in the process.
That’s why, y’know, the people that did it are being punished.
*Paranoia strikes deep
Into your life it will creep
It starts when you’re always afraid
You step out of line, the man come and take you away *
If a psycho nutjob like Nixon stepped down without a fight, then Bush or any other President will step down if they lose an election. There would be ZERO support anywhere: not from the Administration, not from the Armed Forces, not from anybody.
It has fuck-all to do with my politics. Not only do I not think that all people who disagree with me politically are that unreasonable, but I expect half the people who are that unreasonable to belong to same political party as I do. I don’t think this is a Republican thing; it’s an idiot thing.