The consensus among health experts is that a pandemic, or global epidemic, of influenza is inevitable. The last such pandemic, in 1918, killed between 40 and 100 million people.

http://www.naturalnews.com/023823.html

The only reason I'm even bothering with this is a friend who works with homeland security has been seeing unique training lately - concentrating on the Avian Flu. It appears our federal government is more concerned about this than usual lately...

I remember the quarantines, school closures, and lockdowns in the days before polio vaccine in the early '50s.

I have enough guns and extra food to not worry about it. All that needs done is my creation of a Mad-Max vehicle...

At least they used Chicago for the training model :)

I have enough guns and extra food to not worry about it. All that needs done is my creation of a Mad-Max vehicle...
What do you get when you cross a Mormon with a Mexican?
Your whole basement full of stolen groceries.

"In the context of a very infectious disease that is killing a large number of the people, I think large fractions of the population won't have a problem with these recommendations," he said.Another way to further restrict the populous. Sure, it's only temporary, everything is temporary.... it's for our own health and safety.....

We loose more and more freedom in the name of security and well being. Soon we'll all be perfectly safe, we won't be able to go anywhere or do anything without written permission from the government but at least we'll be perfectly safe. :bighead:

Sorry, I know that quarantines are necessary in certain cases but this just hits me wrong.

You guys need to go back to school and study the Constitution. Congress can suspend habeas corpus and the president can invoke martial law in time of emergemcy or rebellion and it has actually happened in the past. There's no sense in getting your bowels in an uproar over something as mundane as this. The first bunch to get thrown in the dungeon or face the firing squad will be the ACLU.

You guys need to go back to school and study the Constitution. Congress can suspend habeas corpus and the president can invoke martial law in time of emergemcy or rebellion and it has actually happened in the past. There's no sense in getting your bowels in an uproar over something as mundane as this. The first bunch to get thrown in the dungeon or face the firing squad will be the ACLU.

Erm, sorry to say it, but you might need to re-read the Constitution. No where in there does it even mention anything about martial law.

Why do so many people get hysterical when they read that the Government might impose restrictions to prevent destruction to our populace? If taking off my shoes at the airport will prevent a shoe bomber from blowing me up, then I'm all for it. Similarly, if there were a disease epidemic I wouldn't be planning any jaunts to a crowded movie theater in the first place, so I don't mind them limiting people's movement and gatherings until a vaccine is developed.

I don't see much to be upset about here- quarantining the infected and limiting gatherings where the contagion could spread is common sense, not an abuse of Government power. Besides, we've all seen the results of failure to contain a viral outbreak:

Total control of our shopping malls by The Living Dead.

One can never be too trained.

Hello...what's the alternative? "The Stand"?

Erm, sorry to say it, but you might need to re-read the Constitution. No where in there does it even mention anything about martial law.
Article 1, section 8; imposition of military law by the president.

Another way to further restrict the populous. Sure, it's only temporary, everything is temporary.... it's for our own health and safety.....

We loose more and more freedom in the name of security and well being. Soon we'll all be perfectly safe, we won't be able to go anywhere or do anything without written permission from the government but at least we'll be perfectly safe. :bighead:

Sorry, I know that quarantines are necessary in certain cases but this just hits me wrong.

There's a nice idea; lets all die of avian flu in the name of keeping the EVIL AND TYRANNICAL FEDERAL GOVERNMENT (sic) in check! Prevent the spread of an epidemic!? My God, how unconstitutional!! they're gonna take our freedoms away! Mark of the beast, mark of the beast! Hell, for that matter, the damn sky is falling!

Why do so many people get hysterical when they read that the Government might impose restrictions to prevent destruction to our populace? If taking off my shoes at the airport will prevent a shoe bomber from blowing me up, then I'm all for it. Similarly, if there were a disease epidemic I wouldn't be planning any jaunts to a crowded movie theater in the first place, so I don't mind them limiting people's movement and gatherings until a vaccine is developed.

I don't see much to be upset about here- quarantining the infected and limiting gatherings where the contagion could spread is common sense, not an abuse of Government power. Besides, we've all seen the results of failure to contain a viral outbreak:

Total control of our shopping malls by The Living Dead.

Because we have enjoyed so great a degree of liberty in this great nation that a certain group of its citizens have no concept of what tyranny truly is. Say "tyranny" to one of these, and they think of being stopped for speeding or DUI checkpoints. They should be thinking of Stalinist Russia or Khomeini's Iran.

Oddly enough, the concept of stress in this country is a long line at the drive-thru.

Because we have enjoyed so great a degree of liberty in this great nation that a certain group of its citizens have no concept of what tyranny truly is. Say "tyranny" to one of these, and they think of being stopped for speeding or DUI checkpoints. They should be thinking of Stalinist Russia or Khomeini's Iran.

Oddly enough, the concept of stress in this country is a long line at the drive-thru.
In this group it's a left lane hog.

In this group it's a left lane hog.

More like a deserved speeding ticket.

Article 1, section 8; imposition of military law by the president.

Erm, what?

Article 1 of the constitution concerns the legislature.

Section 8 concerns the specific powers of the legislature.

Here's one that you might be thinking of

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
Still, that is not martial law.

Hello...what's the alternative? "The Stand"?

Damn good book I might add.

Erm, what?

Article 1 of the constitution concerns the legislature.

Section 8 concerns the specific powers of the legislature.

Here's one that you might be thinking of


Still, that is not martial law.
That is exactly martial(military) law. It has nothing to do with the U S Marshals

Well at least they're putting it on the table for training and consideration vs ignoring the possibility.

Well at least they're putting it on the table for training and consideration vs ignoring the possibility.
The military at nearby Fort Wainwright regularly practice crowd control and various reactions to civil problems. The training centers on an appropriate response to provocations. It sounds like a good idea to me.

That is exactly martial(military) law. It has nothing to do with the U S Marshals

Really? Martial law doesn't have anything to do with the US Marshals? I didn't know that!!!



Please.

Martial law is when the military acts as the legislative, executive, and judicial branch. The power of congress does not give them that power.

Let's take a look again

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

That is not martial law.

I'm still wondering about this though

Article 1, section 8; imposition of military law by the president.

So, where does it mention the president acting in that capacity within that article?

Really? Martial law doesn't have anything to do with the US Marshals? I didn't know that!!!



Please.

Martial law is when the military acts as the legislative, executive, and judicial branch. The power of congress does not give them that power.

Let's take a look again

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

That is not martial law.

I'm still wondering about this though



So, where does it mention the president acting in that capacity within that article?

Martial law is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, but the suspension of habeas corpus is mentioned in Article 1, Section 9, and the activation of the militia in time of rebellion or invasion is mentioned in Article 1, Section 8.

Article 1, Section 9 states, "The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." Habeas corpus (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#HABCOR) is a concept of law, in which a person may not be held by the government without a valid reason for being held. A writ of habeas corpus can be issued by a court upon a government agency (such as a police force or the military). Such a writ compels the agency to produce the individual to the court, and to convince the court that the person is being reasonably held. The suspension of habeas corpus allows an agency to hold a person without a charge. Suspension of habeas corpus is often equated with martial law.
Because of this connection of the two concepts, it is often argued that only Congress can declare martial law, because Congress alone is granted the power to suspend the writ. The President, however, is commander-in-chief of the military, and it has been argued that the President can take it upon himself to declare martial law. In these times, Congress may decide not to act, effectively accepting martial law by failing to stop it; Congress may agree to the declaration, putting the official stamp of approval on the declaration; or it can reject the President's imposition of martial law, which could set up a power struggle between the Congress and the Executive that only the Judiciary would be able to resolve.
In the United States, there is precedent for martial law. Several times in the course of our history, martial law of varying degrees has been declared. The most obvious and often-cited example was when President Lincoln declared martial law during the Civil War. This instance provides us with most of the rules for martial law that we would use today, should the need arise.

Martial law is when a member of the armed forces under orders has a bayonet against your belly button. Besides Lincoln declaring martial law during the Civil War, federal troops have been called out to machinegun striking coal miners in both West Virginia and Wyoming and did a hell of a good job of it. They also were called to Washiington and Idaho in the early 1920's to halt the practice of hanging members of the communist party from street lamps. Even though you won't find these instances in the kiddy's history books, they did happen.

Well, regardless, if there is a situation where this shit is going down, it's lead that will be making constitutional determinations, not the SCOTUS, which side wins.

I took an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States from enemies foreign AND domestic.

When the barbarians or the pandemic are at the gates you want to fritter away the resources of the country with some kind of internal struggle involving aesthetics and procedure. Thankfully, the remainder of the citizens will be willing to buckle down to the basics of survival and argue out the niceties when there is a more suitable time to do so. When it gets down to the nut cutting you do what you gotta do to survive as an individual or a country. It doesn't matter if you look good doing it. My own opinion is that martial law can be constitutionally invoked by action of the president and congress and would be upheld by the Supreme Court as it has done in the past. Military law was invoked in New Orleans during Katrina. That wasn't what it was called by the Louisiana politicians but that was what it was. When the streets are patrolled by the National Guard, it's martial law.

Well, regardless, if there is a situation where this shit is going down, it's lead that will be making constitutional determinations, not the SCOTUS, which side wins.

I took an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States from enemies foreign AND domestic.

The present oath of enlistment says that you swear to follow the orders of the President of the United States as well.

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962). I don't see any loopholes there.

The oath I swore to is as follows:

The first oath under the Constitution was approved by Act of Congress 29 September 1789 (Sec. 3, Ch. 25, 1st Congress). It applied to all commissioned officers, noncommissioned officers and privates in the service of the United States. It came in two parts, the first of which read: "I, A.B., do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) that I will support the constitution of the United States." The second part read: "I, A.B., do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) to bear true allegiance to the United States of America, and to serve them honestly and faithfully, against all their enemies or opposers whatsoever, and to observe and obey the orders of the President of the United States of America, and the orders of the officers appointed over me."

This was changed in 1962.

It looks like you need to go back and read the fine print

Not if the president is violating - thus and enemy- of the constitution.

Not if the president is violating - thus and enemy- of the constitution.
In your opinion; which in this case wouldn't be consulted.

Seriously, this is why we have an election to select our leaders and supply them with all the authority, including martial law, that it takes to preserve the union. it's one thing to discuss possibilities on an internet forum and another to be facing a howling mob hell bent on securing for their own uses whatever resources have to be shared to provide the most good for the most people.

I it's one thing to discuss possibilities on an internet forum and another to be facing a howling mob hell bent on securing for their own uses whatever resources have to be shared to provide the most good for the most people.

Correct.

People can complain all they want about the Government's response to Katrina, but the fact remains it would have been a whole lot worse had Bush not deployed the National Guard to restore Law and Order. Sure FEMA could have responded faster and Nagin and Blanco should have had a better evacuation plan, but the bottom line is that Law collapsed in the wake of the storm, and Government ordered Military force restored it.

Left to their own devices for another few days after the infrastructure in New Orleans collapsed, that city would have been absolute chaos. Humans devolve shockingly fast in a crisis situation, and were such a disaster to strike my area I would breathe an intense sigh of relief at the sight of soldiers. People watch too many Hollywood movies. Just because the Military shows up in helicopters doesn't mean that there's an evil plot afoot.

In the days following hurricane Katrina I recall seeing footage shot from helicopters of people starving, dehydrated, and begging for rescue from their roof tops. People scurrying about to steal for necessity and survival, and some for greed.

I distinctly recall a piece of footage of one family waving and smiling at the cameras as they grilled BBQ and swam in their above ground pool in their backyard. That family was prepared.

When the time comes I'll be cooking BBQ and swimming.



Their was an article in the medical literature written by a notable infectious disease specialist regarding a wide spread pandemic such as bird flu. The long and short of his conclusion was that to remain alive and safe, you would need to completely isolate yourself from people and self sustain for approximately 90 days (give or take). Ask yourselves if you could manage to do that: provide and purify fresh water, and feed yourself without going to Wal-Mart for 90 days.

One of my favorite sayings: "If no man provides for his own safety, then no man shall be safe."

In the days following hurricane Katrina I recall seeing footage shot from helicopters of people starving, dehydrated, and begging for rescue from their roof tops. People scurrying about to steal for necessity and survival, and some for greed.

I distinctly recall a piece of footage of one family waving and smiling at the cameras as they grilled BBQ and swam in their above ground pool in their backyard. That family was prepared.

When the time comes I'll be cooking BBQ and swimming.



Their was an article in the medical literature written by a notable infectious disease specialist regarding a wide spread pandemic such as bird flu. The long and short of his conclusion was that to remain alive and safe, you would need to completely isolate yourself from people and self sustain for approximately 90 days (give or take). Ask yourselves if you could manage to do that: provide and purify fresh water, and feed yourself without going to Wal-Mart for 90 days.

One of my favorite sayings: "If no man provides for his own safety, then no man shall be safe."
You don't need all the stuff stored up. You just need more firepower than the guy that does.

You don't need all the stuff stored up. You just need more firepower than the guy that does.

IMHO you need both.

One of my favorite sayings: "If no man provides for his own safety, then no man shall be safe."One of mine;
Unless the LORD watches over the city, the watchmen stand guard in vain. (NIV)

If the Army and the Navy,
Ever look on heavens scenes.
They will find the streets are guarded,
By United States Marines.


If martial law is good enough for heaven, it's good enough for me.

Well, regardless, if there is a situation where this shit is going down, it's lead that will be making constitutional determinations, not the SCOTUS, which side wins.

I took an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States from enemies foreign AND domestic.

Not if the president is violating - thus and enemy- of the constitution.

If that happens, the only lead that would fly would be in your direction and in that of any other soldier who turns on his Commander-in-Chief and his country. The led would be fired by soldiers, police, and Marines who stuck to their oaths and their orders as opposed to deciding that they alone were the arbiters of what is and is not Constitutional. Have fun against all of that lead and explosive that will be coming your way.

Only on the internet can you find American soldiers threatening the murder of the President and the Supreme Court.

People watch too many Hollywood movies. Just because the Military shows up in helicopters doesn't mean that there's an evil plot afoot.

Your right. They're just aware the Predator's have landed again, and that could mean Aliens are afoot. :eek:





;)

When the constitution was crafted by the designers, they were hopeful that in the future there would be the strong minded leaders with backbone that could lead the country thrugh the times when it was in extremis. They knew that there would be occasions where there would not be time to argue how many angels could dance on the head of a pin and leaders would have to take absolute control. There has always been that style over substance gang that can't face reality in the clutch that must be dealt with harshly. The constitution makes provisions for just this situation.

In your opinion; which in this case wouldn't be consulted.

Seriously, this is why we have an election to select our leaders and supply them with all the authority, including martial law,

Erm, last I checked it was the constitution that provided them with the authority to do x, and martial law is not one of those things.


If martial law is good enough for heaven, it's good enough for me.

Hey, God also told this lady (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dena_Schlosser) to kill her baby, too.

Erm, last I checked it was the constitution that provided them with the authority to do x, and martial law is not one of those things.
.
What do you expect would happen in the United States if the civil courts and law enforcement were unable to function because of war or rebellion? Under your interpretation it's better to let the country sink into anarchy and rule of force by thugs than allow the congress and the president to invoke law enforcement by the military. Thankfully the Supreme court disagrees with you. The limitation being that as soon as conditions permit rule cedes back to the civil courts.

Hey, God also told this lady (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dena_Schlosser) to kill her baby, too.

Dumbest post ever.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v305/rolex/1207158717075.jpg

Hey, God also told this lady (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dena_Schlosser) to kill her baby, too.

What a dumbass thing to post- that Woman was ruled insane by psychiatrists and locked up. God didn't tell her to do anything, nor does she have anything to do with the conversation at hand.

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised though- your pathetic lashing out at religion in place of being able to adequately refute dkoz's points is a common tactic for a lot of people in this country today.

I don't think there's anything to be hysterical about.. I just want to point out that the threat/possibility is real.. More so than many made-up warnings...

Why do so many people get hysterical when they read that the Government might impose restrictions to prevent destruction to our populace? If taking off my shoes at the airport will prevent a shoe bomber from blowing me up, then I'm all for it. Similarly, if there were a disease epidemic I wouldn't be planning any jaunts to a crowded movie theater in the first place, so I don't mind them limiting people's movement and gatherings until a vaccine is developed.

I don't see much to be upset about here- quarantining the infected and limiting gatherings where the contagion could spread is common sense, not an abuse of Government power. Besides, we've all seen the results of failure to contain a viral outbreak:

Total control of our shopping malls by The Living Dead.

I was referring to Kev and Sinister Angel, not you.

Hey, God also told this lady (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dena_Schlosser) to kill her baby, too.



That is the most irrelevant thing you've said so far.