NO, King George, We said NO!
One way or another, Bush and Cronies want to get federal troops in our neighborhoods. Why? Based on past experience, if Bush cannot get his way with this, then the change in law that will allow the movement of troops into our cities and neighborhoods will be sneaked through as a tag on some other law, or we will once again concede to the “intent” of Bush and Cronies actions as we did with The Patriot Act. And then we will not be able to “gather in large groups” (the Right of Free Assembly), go to work,or leave our homes if “exposed” to individuals with Avian Flu until the “period of incubation” has passed.
One has to ask oneself if any of the people who are mildly suggesting(rather than being righteously angry) that federal troops active in state affairs is a bad idea have ever read The Bill of Rights or The Constitution, and I don’t care how much lawyers try to complicate these two documents, the facts remain as written by our founding fathers who had strong reasons for writing our historical documents as they did: our founding fathers had the experience of being ruled by a Tyrant, and that is what George W. Bush is seeking: tyranny. If you read the justifications of our founding fathers for The Declaration of Independence, you will see these words:
HE has kept among us, in Times of Peace, Standing Armies without the consent of our Legislature.
HE has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to Civil Power.
HE has combined with others to subject us to a Jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution, and unacknowledged by our Laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
FOR quartering large Bodies of Armed Troops among us:
FOR imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
FOR depriving us in many Cases, of the Benefits of Trial by Jury:
FOR taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
IN every stage of these Oppressions we have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble Terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated Injury. A Prince, whose Character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the Ruler of a free People.
___________________________________________________________________
Following is a comparison of The Patriot Act with The Reichstag Fire Decree, Germany, 1933 from Wikipedia
___________________________________________________________________
Reichstag Fire Decree, Germany, enacted February 28, 1933 after the Reichstag fire
___________________________________________________________________
The Decree of the Reich President for the Protection of People and State (Reichstag Fire Decree) and subsequent Enabling Act that empowered Adolf Hitler to seize control of Germany are often compared to the USA PATRIOT Act.[28] The similarities are that both were passed after an act of terrorism, both were passed quickly, both limited civil liberties with the expressed purpose of protecting the people, and both were used in excess of their expressed purpose. The English translation of Article 1 of the DRPPPS states that the decree intends "...to restrict the rights to personal freedom [habeas corpus], freedom of speech, including the freedom of the press, the freedom to organize and assemble, the privacy of letters, mail, telegraphs and telephones, order searches and confiscations and restrict property, even if this is not otherwise provided for by present law." The USA Patriot Act is not as explicit about its intentions, often wording the act in terms of what civil liberties and safeguards people have left.
The Reichstag Fire Decree differs from the USA PATRIOT Act in that the DRPPPS more explicitly seizes states rights and associates the death penalty with many offenses. Additionally, some of the USA PATRIOT Act has a sunset provision, whereas the set expiration date of the Enabling Act was dependent upon a succession of power, and the DRPPPS did not have a set expiration date. The USA PATRIOT Act and the Enabling Act were both passed by a freely elected Congress, whereas the DRPPPS was a "emergency decree" by the German president made at the behest of Chancellor Hitler.
Although the USA PATRIOT Act differs in some respects, the Reichstag Fire Decree and subsequent Enabling Act are cited as examples of how giving up civil liberties in times of crisis can be used to legally overthrow a government's constitution from within.
___________________________________________________________________
Pentagon, Lawmakers Resist Greater Military Role in Disasters
Excerpt from Article
Sept. 30 (Bloomberg) -- Former top U.S. military officials and lawmakers from both parties are resisting President George W. Bush's suggestion that active-duty troops take a lead role in responding to natural disasters.
Pentagon officials such as Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld also are cool to the idea, said Peter King, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee. ``I've spoken to people in the White House who say that Rumsfeld is really resisting,'' King, a New York Republican, said in an interview yesterday.
One issue is what Bush's proposal might mean to armed forces already heavily engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan. ``The military right now is extremely stretched,'' said retired Admiral William Crowe, a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. ``If you have to train for it and make them into policemen and firemen, that will be a major distraction.''
There's danger of a political backlash in changing the 127- year-old U.S. law that bars federal troops from law-enforcement, said retired Army General John Shalikashvili, also a former Joint Chiefs chairman. ``I don't think the American people are ready for the U.S. military to do law enforcement,'' he said.
Even Admiral Tim Keating, commander of the military arm responsible for homeland defense, said, ``I don't think you necessarily want DoD forces in law-enforcement roles.''
___________________________________________________________________
Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - 12:00 AM
Excerpt from Article
Bush may use troops, quarantine if bird flu breaks out
By Knight Ridder Newspapers and The Washington Post
WASHINGTON — President Bush said yesterday that he is considering the use of military troops to impose a quarantine in the event of a deadly flu pandemic.
Bush, in response to a question at a news conference, echoed warnings from health experts who fear a replay of the 1918 pandemic that killed an estimated 50 million people worldwide. He outlined a series of steps to deal with an illness that could overwhelm the health-care system.
The World Health Organization says an influenza pandemic is "just a matter of time." Some health officials particularly are concerned about avian flu because it seems to be extremely lethal when it jumps from birds to humans. Of 116 known cases in humans since 2003, more than half — 60 — ended in death. There are no confirmed cases of human-to-human transmission of the flu, also known as bird flu, but that could change because such viruses constantly mutate.
Bush left no doubt that he takes the threat seriously.
"I am concerned about avian flu. ... I've thought through all the scenarios of what an avian-flu outbreak could mean," Bush said. "I'm not predicting an outbreak. I'm just suggesting to you that we'd better be thinking about it."
The president gave no details on the specific role troops might play or what sort of quarantine might be invoked. The federal government's pandemic-response plan, the product of more than a year of work, is expected to be released soon.
Most public-health experts believe it is impossible to entirely isolate neighborhoods, towns, cities or regions during an outbreak of disease. Instead, "quarantines" today generally refer to a variety of strategies for identifying and limiting the movement of people who are infected with a contagious pathogen or are at high risk.
That might include screening travelers for fever and flu symptoms; prohibiting large gatherings of people, including at some workplaces; and requiring that people exposed to infected individuals stay at home until the incubation period for the illness has passed. China took these measures during the outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome in 2003.
"The policy questions for a president in dealing with an avian-flu outbreak are difficult," Bush said. "One example: If we had an outbreak somewhere in the United States, do we not then quarantine that part of the country? And how do you, then, enforce a quarantine? ... And who best to be able to effect a quarantine?"
He did not answer his questions but after the last one, he said: "One option is the use of a military that's able to plan and move. So that's why I put it on the table. I think it's an important debate for Congress to have."
Since the bungled initial federal response to Hurricane Katrina, Bush has suggested a change in law that would put the Pentagon in charge of search-and-rescue efforts in times of a major terrorist attack or similarly catastrophic natural disaster.
The president acknowledged that some governors object to the idea of federal control of National Guard units in emergencies. He added that as a former governor, "I understand that. ... But Congress needs to take a look at circumstances that may need to vest the capacity of the president to move beyond that debate. And one such catastrophe or one such challenge could be an avian-flu outbreak."
__________________________________________________________________
One has to ask oneself if any of the people who are mildly suggesting(rather than being righteously angry) that federal troops active in state affairs is a bad idea have ever read The Bill of Rights or The Constitution, and I don’t care how much lawyers try to complicate these two documents, the facts remain as written by our founding fathers who had strong reasons for writing our historical documents as they did: our founding fathers had the experience of being ruled by a Tyrant, and that is what George W. Bush is seeking: tyranny. If you read the justifications of our founding fathers for The Declaration of Independence, you will see these words:
HE has kept among us, in Times of Peace, Standing Armies without the consent of our Legislature.
HE has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to Civil Power.
HE has combined with others to subject us to a Jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution, and unacknowledged by our Laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
FOR quartering large Bodies of Armed Troops among us:
FOR imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
FOR depriving us in many Cases, of the Benefits of Trial by Jury:
FOR taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
IN every stage of these Oppressions we have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble Terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated Injury. A Prince, whose Character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the Ruler of a free People.
___________________________________________________________________
Following is a comparison of The Patriot Act with The Reichstag Fire Decree, Germany, 1933 from Wikipedia
___________________________________________________________________
Reichstag Fire Decree, Germany, enacted February 28, 1933 after the Reichstag fire
___________________________________________________________________
The Decree of the Reich President for the Protection of People and State (Reichstag Fire Decree) and subsequent Enabling Act that empowered Adolf Hitler to seize control of Germany are often compared to the USA PATRIOT Act.[28] The similarities are that both were passed after an act of terrorism, both were passed quickly, both limited civil liberties with the expressed purpose of protecting the people, and both were used in excess of their expressed purpose. The English translation of Article 1 of the DRPPPS states that the decree intends "...to restrict the rights to personal freedom [habeas corpus], freedom of speech, including the freedom of the press, the freedom to organize and assemble, the privacy of letters, mail, telegraphs and telephones, order searches and confiscations and restrict property, even if this is not otherwise provided for by present law." The USA Patriot Act is not as explicit about its intentions, often wording the act in terms of what civil liberties and safeguards people have left.
The Reichstag Fire Decree differs from the USA PATRIOT Act in that the DRPPPS more explicitly seizes states rights and associates the death penalty with many offenses. Additionally, some of the USA PATRIOT Act has a sunset provision, whereas the set expiration date of the Enabling Act was dependent upon a succession of power, and the DRPPPS did not have a set expiration date. The USA PATRIOT Act and the Enabling Act were both passed by a freely elected Congress, whereas the DRPPPS was a "emergency decree" by the German president made at the behest of Chancellor Hitler.
Although the USA PATRIOT Act differs in some respects, the Reichstag Fire Decree and subsequent Enabling Act are cited as examples of how giving up civil liberties in times of crisis can be used to legally overthrow a government's constitution from within.
___________________________________________________________________
Pentagon, Lawmakers Resist Greater Military Role in Disasters
Excerpt from Article
Sept. 30 (Bloomberg) -- Former top U.S. military officials and lawmakers from both parties are resisting President George W. Bush's suggestion that active-duty troops take a lead role in responding to natural disasters.
Pentagon officials such as Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld also are cool to the idea, said Peter King, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee. ``I've spoken to people in the White House who say that Rumsfeld is really resisting,'' King, a New York Republican, said in an interview yesterday.
One issue is what Bush's proposal might mean to armed forces already heavily engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan. ``The military right now is extremely stretched,'' said retired Admiral William Crowe, a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. ``If you have to train for it and make them into policemen and firemen, that will be a major distraction.''
There's danger of a political backlash in changing the 127- year-old U.S. law that bars federal troops from law-enforcement, said retired Army General John Shalikashvili, also a former Joint Chiefs chairman. ``I don't think the American people are ready for the U.S. military to do law enforcement,'' he said.
Even Admiral Tim Keating, commander of the military arm responsible for homeland defense, said, ``I don't think you necessarily want DoD forces in law-enforcement roles.''
___________________________________________________________________
Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - 12:00 AM
Excerpt from Article
Bush may use troops, quarantine if bird flu breaks out
By Knight Ridder Newspapers and The Washington Post
WASHINGTON — President Bush said yesterday that he is considering the use of military troops to impose a quarantine in the event of a deadly flu pandemic.
Bush, in response to a question at a news conference, echoed warnings from health experts who fear a replay of the 1918 pandemic that killed an estimated 50 million people worldwide. He outlined a series of steps to deal with an illness that could overwhelm the health-care system.
The World Health Organization says an influenza pandemic is "just a matter of time." Some health officials particularly are concerned about avian flu because it seems to be extremely lethal when it jumps from birds to humans. Of 116 known cases in humans since 2003, more than half — 60 — ended in death. There are no confirmed cases of human-to-human transmission of the flu, also known as bird flu, but that could change because such viruses constantly mutate.
Bush left no doubt that he takes the threat seriously.
"I am concerned about avian flu. ... I've thought through all the scenarios of what an avian-flu outbreak could mean," Bush said. "I'm not predicting an outbreak. I'm just suggesting to you that we'd better be thinking about it."
The president gave no details on the specific role troops might play or what sort of quarantine might be invoked. The federal government's pandemic-response plan, the product of more than a year of work, is expected to be released soon.
Most public-health experts believe it is impossible to entirely isolate neighborhoods, towns, cities or regions during an outbreak of disease. Instead, "quarantines" today generally refer to a variety of strategies for identifying and limiting the movement of people who are infected with a contagious pathogen or are at high risk.
That might include screening travelers for fever and flu symptoms; prohibiting large gatherings of people, including at some workplaces; and requiring that people exposed to infected individuals stay at home until the incubation period for the illness has passed. China took these measures during the outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome in 2003.
"The policy questions for a president in dealing with an avian-flu outbreak are difficult," Bush said. "One example: If we had an outbreak somewhere in the United States, do we not then quarantine that part of the country? And how do you, then, enforce a quarantine? ... And who best to be able to effect a quarantine?"
He did not answer his questions but after the last one, he said: "One option is the use of a military that's able to plan and move. So that's why I put it on the table. I think it's an important debate for Congress to have."
Since the bungled initial federal response to Hurricane Katrina, Bush has suggested a change in law that would put the Pentagon in charge of search-and-rescue efforts in times of a major terrorist attack or similarly catastrophic natural disaster.
The president acknowledged that some governors object to the idea of federal control of National Guard units in emergencies. He added that as a former governor, "I understand that. ... But Congress needs to take a look at circumstances that may need to vest the capacity of the president to move beyond that debate. And one such catastrophe or one such challenge could be an avian-flu outbreak."
__________________________________________________________________
posted by FancyRage at 10:53 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home