Bush military bird flu role slammed >>>

New DU'er "peace_on_earth" wants this poll posted - for good reason!





The poll:

QUICKVOTE

Should there be a U.S. law enforcement role for the military during domestic emergencies?

Yes

No

Go to the link to respond:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/05/bush.reax/index.html?section=cnn_tops

it's 53% in favor of martial law.

This is so scary. How would we know if any outbreak really did occur anyway? I don't believe a thing they say. This is plan B for military control of the country in case everyone finds out how corrupt and criminal this adm is.
They would not give up the WH without a war in the US.
Don't mean to be so paranoid, but hey this has been going in this direction since 2000. Clear signs to me.

but true as far as I'm concerned.

Fucking imbeciles! :grr:

This isn't the first time we've had a bad flu going around. He's the first son of a bitch who's tried to use it as an excuse for getting rid of Posse Comitatus though.

The little shit is a fascist.

They don't even know what this country is about and why anymore.

Jeez.

ok to use the military - and that it would be for policing part is nothing. Very misleading.

you didn't know better like the activists.

Very misleading.

53% saying yes..Who are these people that want martial law?

----------------

Remember Fallujah

Bush to The Hague!

From the article:

But Dr. Irwin Redlener, associate dean of Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health and director of its National Center for Disaster Preparedness, told The Associated Press the president's suggestion was dangerous.

Giving the military a law enforcement role would be an "extraordinarily Draconian measure" that would be unnecessary if the nation had built the capability for rapid vaccine production, ensured a large supply of anti-virals like Tamiflu and not allowed the degradation of the public health system.

"The translation of this is martial law in the United States," Redlener said.

And Gene Healy, a senior editor at the conservative Cato Institute, said Bush would risk undermining "a fundamental principle of American law" by tinkering with the act, which does not hinder the military's ability to respond to a crisis.

"What it does is set a high bar for the use of federal troops in a policing role," he wrote in a commentary on the group's Web site. "That reflects America's traditional distrust of using standing armies to enforce order at home, a distrust that's well-justified."





Should there be a U.S. law enforcement role for the military during domestic emergencies?

Yes............53%...70127 votes

No.............47%...61975 votes

Total: 132102 votes