Is potential germ warfare reason for martial law?

Status
Not open for further replies.

mckeea

Inactive
I thought you might be interested in this, which was posted in today's New York Times web site.

"President Clinton said Thursday that it is "highly likely" that a terrorist group will launch or threaten a germ or chemical attack on American soil within the next few years.

In an interview in the Oval Office, Clinton said he had been persuaded by intelligence reports that the United States needs to bolster its defenses.

"I just want the American people to know what they need to know and have a realistic view of this," the President said in the 45-minute interview, "not to be afraid, or asleep. I think that's the trick."

Without providing specifics, Clinton warned that any attack with germ or chemical weapons would prompt "at least a proportionate if not a disproportionate response." The United States has signed treaties not to use chemical or germ weapons.

Clinton said he is weighing a proposal from the Defense Department to establish a commander in chief for the defense of the continental United States, a step that civil liberties groups strongly resist.

Such a program would go far beyond the civil defense measures and bomb shelters that marked the cold war, setting up instead a military leadership to help fight chaos and disarray if an attack occurred. Pentagon commanders oversee regions around the globe, but not the continental United States.

Critics fear such moves could open the door to rising military influence and a loss of individual rights, but Clinton insisted that such erosions would never occur. "
 
"Martial Law" is a specific condition and is already spelled out. I really don't think even Clinton anticipates its use in ADVANCE of a germ warfare threat.

I would think it's justified if there is an actual attack, because of ML's restriction on travel. Clinton did use one accurate phrase in the full article, to the effect that "germ warfare is the gift which keeps on giving".

AIDS Patient Zero, an airline steward, went from New York to California, with some 30 sexual encounters in only a week or so. From him alone came the first few thousand cases.

Now envision a disease more readily spread, more highly contagious, with an incubation period of hours or a few days. Would YOU want refugees fleeing "back home" to some perceived refuge? Coughing or sneezing in every gas station, restaurant, or airline terminal on the trip?

When quarantine and prayer are about all that can be done by an overwhelmed medical system, what alternative do you suggest? I believe it is legitimate to discuss a country's various options--and better publicly than in secret.

Again, restrictions on personal liberty in _anticipation_ of any sort of problem are not justified. Most of us on this forum are regularly fighting such restrictions already, are we not? "War on Drugs" issues have already been discussed here...

No easy questions nor solutions...
 
Folks,

Please place all subsequent posts to this subject in the "...martial law may not be far away..." thread of the Political forum. Thank you for your patience as we "sort" through a minor technical difficulty.
Mykl
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top