Scary: Bush: Military may have to help if bird flu breaks out

Wildcard

Moderator
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10...nflu/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush said Tuesday that the possibility of an avian flu pandemic is among the reasons he wants Congress to give him the power to use the nation's military in law enforcement roles in the United States.

"I'm concerned about what an avian flu outbreak could mean for the United States and the world," he told reporters during a Rose Garden news conference.

Such an deadly event would raise difficult questions, such as how a quarantine might be enforced, he said.

"One option is the use of a military that's able to plan and move," he said. "So that's why I put it on the table. I think it's an important debate for Congress to have."

People who catch the worst strain of avian flu can die of viral pneumonia and acute respiratory distress, according to mayoclinic.com.

The disease has killed tens of millions of birds in Asia.

Last week, the U.N.'s health agency, the World Health Organization, sought to ease fears that the disease could kill as many as 150 million people worldwide.

"We're not going to know how lethal the next pandemic is going to be until the pandemic begins," WHO influenza spokesman Dick Thompson said, according to The Associated Press.

The consequences of an outbreak in the United States need to be addressed before catastrophe strikes, Bush said.

The president said that he sees things differently than he did as governor of Texas. "I didn't want the president telling me how to be the commander in chief of the Texas Guard," he said. "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."

Should avian flu mutate and gain the ability to spread easily from human to human, world leaders and scientists would need rapid access to accurate information to be able to stem its spread, he said.

"We need to know, on a real-time basis, the facts, so the world's scientific community could analyze the facts," he said.

Bush said he has spoken with Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, about work toward a vaccine, but that means of prevention remains a distant hope.

"I take this issue very seriously," Bush said. "I'm not predicting an outbreak, but just suggesting to you we ought to be thinking about it, and we are."

Absent an effective vaccine, public health officials likely would try to stem the disease's spread by isolating people who had been exposed to it. Such a move could require the military, he said.

"I think the president ought to have all options on the table," Bush said, then corrected himself, "all assets on the table -- to be able to deal with something this significant."

The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 bans the military from participating in police-type activity on U.S. soil.

Bush began discussing the possibility of changing the law last month, in the aftermath of the government's sluggish response to civil unrest following Hurricane Katrina.

"I want there to be a robust discussion about the best way for the federal government, in certain extreme circumstances, to be able to rally assets for the good of the people," he told reporters September 26.

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."

Healy said soldiers are not trained as police officers, and putting them in a civilian law enforcement role "can result in serious collateral damage to American life and liberty."

Last month, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Bush "wants to make sure that we learn the lessons from Hurricane Katrina," including the use of the military in "a severe, catastrophic-type event."

"The Department of Defense would assume the responsibility for the situation, and come in with an overwhelming amount of resources and assets, to help stabilize the situation," McClellan said.

The World Health Organization has reported 116 cases of avian flu in humans, all of them in Asia. More than half of them have been fatal, it said.

On Thursday, the Senate added $4 billion to a Pentagon spending bill to head off the threat of an outbreak of avian flu among humans. The bulk of the money -- $3 billion -- would be used to stockpile Tamiflu, an antiviral drug that has proved effective against the H5N1 virus -- the strain blamed for six deaths in Indonesia last week.

U.S. health agencies have about 2 million doses of Tamiflu, enough to treat about 1 percent of the population. The money added by the Senate would build that stockpile to cover about 50 percent of the population.

FOX NEWS article on same
 
The last enfluenza pandemic was in 1917-18 when troops returning from WW-I brought it home with them. Tens of thousands died, partly due to quarantines in hospitals which simply infected all who came there and partly because antibiotics hadn't been invented yet. World wide the toll was over 8 million as I recall, possibly as high as 20 million people.

Now, if that doesn't scare you, think of this. There is no vaccine against the 1918 pandemic virus even today. Nor against the next big flu virus that comes along and is able to be quickly transmitted from person to person.

In 1918, travel between countries was a days to weeks-long adventure. Today it can be done in hours. Where passengers "fell ill" on their voyages and could be quarantined upon arrival in 1918, such a person may feel good enough to leave the plane, get on a 2nd plane for 2 hours and arrive at their destination before showing symptoms. Meanwhile they've spread the infection to hundreds of others to take to their destinations!

While changing the Posse Comitatus act is one idea, I think that the use of Federal troops would be better served in securing the nation's transportation system in and out of an affected area. Using military personnel to man air traffic control centers and towers to divert & control aircraft access for instance. Another would be to augment the state & local streets or public works departments in maintaining detours, road-blocks and basic egress from or to the areas. Railroads would come under DOT jurisdiction which could ask for Military assitance to ensure people are not sneaking aboard trains to spread infection.

Someone will ask "what's the difference?" and it's simple. Federal troops would not be acting in a "policing" role but more of a man-power role to release police officers to do their jobs. We'd likely see martial law proclaimed by Governors however. Once that happens, it would be a crime to leave the area without clearance. Again, troops used to perform non-policing activities, like recording deaths, notifying next of kin, etc, would let police handle the other problems.

Exigent circumstances in the past have seen Presidents call on the Army or National Guard to quell riots and uprisings. Labor riots are but one example. Were such a pandemic to show up in a major city, I dare say many of us would not protest too loudly when troops begin choking off road, rail and air transport to contain the infections.
 
Personally, I'd be really PO'd if any gov't agency tried quarentining me... I'll quarentine my own darn self... That's what I'm doing with the cold I've got right now...

Wolfe... (Waiting for the nostril switch.)
 
The US military is trained to kill people and break things and they do not need to have any role in domestic law enforcement activities. The LAST thing I want to see is a military unit moving through my neighborhood "clearing" houses like they recently did in NO.
 
partly because antibiotics hadn't been invented yet
Antibiotics CANNOT be used to treat any Virus. Ever. In addition, discovered would be a more appropriate word than "invented".


If there was a containable virus outbreak, that if left unchecked, could kill millions, your familys and yourselves included, I would think that ALL means would need to be considered to ensure containment and prevent the "walking dead" from speading the disease. If the outbreak was in a remote area, and it was the ONLY way to contain it, even nuclear weapons should be used. The lives of the many uninfected are more important than the the dead.
 
IMO if there is ever an ebola outbreak that becomes major, as in 20 percent or more of the city infected, it should be quarantined, and if thats not possible, nuked. I'm scared to death of ebola, that stuff is crazy. It replicates so fast that your spleen becomes a solid brick of virus!
 
+1 Low Key
On the flip side of that statement, I'd much rather our soldiers spend their time training to kill people and break things instead of making them less effective by giving them yet another different and unrelated job.
 
I dont blame Bush , I blame the LIBERALS and the media. Look at how they blasted him over katrina so now due to their Bush bashing as usual what you get is a kneejerk reaction from the president. Bush is just trying to respond to a impending disaster the way the left wants him to. I feel this is all due to the left and the media and their Bush can do nothing right agenda. Now you have a president who is going to possibly over react due to pressure from the left and this is what you get. Also this is just preparing for the worse case scenerio, maybe the military would help those that are sick with care, food, transportation to a hospitol or in the worse case corpse removal. No I forgot, low key said all we do is kill so I guess we would go house to house and just shoot people!!! Where were all these people during the siege in Waco, deafly silent HMM!

Thank the Liberals if you aren't happy about Bush's decision. Also the people who say the military KILLS people and destroys things obviously has never served this country. I have and in 20+ years have seen more HUMANATARIAN missions than combat and the U.S. military has aided many people in many countries. I think that statement REEKS of anti military and anti Bushism. Just like N.O. the people refused to leave, they died and its Bush's fault? The mayor of N.O. didnt use the buses available to remove those that wanted to go, he said where would they bring them, well DUH anywhere is better than dead!

Sadly people do stupid things that impact the innocent, if someone is infected what gives them the right to go around infecting others. This is how epidemics get out of control. We saw how ineffective the police were in N.O., also how can the police with so few numbers enforce a quarentine. I guess some people would rather infect others and die with the bill of rights in their hand than do the proper thing. I see it as the NO ONE is going to tell me what to do attitude, even if it kills me and others. This is the way other epidemics have been stopped, quarentines are due to idiots who wont do the right thing and stay home even though they are infected. Its the h#ll with everyone else attitude that causes an enforced quarentine.

To boil it down, its the same Bush is an idiot and cannot do anything right crap. Also who said that the military was going to clear houses due to this, if anything they would want you to stay in your house to prevent spread of the flu! I sure hope W lets us use live ammo, grenades and napalm, I just love the smell of death in the morning, I cant help it, its my military training!
 
Some people are watching way too much Hollywood.

Avian Influenza is thought to be transmitted by migratory birds, so you can forget about "nuking the source".

The thought that it would suddenly appear in ONE US burb, lending itself to eradication by nuclear explosion is the stuff of bad Dustin Hoffman movies, not good Public Health Policy or Treatment. Get over it.

Avian Influenza has an incubation period of 3-7 days. That means, by the time the first case is detected, tens of thousands will have been exposed and thousands will be carriers. Given population mobility, aircraft and urban density, we won't be dealing with the need to quarantine a city but an entire nation.

If the first outbreak is in Boston and we do the Hollywood thing for public entertainment, we'd call up the Military and the NatGuard from all surrounding states. Great. What do you tell the Governor of Ohio when the first case in Toledo is reported six days later? How about Connecticut, Florida, Oregon or Arizona? "Oops, we'll send your guys back"?

Deadly viruses are a fact of life. Unless they are intentionally introduced into a given city, with immediate knowledge of the fact; or introduced by laboratory accident, with immediate knowledge of the fact, the etiology simply doesn't lend itself to the Grade B Hollywood Fantasies that are being discussed here.

Sound Public Health measures are simple:
Ask EVERYONE to:
- Limit your travel.
- Get plenty of rest.
- Wash your hands regularly.
- Avoid unnecessary human contact
- Stay away from crowded areas and aircraft

In a flu epidemic like this thousands may die; perhaps tens of thousands. Put a cordon around Skokie on day four and the resultant deaths will be....the same.

OTOH, you could shut down the nation. Impose Martial Law. Require everyone to remain in place for about seven days. Call in UN Troops to help secure the nation. Shoot those who fail to comply. Organize decon teams to transport the infected to local Home Depot Parking lots where huge tents are erected inside razor wire fences. Pile the dead in local land fills and incinerate the bodies in huge conflagrations.

Perhaps we could get John Travolta or Michael Douglas to play the part of the President. Kiefer Sutherland could be the FedAgent in charge of tracking down the offending bird that introduced it in order to discover a revolutionary new "vaccine". :rolleyes:
Rich

ps: We've already seen an equivalent outbreak. It's called HIV virus and I don't recall the Military being able to assist.
 
Also the people who say the military KILLS people and destroys things obviously has never served this country. I have and in 20+ years have seen more HUMANATARIAN missions than combat and the U.S. military has aided many people in many countries. I think that statement REEKS of anti military and anti Bushism.

I'm not anti-bush or anti-military. I voted for bush in both primaries and both elections and support the military in their important work of defending our freedom. What I am talking about is what happens when you put liberal democrats in charge of anything. NO is run by liberal Democrats and it is painfully obvious what their own incompetence had cost their city. Chaos, mayhem, lawlessness, GUN CONFISCATIONs on the order of the city mayor. What happens if we get a liberal democrat president in the next election? What happens if this liberal democrat president decides to order the military, in their new law enforcement role, to confiscate all the firearms in a certain area for whatever reason? Are they going to disobey an order from the commander in cheif or do their duty and obey orders, even if the order is not constitutional? I know this is a what if thought process and maybe I should have clarified that in my post.

I have no doubt that our military offers tremendous humanitarian assistance to a variety of people in all kinds of places, and I applaud them in that work and am glad that they are out there doing it.
 
ps: We've already seen an equivalent outbreak. It's called HIV virus and I don't recall the Military being able to assist.

You're right on target with your entire post except for this. There's a major difference between influenza and HIV. HIV is not transmissable through casual contact. That makes all the difference.
 
There's a major difference between influenza and HIV. HIV is not transmissable through casual contact. That makes all the difference.
If you mean it makes a moral difference because those infected with HIV have put themselves at risk for the disease, I'd agree.

But, from a Public Health and Prevention standpoint, it matters little what the mode of transmission. HIV has killed more than 21 Million people worldwide in recent years. It took the lives of more than 100,000 Americans in the decade of the 80's alone. It remains the highest ranking killer of Black men, ages 25-44, in the US and second for Black Women in the same age group.

Deadly pandemic is deadly pandemic. Prevention of spread is best accomplished in either case by education, not force of arms.
Rich
 
The two key paragraphs from above:

On Thursday, the Senate added $4 billion to a Pentagon spending bill to head off the threat of an outbreak of avian flu among humans. The bulk of the money -- $3 billion -- would be used to stockpile Tamiflu, an antiviral drug that has proved effective against the H5N1 virus -- the strain blamed for six deaths in Indonesia last week.

U.S. health agencies have about 2 million doses of Tamiflu, enough to treat about 1 percent of the population. The money added by the Senate would build that stockpile to cover about 50 percent of the population.


So I'd assume an appropriation of about $8 billion would be about enough to cover the entire US population? $4 bil is already sunk, so we're actually only talking about another $4 bil additional. If this has the potential to kill hundreds of thousands or millions in the US, I'd say that additional $ bil. is a small price to pay as compared to just the economic effects of a major pandemic. Granted, Tamiflu may not work on a new and mutated strain, but it may very well work just fine. We don't yet know, but it seems to do ok on HN51 according to he above. Yet rather than come up with an additional $4 bil. to cover the entire population of the US, we're talking about putting the military in charge, martial law, and still dealing with the possibility of tens of thousands of deaths. Some here have even suggested using nuclear weapons to kill infected Americans. :confused:

Now how much are we spending in Iraq each day? A billion dollars or so?

I appreciate the importance of what we're doing in Iraq, but if the problem is budgetary, I think its time to pull back, let the Iraqis defend themselves against the radicals, and figure out their own destiny for a while. If this bird flu is as serious a threat as they say, a little viral pandemic could kill a hell of a lot more Americans in a much closer time frame than a bunch of suicide bombers living in mudhuts in Cameldung, Iraq. I can hardly believe the idiocy of the logic - stay in Iraq to prevent terrorists from entering this country to try and kill our people but we're ready to nuke our own cities and citizens in a futile attempt to kill a virus? :confused:
 
The problem isn't budgetary, nor is it primarily the government's. It's our problem and I'd venture to say that 70% of us would be willing to pay for our own vaccine. We'd probably get it a lot cheaper than if .gov buys it also.
Rich
 
Rich -

I know the problem isn't really budgetary; if we had the will, we'd find a way. $4 bil. is relatively small in the grand scheme of things. I don't lik the government meddling in the medical business, but to prevent a pandemic I think it would be justified. Nevertheless, I agree most Americans would be happy to even pay out of pocket for Tamiflu if it was widely available. I just think there's more than meets the eye here. Sending in the military to perform "law enforcement" and deal with a potential outbreak of a virus for which we may likely have a treatment (Tamiflu), or just about any other crisis that may arise? Its a pretext for a power grab by the executive branch and most Americans are buying into it.
 
Back
Top