Thread: Swine flu martial law in MA

Do you approve a bill that gives state officials absolute powers over citizens in cases of "health emergencies"?

Massachusetts Act Relative to Pandemic: A Constitutional Abomination

According to the Act, the Governor of the State of Massachusetts may declare a state of emergency. There is nothing new there and every state governor has that right and authority. The difference in the case of Massachusetts is the actions that the Health Commissioner can take during a declared state of emergency.

The Act allows the Governor to deploy whatever forces he or she deems necessary to control the environment. Once on-site, the Act gives control over law enforcement and National Guard forces to the Health Commissioner to use as he/she sees fit without restriction. There are clauses which allow for:

1. the restriction or prohibition of the assembly of people,
2. arrests without warrant or judicial process,
3. forced investigative entry into premises without a warrant,
4. seizure and destruction of property with only a rubber-stamp process,
5. disposal of human remains without consideration for dignity, spirituality, or morality (the law makes religious provisions a mere option to the government).
6. the seizure and use of private property without process of law,
7. immunity of civil and criminal liability for officials acting under the Act,
8. restrict or stop in and outbound travel to an area declared to be in a state of emergency,
9. the Health Commissioner to issue orders of arrests without warrant or any judicial review or process.
10. the Health Commissioner to issue orders that are enforceable as law without judicial review, legislative process, or the Governor’s endorsement.

The Act renders absolutely no restrictions on the extent to which the Commissioner may utilize the state’s resources, and forces. The Act allows for a state of emergency to last only ninety days. But, the emergency declaration can be extended for an indefinite number of ninety day extensions by the Governor.

that's insane!!!!!!!!!!

Insane, perhaps, but also some good sense.

Like the disposal of human remains for example. Yes, it is cruel to the survivors. Otoh, if people are dying of something nasty (say ebola or something equally nasty) then the main concern is to halt the spread and to make sure it stays contained.

At such times, I think survival trumps religious niceties (no offense to whatever religion would apply).

Restrict or stop outbound travel: another point of common sense. If there is an outbreak of something nasty, the last thing you want it for people to flee and go to their family in the big city. Again: survival by containment trumps your right to travel as you wish in case of medical emergency.

And if the person in charge of the crisis needs to have something shut down, turned off or on, or moved out of the way, I think it is important he can do so without having to quibble with the owner if it would affect containment or spread of the disease.

Of course, everything should be open and information should be issued as much as possible. People are contained not because they are criminals, but because the spread of disease has to stop.

Theoretically makes sense but I think that this pandemic is a bit overblown, so far. It is not ebola, nor marburg or anything like that. Seasonal flu makes more victims every year. The authorities are definitely trying to contain the pandemic, since the worst is probably to come this winter. Still, the WHO declared the outbreak to be a pandemic, but also noted that most of the illnesses were of moderate severity.

I'm pretty sure I got it in September 2008 (the strain has been around for a while) and while the worst flu I ever got, wasn't much different from the usual. But I hadn't got it in years... mainly from basic hygiene rules... that's still the best prevention. I'm not sure how much a vaccine for a virus that mutates so fast would be effective.

Of couse, for swine flu this is over the top. Totally.
It's just that in case of emergency, I think this type of martial law makes sense to guarantee survival.

I think arrest without warrants seizing property and illegal search is going over the top.

Exactly. It may be good to have, in case the pandemic and aggressiveness of the strain degenerates into something extreme, but I can't agree with it on an ethical level. I see the abolition of citizen's rights as highly risky and open to abuse... another 911, without falling into the conspiracy theories. Maybe they'll send you to Guantanamo if you cough at the store now?

Also, the "without restriction" part is very scary... when the only restriction is actually unrestricted in the law itself (Referring to the duration of the state of emergency)!

Clearly they are thinking ahead to the imminent global zombie outbreak.

In the case of a real, dangerous pandemic, these are exactly the measures I'd expect the authorities to take - whether bills had been passed beforehand or not. In fact, protecting the citizenry during such a crisis would be one of the most legitimate reasons for a government to exercise its power, in my humble opinion.

Failing to do enough would have far worse consequences (and provoke much more criticism after the fact) than being overly proactive.

Originally Posted by Doc

I think arrest without warrants seizing property and illegal search is going over the top.

I think, if ebola breaks out, it is not a bad idea for the national guard or whomever to be able to check your trunk to see if you are smuggling out little susie who is not feeling too well.

Again: speaking only about cases comparable to ebola, plague, etc.