when you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail

[winterbadger]

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

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/04/bush.avianflu/index.html

I've seen several people commenting on this. What is most striking to me about the story is that Bush appears not to know that, as president, he can waive the provisions of Posse Comitatus by finding that "unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the United States,[make] it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any state or territory by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings". Given some of the stretches that have been reached by declarations of national emergency, the disorder and hysteria that could be preciptated by a disease pandemic could probably be used to justify invoking this provision of 10 USC 331-334. Actually, the argument in favour of the president's position is that the military *can* be called in to deal with such a situation under existing law. What it can't do (I think, though this may be arugable) is actually *plan* for such eventualities.

But, this all really begs the question: why use the military? Yes, they are good at moving people and material around. Yes, as a last resort they can be used to prevent looting and destruction of property (though many Iraqis would point out "Only if someone tells them too.") But, really, this is the sort of job that FEMA prepares for and that FEMA is supposed to exist so as to coordinate federal, state, and local reaction to. They don't have the manpower and infrastrucutre of the military, but civil prepadredness is supposed, first and foremost, to be a state role with the federal government providing support and overall guidance. After all, the Republican Party is supposed to be the one that believes in states' rights and pushign government responsibilities down to the lowest level possible to as to allow resposnes to be best tailored to local conditions. Right?

Comments

[curiousangel.livejournal.com]

I suspect that the President would rather not invoke the Insurrection Act in order to deal with a disease outbreak. :)

Seriously, though, he's trying to have the discussion before hand, in order to get everyone on the same page (or as much as is possible when dealing with this many different organizations). To quote from his press conference on 4 October:

Q Mr. President, you've been thinking a lot about pandemic flu and the risks in the United States if that should occur. I was wondering, Secretary Leavitt has said that first responders in the states and local governments are not prepared for something like that. To what extent are you concerned about that after Katrina and Rita? And is that one of the reasons you're interested in the idea of using defense assets to respond to something as broad and long-lasting as a flu might be?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Thank you for the question. I am concerned about avian flu. I am concerned about what an avian flu outbreak could mean for the United States and the world. I am -- I have thought through the scenarios of what an avian flu outbreak could mean. I tried to get a better handle on what the decision-making process would be by reading Mr. Barry's book on the influenza outbreak in 1918. I would recommend it.

The policy decisions for a President in dealing with an avian flu outbreak are difficult. 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? When -- it's one thing to shut down airplanes; it's another thing to prevent people from coming in to get exposed to the avian flu. And who best to be able to effect a quarantine? One option is the use of a military that's able to plan and move.

And so that's why I put it on the table. I think it's an important debate for Congress to have. I noticed the other day, evidently, some governors didn't like it. I understand that. I was the commander-in-chief of the National Guard, and proudly so, and, frankly, I didn't want the President telling me how to be the commander-in-chief of the Texas Guard. 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.

[snippage]

I take this issue very seriously, and I appreciate you bringing it to our attention. The people of the country ought to rest assured that we're doing everything we can: We're watching it, we're careful, we're in communications with the world. I'm not predicting an outbreak; I'm just suggesting to you that we better be thinking about it. And we are. And we're more than thinking about it; we're trying to put plans in place, and one of the plans -- back to where your original question came -- was, if we need to take some significant action, how best to do so. And I think the President ought to have all options on the table to understand what the consequences are, but -- all assets on the table -- not options -- assets on the table to be able to deal with something this significant.

I think what we're seeing is the Republican Party looking at the cock-up that is FEMA and the unholy messes that so many states have made of their first responders, and saying to themselves, "Aww, fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck." They may believe that it OUGHT to be a local response, but I think they're seeing that in some cases, that's a stupid idea. Think of it this way: Would you want the Louisiana officials who blew hurricane planning to be in charge of stopping the spread of a flu pandemic?

They're trying to come up with a plan that is (a) workable, and (b) doesn't cost them a lot of political capital. No, it's not a particularly stand-up way to go about it, but I stopped expecting stand-up behavior from politicians (both Republican AND Democratic) a long time ago.