Either the right hand doesn’t know what the left hand is doing, or the federal government’s response, in particular, the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS), to the swine flu panic is deliberately contradicting.

But first a little history. There was no legislative power regarding quarantine specifically given to the federal government in the Constitution. In 1796 Congress enacted a quarantine law in response to an outbreak of yellow fever. That law as repealed and replaced in 1799 with a quarantine and health law. This law did authorize federal officials to offer to assist states in the execution of their quarantine laws. But still it was the states and state officials that ascertained the necessity of a quarantine; the states still held to the belief that the protection of the public health was entrusted to them.

The 1799 law was then repealed, and a statute, partly still in effect today, provides that quarantine and health laws are to be enforced through the inspection and unloading of ships and goods -- imports -- and even for the protection of officers in ports of entry where there may be contagious diseases.

But over time, steps toward federal control over quarantine regulations have gradually occurred, going from exclusive state control, to assistance from the federal government, to appropriating money for state quarantine regulations and enforcement, to an entire national system of quarantine -- and now, perhaps even more.

According to CBS News from a memo obtained earlier in the week, the Department of Homeland Security is close to sending out procedures and guidelines to be followed, including quarantines, if a communicable disease is suspected:

The Department of Justice has established legal federal authorities pertaining to the implementation of a quarantine and enforcement. Under approval from HHS, the Surgeon General has the authority to issue quarantines.

Another excerpt from the memo says:

U.S. Customs and Coast Guard Officers assist in the enforcement of quarantine orders. Other DOJ law enforcement agencies including the U.S. Marshals, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives may also enforce quarantines. Military personnel are not authorized to engage in enforcement.

The BATF? Will they confiscate guns in the homes of quarantine victims? Or the alcohol and tobacco?

Before we get too excited that military personnel will not be released on unsuspecting communities that may or may not have a particular contagion, let’s look at the National Strategy for Pandemic Influenza released by the Bush administration in 2005 just to make sure. This plan would see federal money used for the stockpiling and distribution of vaccines and government quarantines and even “limitations on gatherings.” And being a 21st century strategy, it also includes the partnering and cooperation of numerous federal agencies, which brings us back to the military.

The Pentagon has a contingency plan that would allow them to assist in "quarantining groups of people in order to minimize the spread of disease during an influenza pandemic" and aid in "efforts to restore and maintain order." [Emphasis ours.]

While seeming to be thorough in theory and eventually practice with all these strategies and plans to contain and suppress an epidemic, strange it is that Janet Napolitano’s DHS will not allow primary border patrol agents to wear masks while working in close contact with thousands of border crossers and inspecting cars at the southern border where the worst of the virus is supposed to be.

A local ABC news affiliate in San Ysidro reported that border patrol agents formally requested permission to wear masks, and that request has been denied. If the agents do so anyway, they could be penalized.

Labor union representative Harold Washington says the DHS has taken a wrong turn, and that not allowing these simple precautions to be a personal matter is a “travesty.” He more than hints that the border agents are stressed out and that job efficiency could be compromised.

So on the one hand, at least for American citizens living inside the borders, a public health crisis, real or hyped, could serve as the impetus for the trampling and downright abuse of civil rights and individual liberties by a relatively new federal agency. And on the other hand by not being more careful at the border, a virus, real or hyped, could be wildly spread by the very same agency through it’s own contradictive policy.

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (0)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Show/Hide comments