SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
I read an apocalyptic novel a few months ago. It was placed in the USA, and the core assumption of the novel was that practically every agency in the federal government had armed troops. After sufficient build-up of these forces, one day the President took advantage of some crisis or other to declare martial law. Maybe this was inspired by the fact that lots of unlikely federal agencies do, in fact, have their own armed forces. Some of the stranger ones are: Dept. of Education, Food and Drug Administration, Internal Revenue Service and Post Office.
It was just a story, of course. Though one does wonder just why the Dept. of Education needs guns.
So now comes the CDC, proposing a new regulation. For those of you who are Americans, the CDC is accepting comments until October 14th. Here are some interesting excerpts:
The CDC "may promulgate regulations that provide for the apprehension and examination of any individual reasonably believed to be infected with a quarantinable communicable disease in a qualifying stage."
Understandable, quarantine people who are infectious. By force, if necessary. Only, it continues:
"a 'qualifying stage' means that the communicable disease is in 'a precommunicable stage, if the disease would be likely to cause a public health emergency if transmitted to other individuals' or "a communicable stage."
So, non-infectious people, but still infected? Well, not exactly...
"CDC defines precommunicable stage to mean the stage beginning upon an individual's earliest opportunity for exposure to an infectious agent"
[Continues...]
So you don't have to actually be infected. An "opportunity for exposure" is sufficient. They want the authority to forcefully quarantine anyone who may have been exposed to a disease. Considering the Zika virus, this would presently include a large portion of the population of Florida, as well as anyone who has been there recently.
Should they apprehend someone, what happens then? Well...
"...quarantine, isolation, conditional release, medical examination, hospitalization, vaccination, and treatment ... the individual's consent shall not be considered as a prerequisite to any exercise of any authority under this part."
If you disagree with an action they take, you can appeal, of course. Your appeal must be in writing, and sent to the CDC. The CDC will review their own action and "issue a written response to an appeal, which shall constitute final agency action.".
I do understand that unusual circumstances may require unusual actions. However, the CDC has somehow existed a long time without this regulation, a regulation that would explicitly authorize them to apprehend, detain and treat anyone, anytime, anywhere within the US, without that person's consent. So...why do they need this?
Since consent is not required, it is implicit that they will have to create an internal force to make apprehensions and enforce quarantines. So yet another federal department will have its own, private armed force. Maybe that apocalyptic novel wasn't so far fetched after all...
(Score: 5, Informative) by goody on Sunday September 11 2016, @03:17PM
The Department of Education having an armed force didn't sound right, so I Googled it. The first hit that comes up is the Heritage Foundation, a right wing lobbying organization, and claims the Department of Education has or uses SWAT teams. The second hit is a Washington Post article which right off the bat has a correction note up front that the Department of Education doesn't own or use SWAT teams, and includes a link to an official OIG statement clarifying their policies. All the other Google search hits appear to be fringe media outlets. I don't have time to Google all the agencies mentioned in the summary, but I call BS on the claim that the Department of Education has an armed force. I doubt the other agencies mentioned do, either. Note that armed security guards at a building don't count as an armed force.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by RedGreen on Sunday September 11 2016, @03:27PM
Now you did it injecting facts into the discussion of a good rant by a wacko. The tinfoil hat he is wearing will probably short circuit with all the synapses firing working up the next one...
"I modded down, down, down, and the flames went higher." -- Sven Olsen
(Score: 5, Informative) by bradley13 on Sunday September 11 2016, @03:32PM
The Dept. of Education may not call them SWAT teams, but that doesn't mean that they don't have guns. According to the government itself, as of 2017, the Dept. of Education has formed a "student aid enforcement unit" [ed.gov]. This seems to be an example of an enforcement action that they carried out. [heritage.org]
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 1) by kurenai.tsubasa on Monday September 12 2016, @12:45AM
From the second link.
Federal agents for the Education Department's inspector general executed a very broad search warrant and seized paperwork and a personal computer. Wright says the law enforcement agents -- who reportedly included 13 with the Education Department and one or two Stockton police officers -- told him they were investigating his estranged wife's use of federal aid for students. But she doesn't even live in his house.
Meh. This sounds like just typical government thuggery and incompetence. Here I was expecting them to be rounding up students with unpaid loans for the FEMA concentration camps.
This struck me as hilarious:
If these agencies occasionally have a legitimate need for force to execute a warrant, they should be required to call a real law enforcement agency, one that has a better sense of perspective.
There is a law enforcement agency with even any sense of perspective?
The below can be safely tl;dr'ed. I have my turquoise-painted titanium carbide beanie [soylentnews.org] on now, so disregard everything I just typed while under moon matrix control:
I was clicking around on Rationalwiki (yeah, bat country) last week and saw a mention of the fact that the CDC actually does have the power to round people up for concentration camps while FEMA actually doesn't. So I was thinking my conspiracy theory that puts the FEMA concentration camps at around 2019 or so needed some kind of superbug, but I didn't think Zika would quite cut it.
The dynamics of it all might pan out, though. I mean, when GRID (HIV/AIDS) was discovered, everybody was all “meh” 'cause I mean it's just gays and druggies dying, so who cares? But here comes a virus that screws with the ultimate meaning of life, producing healthy offspring, and it might just do the trick.
So, given this article, I would like to amend my conspiracy theory. TPP/TTIP get rerolled with TISA into something else, which gets ratified mid to late 2017 in response to a massive stock market crash a few weeks after Clinton's sworn in. Riots in every major city in 2018, which causes resources that would have been spent fighting Zika to fail to come into place. During the riots, there is a massive outbreak in August 2018 due to a failure to contain mosquitoes. This causes the CDC late 2018/early 2019 to begin rounding people up as a containment strategy and putting them in the FEMA concentration camps. BRICS moves away from the US dollar while all that's happening, leading to martial law, the suspension of the elections in 2020, and the beginnings of World War 3.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Sunday September 11 2016, @03:34PM
The Department of Education having an armed force didn't sound right, so I Googled it. The first hit that comes up is the Heritage Foundation, a right wing lobbying organization, and claims the Department of Education has or uses SWAT teams. The second hit is a Washington Post article which right off the bat has a correction note up front that the Department of Education doesn't own or use SWAT teams, and includes a link to an official OIG statement clarifying their policies. All the other Google search hits appear to be fringe media outlets. I don't have time to Google all the agencies mentioned in the summary, but I call BS on the claim that the Department of Education has an armed force. I doubt the other agencies mentioned do, either. Note that armed security guards at a building don't count as an armed force.
I saw those links too and even the Heritage Foundation article notes that it was the USDOE Office of The Inspector General, which does have investigative powers.
I thought I'd look a little further and found this link [wikipedia.org].
Yes, many federal agencies have either investigative or enforcement powers or both. However, in the case of many (like the Tennessee Valley Authority), their mandate is protecting properties owned/managed by the agency (essentially rent-a-cops). Whether or not the proposed CDC regulation is an overreach is an open question. I suppose I could investigate, but I'm not really very concerned about jack-booted doctors and research scientists busting down my door.
But why let facts get in the way of a good conspiracy? Obviously, the CDC is in cahoots with FEMA to imprison all the good, hardworking (read: white, male and christian) people in the US to pave the way for Sharia Law across North America. Because Obama is a Kenyan muslim who has spent his whole life working toward bringing Al Qaeda and ISIS into power all over the world.
Morons of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your ignorance!
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 11 2016, @03:59PM
> Morons of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your ignorance!
And your money. [esquire.com]
(Score: 4, Informative) by takyon on Sunday September 11 2016, @03:35PM
The FDA is stockpiling military weapons — and it’s not alone [bostonglobe.com]
I looked up the FDA, and this article includes Department of Education in the sidebar as spending $413,000 on "military equipment" from 2006 to 2014. That might not match the claim of "armed forces" or SWAT teams, but it could be seen as a lot for building security.
FDA: $815,000
IRS: $10.7 million
Post Office: not mentioned.
Here is the report. [openthebooks.com]
Key Findings #5: "Administrative agencies including the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Small Business Administration (SBA), Smithsonian Institution, Social Security Administration, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, United States Mint, Department of Education, Bureau of Engraving and Printing, National Institute of Standards and Technology, and many other agencies purchased guns, ammo, and military-style equipment."
The Boston Globe described them as nonpartisan. Their website [openthebooks.com] shows their work being cited by NBC, ABC, Fox, Forbes, USA Today, The Hill, and various newspapers [openthebooks.com].
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 4, Informative) by NotSanguine on Sunday September 11 2016, @04:00PM
Key Findings #5: "Administrative agencies including the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Small Business Administration (SBA), Smithsonian Institution, Social Security Administration, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, United States Mint, Department of Education, Bureau of Engraving and Printing, National Institute of Standards and Technology, and many other agencies purchased guns, ammo, and military-style equipment."
I went and looked at some of the detail of the report [openthebooks.com], and it seems that most (not all) of the expenditures relate to the site security of agency locations and/or the personal security of those who protect those sites.
That's not to say that at least some of this isn't overkill (pun intended), but given the enormous security theater apparatus we've created, is it really so surprising?
Note that the tone of the Boston Globe Op-Ed piece [bostonglobe.com] (not a news article) implies some sort of evil conspiracy. the PDF linked (at least AFAICT) doesn't show any such thing.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bradley13 on Sunday September 11 2016, @05:49PM
What I don't understand about all of these different "enforcement arms" is this: The police exist. At the federal level, they're called the "FBI". Why does every stinking agency have it's own enforcement arm? If the IRS needs to prosecute someone, they can just "call the police". What kind of due process can you expect, when an agency is not only the aggrieved party, but also the police, and even the courts? The IRS run's its own enforcement, and if you dispute anything, you do so in front of an IRS court.
Now the CDC. Y'all say I'm wearing a tin foil hat, but it is exactly the same setup: the CDC decides who they want to apprehend. They do the apprehending. And if you think they got it wrong, you can appeal the action - to the CDC.
Sure, maybe they are all knights in shining armor. I mean, no federal bureaucrat anywhere has ever overstepped their power, or just made a boneheaded mistake. And their agencies never close ranks with them, in order to avoid admitting fault. Never happens. /sarc
tl;dr: You need a conspiracy theory, in order to find agencies doing their own enforcement dangerous.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 11 2016, @08:50PM
I agree, many of these federal agencies do a whole lot to erode the separation of powers.
They write laws.
They enforce laws.
They interpret laws.
I guess you can eventually appeal something to a federal appellate court but in many instances only after you have exhausted your efforts to appeal it to the agency itself. By the time you get through the appellate process through the agency it might not even be worth it.
I guess the alleged justification for allowing these agencies to assume more than one power is that usually more than one branch of government is responsible for giving these agencies their powers.
(Score: 3, Informative) by JoeMerchant on Sunday September 11 2016, @04:12PM
FDA field inspection agents carry badges, and guns. Source: I've been inspected, the agent's gun was not concealed.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by goody on Sunday September 11 2016, @04:46PM
Thanks for the information. I should clarify that I take issue with the term "armed forces" and the way it's used in this summary. To me the term implies a semi-autonomous force, trained and dedicated for armed, proactive, and potentially violent actions. Securing facilities to me doesn't qualify as an armed force, and I would consider arming agents in the field enforcing the law for self-protection (i.e. reactive / self-defense) as reasonable and not qualifying as an "armed force." Perhaps I'm splitting hairs, but I see a distinction from armed enforcement agents and an "armed force", despite the two admittedly being synonymous.
(Score: 2) by curunir_wolf on Sunday September 11 2016, @05:09PM
You might feel differently if you were running a dairy farm and saw a score or more of armed and armored federal agents barge into your operation in a fleet of black SUVs to perform an "inspection" of your facility...
I am a crackpot
(Score: 2) by goody on Monday September 12 2016, @12:53AM
Perhaps. And if it wasn't on a movie set. I mean, really, how often does this happen in real life? It's more likely that any typical agency that has people in the field performing enforcement are individuals or in groups of two. The chances of them being out-gunned by violator or in a remote area and in a situation where their safety is compromised probably occurs on a weekly basis, unlike the swarm of black SUVs scenario you envision.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday September 12 2016, @02:18AM
The same FDA inspector that inspected our medical device design and manufacturing facility had just come from a grocery store inspection across the street - a Colombian grocery store that was receiving soda cans filled with cocaine. He apologized for the gun when he remembered he still had it on and quickly made it disappear.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by goody on Monday September 12 2016, @02:59AM
Wow. That's nuts. I don't have any problem with that agent being armed. Hell, give the guy a semi-automatic rifle.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday September 12 2016, @06:50PM
The problem was mostly that the smugglers were not catching 100% of their "hot loads of soda," some of it was making it onto store shelves, so there was a big public health concern that somebody might open a can of soda, drink it and die.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 3, Informative) by curunir_wolf on Monday September 12 2016, @11:06AM
I don't know how often it happens, but I have heard many stories. Here are a few of them [myopia.org]. There's another list here [naturalnews.com], many described as "SWAT-style" raids or with "dozens of armed agents" descending on farms or food coops. So, maybe more frequently than you would think.
I am a crackpot
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 12 2016, @02:07AM
Includes documentary footage of armed officers forcing all kids to ground: http://thewaronkids.com/ [thewaronkids.com]
The general issues -- school is prison:
http://www.salon.com/2013/08/26/school_is_a_prison_and_damaging_our_kids/ [salon.com]
Although in general childhood has changed so much where prison has at least one aspect that is better:
http://www.dirtisgood.com/uk/home.html [dirtisgood.com]
"John Taylor Gatto - The Purpose Of Schooling"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeEWPbTad_Q&list=PLA900D7D18C71EE35 [youtube.com]
"Schooling Is A Form of Adoption. The Madness of Trusting Strangers To Bring Up Our Children"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0v3MB9WcMJA [youtube.com]
And how it got started:
http://www.schoolandstate.org/Freedom/1-DearParents.htm [schoolandstate.org]
"When parents in Massachusetts defied the state in the 1850's and refused to send their children to its compulsory schools, the state let them know at gunpoint that attendance was not optional, that the government's plans for children prevailed over parents' wishes."
Does is matter if the "schools" have the staffers with guns or just call in others with guns whenever they want to enforce something?