On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 05:48:22 GMT, "NoOne N Particular"
wrote:

This would certainly be a HUGE intrusion. But it is one time that the
government SHOULD intrude. The main purpose of the Federal government (to
me at least) is to protect the people. That may mean quarantining an area
that has been the victim of a biological attack. I would expect nothing
less. It wouldn't necessarily be for the protection of those of us inside
the zone, although I am naive enough to assume that the government would
give us their best effort to help us, but it would mostly be for the
protection of the rest of the country and possibly the world. And I don't
think I necessarily agree with you that the types of confrontations you
mention could be avoided if we were educated in advance. People will be
people and when they are cornered they will either fight or flee. That is
not a negative comment about people, they would just be driven by human
instinct and fear.

How is Kery going to handle a US version of this?

Dirty bomb victims 'may be shot'


http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=547552003
JOHN INNES, March 15, 2004

POLICE could be forced to shoot members of the public to maintain
order in the event of a terrorist "dirty bomb" or biological attack on
Britain, it was claimed yesterday.

The Police Federation annual conference in Blackpool was told that so
few officers have been trained to deal with a chemical, biological,
nuclear or radiological strike that they would have to resort to "very
unsavoury but necessary" crowd control.

Bob Elder, the chairman of the constables’ central committee, did not
refer specifically to officers firing on civilians, but sources within
the organisation said it was clear police could have to resort to
firerms to stop contamination being spread by fleeing victims.

The government had failed to explain how important it would be to keep
the public inside a cordon after such an atrocity, Mr Elder said.

"This is not about creating mass hysteria," he said. "This is about
the opposite. The public has a right to know.

"The natural reaction from the public caught up in such an incident
will be to get as far away from the scene as possible. This could, of
course, only extend the problem."

In another reference to the possible use of firearms to keep control
of an area, Mr Elder added: "We will be the ones who would have to
carry out that containment and we would be the ones held responsible
for our actions -whatever those may be."

Asked if he could foresee officers firing on civilians, he said: "It’s
an option the government is going to have to consider. We haven’t got
enough cops trained to deal with full-scale containment and it’s
putting everyone at risk."

A spokesman for the Home Office insisted police would not have powers
to shoot the public to enforce a cordon in the event of a chemical,
biological, nuclear or radiological strike attack.

"Police have the right to detain people if they present a risk to the
public," he said. "There are no circumstances in which police could
operate some kind of shoot to kill policy under the law."


So how does one Contain or Detain thousands of people fleeing a hot
zone?

Call in the UN and let them shoot the citizens? What would Kerry do?

Gunner

"There is no difference between communism and socialism, except
in the means of achieving the same ultimate end: communism
proposes to enslave men by force, socialism - by vote. It is
merely the difference between murder and suicide."
- Ayn Rand, from "Foreign Policy Drains U.S. of Main
Weapons"