CDC Expands Police State With Indefinite Detainment
On 8/15/16, Obama’s CDC claimed the authority to expand the police state with a new regulation that grants it the right to indefinitely detain any individual or group (even a city) based on subjective, aritrary, and ambiguous reasons and with no plausible way of preventing the usual bias and corruption. Of course, such an atrocity would be unethical and unconstitutional even if it were objective, well defined, and impartial.
As of this writing, the regulation is not in force yet and is in the form of a proposed regulation. One can read the whole proposed regulation at: https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2016/08/15/2016-18103/control-of-communicable-diseases#h-21
The following excerpt is the section on “Apprehension”, which speaks for itself:
Under section 361(d)(1) of the PHS Act (42 U.S.C. 264(d)(1)), HHS/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. In addition, HHS/CDC must reasonably believe that the individual is moving or about to move between states or constitutes a probable source of infection to others who may be moving between states. Thus, HHS/CDC believes that it is important to define for the public what is meant by the term “apprehension.” Apprehension means the temporary taking into custody of an individual or group for purposes of determining whether quarantine, isolation, or conditional release is warranted.
Although each instance is unique, an apprehension will typically occur at the request of a state or local health department or in other time-sensitive situations, such as at a U.S. port of entry, where it is necessary for HHS/CDC to take immediate action to protect public health. The factors that may give rise to an apprehension are discussed in detail in the preamble section discussing the definition of “reasonably believed to be infected, as applied to an individual.” When an apprehension occurs, the individual is not free to leave or discontinue his/her discussion with an HHS/CDC public health or quarantine officer. In some cases, an apprehension may last from twenty minutes to one to two hours if, for instance, based on a public health assessment, HHS/CDC is able to quickly rule out the presence of a quarantinable communicable disease. In certain circumstances, the individual may remain apprehended pending confirmation that he or she is not infected or not reasonably believed to be infected with a quarantinable communicable disease. If it is necessary to issue the individual a Federal order for quarantine, isolation, or conditional release, the individual will remain apprehended pending the service of the written order. The factors that may give rise to an order for quarantine, isolation, or conditional release are discussed in detail in the preamble section discussing the definition of “reasonably believed to be infected, as applied to an individual.” Based on past experience, HHS/CDC believes that a written Federal order may be served to an individual within 24-48 hours of an apprehension. These timeframes are merely offered as guidance and HHS/CDC believes that the facts and circumstances of each case will dictate the expected length of an apprehension. Generally, however, HHS/CDC does not expect that the typical public health apprehension will last longer than 72 hours. It is not HHS/CDC’s intent through this definition to allow for extended apprehensions absent the issuance of a Federal order for quarantine, isolation, or conditional release. HHS/CDC requests public comment concerning the expected apprehension period (no longer than 72 hours), and whether there are any public concerns with the absence of a specific maximum apprehension period in the regulation.
This atrocity by the CDC can be used to educate the people on why the Second Amendment exists.