Justice Department reportedly asks Congress for indefinite detention powers to fight Covid-19...
[reason.com]
The only silver lining I see is that we at least had a few extra years without that particular form of tyranny since there wasn't enough panic from swine flu. No wait, the other bright side is maybe they'll overstep and more people will recognize their tyranny. I hear there are a lot of leftists trying to buy guns and realizing what a mistake it was to vote for gun control.
They've never met a crisis they couldn't use to pass legislation that could be repurposed to opress We The People. Civil War, WWII, 9/11 to name but a few.
In this particular case, regrettably, we may have no choice. Biology is in advance of any political persuasion, and those who thumb their noses at the shelter in place directives only serve to spread the virus. A lockdown can work if there are no 'outliers' or 'spreaders' of the virus who refuse to adhere. The spreaders may be young, and never feel an ill effect, yet the people who they come in contact with, particuarly those above the age of 60, may become victims of their self-centered behavior.
@p-nullifidian but could the possible justification be for "would remain in place for "one year following the end of the national emergency." ???
If I'm not mistaken after 9/11 suspension of habeas corpus and warrantless (unwarranted?) spying was mostly if not exclusively used to harass domestic felony suspects with no connection to 9/11. For terror suspects judges had no issue with FISA warrants.
So after the national emergency is over what possible reason could they have? You could say they just want to be sure they can detain and COVID carriers that show up late, force them to be immunized etc. but I'm pretty sure the national emergency will stay in effect long enough that all reasonable chance of COVID Mary's and Charlies showing up is gone.