"Civil liberties activists, meanwhile, raised concerns about the constitutionality of the new rules, warning they could discourage health workers from volunteering to fight Ebola in Africa."

My take. The well being of our nation should trump curtailing civil liberties of certain individuals that may present a threat. The civil liberties can be restored when the threat is eliminated or found to be non-existent.

Depending on taking the general mood of your post

A. Would you surrender any and possibly all civil liberty of yours because the government declared it a threat to the country's well being?

Or the actual wording

B. The well being of our country does trump the curtailing of civil liberties. That's why liberties are protected in the land of the free.

I am trying to keep my thoughts focused without generalizations. My statements apply to the Ebola situation. I believe people who may have been exposed to Ebola, whether doing good, harm or otherwise should be quarantined for a period of time determined by those responsible and knowledgeable of how long that process may take. I feel that either voluntarily or involuntarily, they give up certain civil liberties upon their return from a potentially hazardous environment for the best interests of their country.

It seems to me that if quarantine is a part of the medical procedure, it's not a violation of civil liberties its a part of what you sign up for at the beginning...it's an understanding you agree to.

Well so long as you don't have any Nazi Muslim Brotherhood members in the administration, then I wouldn't worry too much about secret FEMA concentration camps they setting up all over the country, as quietly as possible.

Slowkneenuh, please provide a link to the entire article if you can.

One way to read that brief excerpt you posted is that it's not so much a question of civil liberties versus new rules, but that the new rules themselves may have very negative unintended health consequences.

Hard to tell without more of a context.

Tommy...Why have you become so intrigued and interested in Nazis lately?

Well the family were attacked by the Nazi Muslim Brotherhood the other day and so we have declared war on them and this is just part of our propaganda campaign to get the yanks to join war in Birmingham.

OK then...

Original source of quote: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oc......bola-usa

Thanks for the link slowkneenuh.

My take on what I read is that the ACLU's constitutional concerns are probably off base.

That said, I don't think that means the quarantine is necessarily a good idea. It does need to be a medical decision and not a political one. I tend to trust Doctors Without Borders on medical issues. If they say it's going to hamper efforts, then they probably have good reason to say so.

Clearly, the need for medical personnel to travel easily must be weighed against the possible negative health consequences here. The CDC has set some baseline guidelines that they claim are adequate. If we overestimate the need for quarantine, then we may be unwittingly extending the life of the virus by not getting enough health care professionals where they need to be in a timely manner.

Here in NYC, it doesn't seem as if people are overly concerned about the recently returned infected doctor. Most are fairly confident that the city's hospital system will respond well. Typical week, we take it all in stride.

I learned today that a person is ten times more likely to be bitten by a New Yorker than by a shark.

Do love bites count?

I learned that more people in this country have played the character "Batman" than people who have contracted Ebola.

More people in America have been married to Larry King that have contracted ebola. We haven't quarantined him!

On a somber note, I have become so suspicious of that the "machine" is doing that I feel that PARt of the hype about quarantining
is a test to see how much the American population will accept about "pubic need" over Private liberties.

One problem is that "public opinion" is used as a substitute for "public need." Sorry folks, "twitter count" is not a valid poll of anything.

The only thing we can no for certain is that people who own a computer, have a lot of free time and choose to post things on Twitter and YouTube have some paranoia about something. No wonder!

This can also be a test of who to vote for. The more a politician makes unsupported statements in reaction to "public opinion" the more you should dump them.

I didn't realize that shark bites were so common.

Yes, but we've regretted it ever since.

The hyped media panic about Ebola exactly mirrors the A.I.D.S. situation in the mid-80's.

Remember the words of Göring at Nurenburg:

Göring: Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship.

Gilbert: There is one difference. In a democracy, the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars.

Göring: Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.

And in other news, the CDC admits that Ebola can be spread through coughing, sneezing, or touching an infected surface such as a doorknob, as thousands of nurses prepare to strike over their hospitals' lack of preparedness and training.