The mayor belongs in jail along with the cops who looted and are in violation of the constitution. They are confiscating guns from everyone, not just the criminals. They are a bunch of jack booted thugs (the NOPD). Exact reason I live 40 miles from a small city.
I saw that last night while watching CNN. What's bothering me recently is that no one seems to be taking into consideration that many, many smaller cities and towns took a lot more damage than New Orleans did. Like I said in a previous post, there are towns and villages in southern Mississippi that are completely wiped from the face of the earth and have absolutely no standing structures at all.
Louisiana officials on Sunday raised the death toll in their state to 197. Officials in five states put the overall total of dead at 426.
I'm going to preface this by saying that in no way do I consider myself knowledgeable about US politics and law. However, I've been trying to learn more about Posse Comitatus in an effort to understand what went wrong, and when. After talking with my folks about it, and doing some reading, it looks like the Federal Government (i.e. Bush) may not be clear just yet. The information at the Homeland Security website seems to indicate that Posse Comitatus has been watered down over the years to give the Federal Government more power to step in if necessary. Specifically this sentence (bold is mine): The paragraph goes on to explain that the President must first "give an order for the offenders to disperse." However, given my very limited knowledge of US laws, couldn't the President have used this as a means to send in assistance in a more timely manner? Apparently this was the means used by the Federal Government to end the race riots in the early 90s as well as to "preserve access to educational institutions for blacks" in the 1960s. The website also talks briefly about the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C., section 5121. This sounds a lot like what you all were talking about, as it allows the President to use the Federal military "in times of natural disaster upon request from a state governor." (There's the kicker regarding the request of the state's Governor.) According to an August 27, 2005 press release at the Louisiana State website, Governor Blanco enacted the Stafford Act. Although the general request is for the President to declare a state of emergency, this passage really sticks out for me (again, bold is mine): I agree that at the local and state level, there was a major breakdown in leadership (given the evidence that Louisiana's own disaster plan was not followed). However, I think that the President shares just as much responsibility for the events that unfolded. just my 2 cents. I'm not really sure what to think anymore. -monkey
Yes, the govenor enacted the Stafford Act, but did so AFTER the fact which wasn't soon enough. The fact is that the State of Louisiana should have followed it's own disaster and evacuation plan and released municipal vehicles and school buses for evacuation to get as many people out of Katrina's way as they could, but they did not.
It'll be interesting to find out exactly why the plan wasn't followed. It seems like they had everything planned out, but just ignored it.
On a lighter note, I had the great pleasure in the last few days to be introduced to 5 evacuees 3 of which have already found places to stay and have found work. It's amazing the perserverance that they show versus the demise that they had to face. All said they will make this a permanent residence except for one who said he will wait a year and go back to see what is left and if he wants to stay. So much negativity has come out of this but all I see is positive. New beginnings. I can assure you these people that I've met are sincere and will hopefully become friends of mine. They make me feel very small for taking so much for granted. It makes me wonder how I would feel or what I would do if put in the same situation. Strong people, and I have a lot of admiration for them. Looking forward to seeing them again tomorrw
From FoxNews: The Washington Post has corrected a story on September 4 that quoted a White House official as saying Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco (search) had yet to declare a state of emergency five days after Hurricane Katrina made landfall. Blanco made that declaration on August 26, two days before the storm hit the state, leaving some to wonder why no federal troops were dispatched at the time. But in fact, the federal troops were not sent because Blanco had not asked for them, as the law requires. On the Wednesday after the storm, Blanco was caught on tape telling her press secretary, "I really need to call for the military. I should have started that in the first call."
This is kind of what I was aiming at when I posted this quote from the 8/27/05 press release: When Gov. Blanco enacted the Stafford Act on 8/27/05, shouldn't that have been the call for federal troops? She even specifically stated "emergency protective measures." I don't know a whole lot about the intricacies of the legal system, so perhaps I just don't understand what specific call the Gov. needs to make. -monkey
No, that would not be a call for troops. By law, in order to get a military response, the govenor needs to specificaly request the military be mobilized - especially in states where martial law is a violation of the state constitution.
Ok, that makes a little more sense. But I still don't think I fully understand the chain of events that has to happen to allow the president to use the military. If the Stafford Act is the means by which the President has the authority to send in the troops, and Gov. Blanco enacted the Stafford Act on 8/27, what more needs to be done? I have a feeling that I'm missing some fundamental point to tie all of this together. -monkey
Okay, let me try and make it a touch clearer.. --- THE ROBERT T. STAFFORD DISASTER RELIEF AND EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE ACT TITLE I - FINDINGS, DECLARATIONS, AND DEFINITIONS FINDINGS AND DECLARATIONS Sec. 101. The Congress hereby finds and declares that (1) because disasters often cause loss of life, human suffering, loss of income, and property loss and damage; and (2) because disasters often disrupt the normal functioning of governments and communities, and adversely affect individuals and families with great severity; special measures, designed to assist the efforts of the affected States in expediting the rendering of aid, assistance, and emergency services, and the reconstruction and rehabilitation of devastated areas, are necessary. (b) It is the intent of Congress, by this Act, to provide an orderly and continuing means of assistance by the Federal Government to State and local governments in carrying out their responsibilities to alleviate the suffering and damage which result from such disasters by - (1) revising and broadening the scope of existing disaster relief programs; (2) encouraging the development of comprehensive disaster preparedness and assistance plans, programs, capabilities, and organizations by the States and by local government; (3) achieving greater coordination and responsiveness of disaster preparedness and relief programs; (4) encouraging individuals, States, and local governments to protect themselves by obtaining insurance coverage to supplement or replace governmental assistance; (5) encouraging hazard mitigation measures to reduce losses from disasters, including development of land use and construction regulations; and (6) providing Federal assistance programs for both public and private losses sustained in disasters. --- As you can see, there are no definitions for the Pres to release troops by the enactment of the Stafford Act. The Stafford Act is a vehicle in which the Govenor can authorize or request federal troops from the President, but it is not an automatic response, as I said previously, by law troops must be requested. For any disaster response in the United States, the local and state governments are responsible for 1st line defense and response to it's citizens. This includes police, fire and state malitia or guard. This is the reason that the Louisiana National Guard were redeployed from Iraq back to Louisiana immedietely after Katrina hit. If the local and state governments decide that they can't handle it themselves either before or after a disaster strikes, they will contact the feds to authorize the federal military to assist. You have to remember that this is the United STATES of America and the individual state has far more power than the federal government does when it comes to domestice issues. This is why our elections are decided by electoral votes as opposed to popular vote, why there are individual state drivers licenses, individual state constitutions, why a national ID is a BAD idea and all that.
So, in effect, the Governor of the state must enact the Stafford Act and call for Federal military assistance? I understand that the U.S. is built on a foundation of distributed power to the states, but that almost seems a bit excessive. Surely there must be a provision whereby the State can get the help it needs from the Federal Government with one decisive action, especially in a time of such a great natural disaster. If the Stafford Act alone isn't enough to grant the President the authority to send in the military, could Bush have used the Civil Disturbance Statutes? The statutes have previously been used to end the Los Angeles race riots in the 90s, and I don't think anyone could argue that the New Orleans was in a position to handle its own recovery. We all knew of the Katrina's potential effects days before she hit. Was there anyone at the Federal level that was prepared to step in just in case the call never came? I think we all agree, however, that this whole thing was a disaster from top to bottom. If, like you said, Mayor Nagin and Gov. Blanco had followed the established disaster plan, New Orleans might not have had to rely on so much Federal intervention. Gah, I never was able to wrap my head around politics and law. Time for lunch, methinks. -monkey
It may seem a bit excessive, but it's that way for a reason. If there were provisions to over-ride such statutes, it would severely diminish the power of the individual state and make the federal government more of a centralized form of government. As it is now, the individual state has the power to over-ride the federal government on the creation of law, if it were more of a central government, the state would begin to lose such power. As far as the Civil Disturbance Statutes, these provisions permit the president to use military personnel to enforce civilian laws where the state has requested assistance or is unable to protect civil rights and property. So again, the state must request the use of the military. Also, this falls under the same scope as Posse Comitatus.. People have asked me (not on this board, but in "real life") about how that corrosponded to 9/11 and why the Air Force was able to act. The difference is that Katrina was a natural disaster while 9/11 was technically an act of war which will allow the full mobilization of military forces.
I see your point about the diminishing of state's rights. But part of me wonders what would have happened if the President had just said "to heck with it" and sent in the military anyway. After seeing all the chaos that was going on, I wonder if many people would have complained about the technicalities. I wonder if the President's image would have come out any different if he had been the one to just step up from the very beginning, instead of waiting until the public and media started asking questions. There almost seems to be a kind of loophole in the Civil Disturbance Statutes for this kind of situation. The military can be sent in "to enforce civilian laws where the state has requested assistance or is unable to protect civil rights and property. The "or" statement makes it read like an either or kind of thing. In fact, the Homeland Security webpage seems to indicate as much with this statement about the statutes: As much as I see how the local governments broke down, I can't help but wonder if the Federal government isn't getting as much scrutiny as it should. -monkey
If Bush had just said "to heck with it" and sent in troops, there would be longer reaching implecations than what you see. It would set prescidence for future intrevention by the federal government and give them more power in lieu of law. Now as far as the "or is unable to protect civil rights & property" goes, when exactly would you know when that is? You're absolutely correct in what you're thinking, but remember the scope of the problem and the time frame involved. When Katrina hit, was anyone aware of the magnitude of destruction it would unleash? No one from the Mayor of New Orleans to Bush could have predicted with absolute certainty what was going to happen. Yes, there were speculations and hypothesis put forth by professors and scientists, but nothing was concrete. Remember, before Katrina hit landfall, it moved a bit east do New Orleans wouldn't get hit directly, that honor belonged to Mississippi. Also, as I've said over and over again, none of this would have happened if the State of Louisiana followed it's own disaster protocol.
That is a good point. Most, if not all, of the information pre-landfall was nothing more than educated guess. However, I just can't stop thinking that more preparation could have been done on a Federal level, given the amount of scientific information they had. Funny thing about hindsight. Now that I agree with completely. -monkey
Part of the problem with the emergency procedures are the dumbasses that wanted to stick it out in their houses, because they had been through hurricanes before, now you look at whose in trouble, and that's mainly those people. Some people might have excuses as to why they were there, like I saw a blind and deaf guy on tv that had no idea anything was coming, however when you have like whole familes not leaving for safety. It causes a ton of problems, then jamming everyone into the super dome, they were retarded, the Mayor was retarded because he didn't manage the cities buses to transport people over, and if you excuse the language, seems like it's a stupid f'ing mayor, the first camera shot I saw of him, he was blaming the President for not taking charge, when it should've been his job, and the governors first off, then taken it to the Pres.
I agree that the onus is firstly upon the people to actually TRY and evacuate somehow. You see it all the time, people refusing to leave because they are too caught in their material posessions and not enough about their or their family's well being. I can understand why they don't want to leave, but it's better to have your health, life and family intact than it is to save what you own.
