Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
10/20/2017 1:01:18 AM
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 9/9/2005 8:19:25 AM EDT
Consider that federal resources (FEMA, military, etc.) were ready to roll in the wake of Katrina, but were not able to because the governor of Louisiana hesitated giving her approval.

This was not a breakdown of the “system” per se, but rather the problem lay with people within the system. If she had said, “Yes! Send your aid!” who knows how much suffering, and even death, could have been avoided?

Our federal system prevented the central government from moving into a state without the governor’s approval and invitation. This in itself is a good thing. Limiting the powers of the central government is an essential element of liberty.

When I pointed out to a coworker the failure of the governor to approve the influx of federal resources, she replied, “The president should have assumed absolute authority and ordered them in anyway.” I tried to explain the arrangement of our government, Constitutional issues, and why we don’t have a king, but she was more concerned with compassion than our future liberty.

Thought: What if the government use this incident and the results of the governor’s reluctance or indecision, to pass legislation that would empower the federal government to mobilize forces within the US without the assent of the governor or citizens of the affected state?

I think that we who treasure our liberty should be on the lookout for such an unacceptable expansion of federal power.

Remember, it's not paranoia if they really are out to get you.
Link Posted: 9/9/2005 8:21:37 AM EDT
I think it would be suicide to give anyone a real amount of power, especially when you see how dangerous even a lowly mayor can be.
Link Posted: 9/9/2005 8:23:13 AM EDT
I do not think anyone person has the right to assume total control. That is why we have elections and the ability to impeach our elected officials.

max
Link Posted: 9/9/2005 8:27:55 AM EDT

Originally Posted By maxell27:
I do not think anyone person has the right to assume total control. That is why we have elections and the ability to impeach our elected officials.

max



That is indeed correct, separation of powers, federal system, and all that.

However, we have masses of sheeple out there bleating, "The government should have done something!"

When you point out the points of law that prevented the central government from moving in, they say everything from, "They should have anyway" to "They should be able to."

My concern is that in the current emotionalism people will approve acts that would be detrimental to liberty and limited government.
Link Posted: 9/9/2005 8:30:43 AM EDT
Supposedly, Bush was mulling an override of the LA Governess...
Link Posted: 9/9/2005 8:31:11 AM EDT

Originally Posted By maxell27:
I do not think anyone person has the right to assume total control. That is why we have elections and the ability to impeach our elected officials.

max



But Clinton got impeached and it didn't mean shit. Didn't he?
Link Posted: 9/9/2005 8:36:52 AM EDT

Originally Posted By DDiggler:
I think it would be suicide to give anyone a real amount of power, especially when you see how dangerous even a lowly mayor can be.

Have you heard of the Patriot Act?
Link Posted: 9/9/2005 8:44:20 AM EDT

Originally Posted By IAMLEGEND:

Originally Posted By maxell27:
I do not think anyone person has the right to assume total control. That is why we have elections and the ability to impeach our elected officials.

max



But Clinton got impeached and it didn't mean shit. Didn't he?



He was impeached, that just means charged, to be tried by the senate. Even though the charge was lying, and every senator that opened their mouth agreed he lied, they didn't convict him.

The pres, according to drudge, was considering seizing control/

Even if he doesn't have the power, he can still do it if he acts quickly enough during a crisis.

Look at the things Lincoln did during the Civil war runup.
Link Posted: 9/9/2005 8:44:48 AM EDT
I agree, the federal government is always looking for ways to broaden their powers.
If the governor did screw up then the people can recall her or vote her out of office. We
sure don't need a more powerful central government.
Link Posted: 9/9/2005 8:49:35 AM EDT
What do men with power want??????????
Link Posted: 9/9/2005 8:50:30 AM EDT

Originally Posted By jmzd4:
What do men with power want??????????



MORE POWER!
Link Posted: 9/9/2005 9:09:36 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Brohawk:
Consider that federal resources (FEMA, military, etc.) were ready to roll in the wake of Katrina, but were not able to because the governor of Louisiana hesitated giving her approval.

This was not a breakdown of the “system” per se, but rather the problem lay with people within the system. If she had said, “Yes! Send your aid!” who knows how much suffering, and even death, could have been avoided?

Our federal system prevented the central government from moving into a state without the governor’s approval and invitation. This in itself is a good thing. Limiting the powers of the central government is an essential element of liberty.

When I pointed out to a coworker the failure of the governor to approve the influx of federal resources, she replied, “The president should have assumed absolute authority and ordered them in anyway.” I tried to explain the arrangement of our government, Constitutional issues, and why we don’t have a king, but she was more concerned with compassion than our future liberty.

Thought: What if the government use this incident and the results of the governor’s reluctance or indecision, to pass legislation that would empower the federal government to mobilize forces within the US without the assent of the governor or citizens of the affected state?

I think that we who treasure our liberty should be on the lookout for such an unacceptable expansion of federal power.

Remember, it's not paranoia if they really are out to get you.


Not trying to steer too far off topic, but this whole fiasco exposes the "big lie" of the Civil War revisionists here that maintain the American Civil War wasn't about slavery, but "states rights."
Katrina demonstates that the states maintained their rights, all their rights, except one upon cessation of hostilities.
Link Posted: 9/9/2005 9:13:14 AM EDT
I mean after all the .gov wouldnt abuse there power now would they? Its not like they would start confiscating arms in the wake of a disaster, when they are most needed or anything
Link Posted: 9/9/2005 9:56:18 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/9/2005 9:56:51 AM EDT by CITADELGRAD87]

Originally Posted By ryann:

Originally Posted By Brohawk:
Consider that federal resources (FEMA, military, etc.) were ready to roll in the wake of Katrina, but were not able to because the governor of Louisiana hesitated giving her approval.

This was not a breakdown of the “system” per se, but rather the problem lay with people within the system. If she had said, “Yes! Send your aid!” who knows how much suffering, and even death, could have been avoided?

Our federal system prevented the central government from moving into a state without the governor’s approval and invitation. This in itself is a good thing. Limiting the powers of the central government is an essential element of liberty.

When I pointed out to a coworker the failure of the governor to approve the influx of federal resources, she replied, “The president should have assumed absolute authority and ordered them in anyway.” I tried to explain the arrangement of our government, Constitutional issues, and why we don’t have a king, but she was more concerned with compassion than our future liberty.

Thought: What if the government use this incident and the results of the governor’s reluctance or indecision, to pass legislation that would empower the federal government to mobilize forces within the US without the assent of the governor or citizens of the affected state?

I think that we who treasure our liberty should be on the lookout for such an unacceptable expansion of federal power.

Remember, it's not paranoia if they really are out to get you.


Not trying to steer too far off topic, but this whole fiasco exposes the "big lie" of the Civil War revisionists here that maintain the American Civil War wasn't about slavery, but "states rights."
Katrina demonstates that the states maintained their rights, all their rights, except one upon cessation of hostilities.



Especially in light of the Drudge headline, cited twice above but ignored by you, HOW?

How does this hurricane and the pathetic finger pointing aftermath prove what the civil war was about?
Link Posted: 9/9/2005 10:09:56 AM EDT

Originally Posted By CITADELGRAD87:

Originally Posted By ryann:

Originally Posted By Brohawk:
Consider that federal resources (FEMA, military, etc.) were ready to roll in the wake of Katrina, but were not able to because the governor of Louisiana hesitated giving her approval.

This was not a breakdown of the “system” per se, but rather the problem lay with people within the system. If she had said, “Yes! Send your aid!” who knows how much suffering, and even death, could have been avoided?

Our federal system prevented the central government from moving into a state without the governor’s approval and invitation. This in itself is a good thing. Limiting the powers of the central government is an essential element of liberty.

When I pointed out to a coworker the failure of the governor to approve the influx of federal resources, she replied, “The president should have assumed absolute authority and ordered them in anyway.” I tried to explain the arrangement of our government, Constitutional issues, and why we don’t have a king, but she was more concerned with compassion than our future liberty.

Thought: What if the government use this incident and the results of the governor’s reluctance or indecision, to pass legislation that would empower the federal government to mobilize forces within the US without the assent of the governor or citizens of the affected state?

I think that we who treasure our liberty should be on the lookout for such an unacceptable expansion of federal power.

Remember, it's not paranoia if they really are out to get you.


Not trying to steer too far off topic, but this whole fiasco exposes the "big lie" of the Civil War revisionists here that maintain the American Civil War wasn't about slavery, but "states rights."
Katrina demonstates that the states maintained their rights, all their rights, except one upon cessation of hostilities.



Especially in light of the Drudge headline, cited twice above but ignored by you, HOW?

How does this hurricane and the pathetic finger pointing aftermath prove what the civil war was about?



STATES RIGHTS intact! The feds couldn't come in until the LA governor invited them in! Got it now?
Link Posted: 9/9/2005 10:46:35 AM EDT

Originally Posted By ryann:

Originally Posted By CITADELGRAD87:

Originally Posted By ryann:

Originally Posted By Brohawk:
Consider that federal resources (FEMA, military, etc.) were ready to roll in the wake of Katrina, but were not able to because the governor of Louisiana hesitated giving her approval.

This was not a breakdown of the “system” per se, but rather the problem lay with people within the system. If she had said, “Yes! Send your aid!” who knows how much suffering, and even death, could have been avoided?

Our federal system prevented the central government from moving into a state without the governor’s approval and invitation. This in itself is a good thing. Limiting the powers of the central government is an essential element of liberty.

When I pointed out to a coworker the failure of the governor to approve the influx of federal resources, she replied, “The president should have assumed absolute authority and ordered them in anyway.” I tried to explain the arrangement of our government, Constitutional issues, and why we don’t have a king, but she was more concerned with compassion than our future liberty.

Thought: What if the government use this incident and the results of the governor’s reluctance or indecision, to pass legislation that would empower the federal government to mobilize forces within the US without the assent of the governor or citizens of the affected state?

I think that we who treasure our liberty should be on the lookout for such an unacceptable expansion of federal power.

Remember, it's not paranoia if they really are out to get you.


Not trying to steer too far off topic, but this whole fiasco exposes the "big lie" of the Civil War revisionists here that maintain the American Civil War wasn't about slavery, but "states rights."
Katrina demonstates that the states maintained their rights, all their rights, except one upon cessation of hostilities.



Especially in light of the Drudge headline, cited twice above but ignored by you, HOW?

How does this hurricane and the pathetic finger pointing aftermath prove what the civil war was about?



STATES RIGHTS intact! The feds couldn't come in until the LA governor invited them in! Got it now?


WRONG. Again.

READ, seriously, READ the part about GWB considering taking over the relief efforts, the insurrection act, political implications, etc.

ABSOLUTELY no reference to states' rights being even considered.

Political Issues Snarled Plans for Military Help After Storm
By ERIC LIPTON, ERIC SCHMITT
and THOM SHANKER
WASHINGTON, Sept. 8 - As New Orleans descended into chaos last week and Louisiana's governor asked for 40,000 soldiers, President Bush's senior advisers debated whether the president should speed the arrival of active-duty troops by seizing control of the hurricane relief mission from the governor.

For reasons of practicality and politics, officials at the Justice Department and the Pentagon, and then at the White House, decided not to urge Mr. Bush to take command of the effort. Instead, the Washington officials decided to rely on the growing number of National Guard personnel flowing into Louisiana, who were under Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco's control.

The debate began after officials realized that Hurricane Katrina had exposed a critical flaw in the national disaster response plans created after the Sept. 11 attacks. According to the administration's senior domestic security officials, the plan failed to recognize that local police, fire and medical personnel might be incapacitated.

As criticism of the response to Hurricane Katrina has mounted, one of the most pointed questions has been why more troops were not available more quickly to restore order and offer aid. Interviews with officials in Washington and Louisiana show that as the situation grew worse, they were wrangling with questions of federal/state authority, weighing the realities of military logistics and perhaps talking past each other in the crisis.

To seize control of the mission, Mr. Bush would have had to invoke the Insurrection Act, which allows the president in times of unrest to command active-duty forces into the states to perform law enforcement duties. But decision makers in Washington felt certain that Ms. Blanco would have resisted surrendering control, as Bush administration officials believe would have been required to deploy active-duty combat forces before law and order had been re-established.

While combat troops can conduct relief missions without the legal authority of the Insurrection Act, Pentagon and military officials say that no active-duty forces could have been sent into the chaos of New Orleans on Wednesday or Thursday without confronting law-and-order challenges.

But just as important to the administration were worries about the message that would have been sent by a president ousting a Southern governor of another party from command of her National Guard, according to administration, Pentagon and Justice Department officials.

"Can you imagine how it would have been perceived if a president of the United States of one party had pre-emptively taken from the female governor of another party the command and control of her forces, unless the security situation made it completely clear that she was unable to effectively execute her command authority and that lawlessness was the inevitable result?" asked one senior administration official, who spoke anonymously because the talks were confidential.

Officials in Louisiana agree that the governor would not have given up control over National Guard troops in her state as would have been required to send large numbers of active-duty soldiers into the area. But they also say they were desperate and would have welcomed assistance by active-duty soldiers.

"I need everything you have got," Ms. Blanco said she told Mr. Bush last Monday, after the storm hit.

In an interview, she acknowledged that she did not specify what sorts of soldiers. "Nobody told me that I had to request that," Ms. Blanco said. "I thought that I had requested everything they had. We were living in a war zone by then."

By Wednesday, she had asked for 40,000 soldiers.

In the discussions in Washington, also at issue was whether active-duty troops could respond faster and in larger numbers than the Guard.

By last Wednesday, Pentagon officials said even the 82nd Airborne, which has a brigade on standby to move out within 18 hours, could not arrive any faster than 7,000 National Guard troops, which are specially trained and equipped for civilian law enforcement duties.

In the end, the flow of thousands of National Guard soldiers, especially military police, was accelerated from other states.

"I was there. I saw what needed to be done," Lt. Gen. H Steven Blum, chief of the National Guard Bureau, said in an interview. "They were the fastest, best-capable, most appropriate force to get there in the time allowed. And that's what it's all about."

But one senior Army officer expressed puzzlement that active-duty troops were not summoned sooner, saying 82nd Airborne troops were ready to move out from Fort Bragg, N.C., on Sunday, the day before the hurricane hit.

The call never came, administration officials said, in part because military officials believed Guard troops would get to the stricken region faster and because administration civilians worried that there could be political fallout if federal troops were forced to shoot looters.

Louisiana officials were furious that there was not more of a show of force, in terms of relief supplies and troops, from the federal government in the middle of last week. As the water was rising in New Orleans, the governor repeatedly questioned whether Washington had started its promised surge of federal resources.

"We needed equipment," Ms. Blanco said in an interview. "Helicopters. We got isolated."

Aides to Ms. Blanco said she was prepared to accept the deployment of active-duty military officials in her state. But she and other state officials balked at giving up control of the Guard as Justice Department officials said would have been required by the Insurrection Act if those combat troops were to be sent in before order was restored.

In a separate discussion last weekend, the governor also rejected a more modest proposal for a hybrid command structure in which both the Guard and active-duty troops would be under the command of an active-duty, three-star general - but only after he had been sworn into the Louisiana National Guard.

Lt. Gen. James T. Conway, director of operations for the military's Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that the Pentagon in August streamlined a rigid, decades-old system of deployment orders to allow the military's Northern Command to dispatch liaisons to work with local officials before an approaching hurricane.

The Pentagon is reviewing events from the time Hurricane Katrina reached full strength and bore down on New Orleans and five days later when Mr. Bush ordered 7,200 active-duty soldiers and marines to the scene.

After the hurricane passed New Orleans and the levees broke, flooding the city, it became increasingly evident that disaster-response efforts were badly bogged down.

Justice Department lawyers, who were receiving harrowing reports from the area, considered whether active-duty military units could be brought into relief operations even if state authorities gave their consent - or even if they refused.

The issue of federalizing the response was one of several legal issues considered in a flurry of meetings at the Justice Department, the White House and other agencies, administration officials said.

Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales urged Justice Department lawyers to interpret the federal law creatively to help local authorities, those officials said. For example, federal prosecutors prepared to expand their enforcement of some criminal statutes like anti-carjacking laws that can be prosecuted by either state or federal authorities.

On the issue of whether the military could be deployed without the invitation of state officials, the Office of Legal Counsel, the unit within the Justice Department that provides legal advice to federal agencies, concluded that the federal government had authority to move in even over the objection of local officials.

This act was last invoked in 1992 for the Los Angeles riots, but at the request of Gov. Pete Wilson of California, and has not been invoked over a governor's objections since the civil rights era - and before that, to the time of the Civil War, administration officials said. Bush administration, Pentagon and senior military officials warned that such an extreme measure would have serious legal and political implications.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has said deployment of National Guard soldiers to Iraq, including a brigade from Louisiana, did not affect the relief mission, but Ms. Blanco disagreed.

"Over the last year, we have had about 5,000 out, at one time," she said. "They are on active duty, serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. That certainly is a factor."

By Friday, National Guard reinforcements had arrived, and a truck convoy of 1,000 Guard soldiers brought relief supplies - and order - to the convention center area.

Officials from the Department of Homeland Security say the experience with Hurricane Katrina has demonstrated flaws in the nation's plans to handle disaster.

"This event has exposed, perhaps ultimately to our benefit, a deficiency in terms of replacing first responders who tragically may be the first casualties," Paul McHale, the assistant secretary of defense for domestic security, said.

Michael Chertoff, the secretary of homeland security, has suggested that active-duty troops be trained and equipped to intervene if front-line emergency personnel are stricken. But the Pentagon's leadership remains unconvinced that this plan is sound, suggesting instead that the national emergency response plans be revised to draw reinforcements initially from civilian police, firefighters, medical personnel and hazardous-waste experts in other states not affected by a disaster.

The federal government rewrote its national emergency response plan after the Sept. 11 attacks, but it relied on local officials to manage any crisis in its opening days. But Hurricane Katrina overwhelmed local "first responders," including civilian police and the National Guard.

At a news conference on Saturday, Mr. Chertoff said, "The unusual set of challenges of conducting a massive evacuation in the context of a still dangerous flood requires us to basically break the traditional model and create a new model, one for what you might call kind of an ultra-catastrophe.""

Eric Schmitt and Thom Shanker reported from Washington for this article, and Eric Lipton from Baton Rouge, La. David Johnston contributed reporting.


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/09/national/nationalspecial/09military.html?ei=5090&en=aa642b8c89c27c01&ex=1283918400&adxnnl=1&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1126238795-dGCl9WlaN8lbkCHBy9hw2w&pagewanted=print
Link Posted: 9/9/2005 10:48:56 AM EDT
Hey guys,

I appreciate the input, but can we have a Civil War debate in another thread?

The intent of this one is to discuss the aftermath of Kristina being used as a rationale to expand federal powers.

Thanx.
Link Posted: 9/9/2005 10:49:04 AM EDT
Right on the money Brohawk.
Link Posted: 9/9/2005 10:50:03 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Brohawk:
Consider that federal resources (FEMA, military, etc.) were ready to roll in the wake of Katrina, but were not able to because the governor of Louisiana hesitated giving her approval.

This was not a breakdown of the “system” per se, but rather the problem lay with people within the system. If she had said, “Yes! Send your aid!” who knows how much suffering, and even death, could have been avoided?

Our federal system prevented the central government from moving into a state without the governor’s approval and invitation. This in itself is a good thing. Limiting the powers of the central government is an essential element of liberty.

When I pointed out to a coworker the failure of the governor to approve the influx of federal resources, she replied, “The president should have assumed absolute authority and ordered them in anyway.” I tried to explain the arrangement of our government, Constitutional issues, and why we don’t have a king, but she was more concerned with compassion than our future liberty.

Thought: What if the government use this incident and the results of the governor’s reluctance or indecision, to pass legislation that would empower the federal government to mobilize forces within the US without the assent of the governor or citizens of the affected state?

I think that we who treasure our liberty should be on the lookout for such an unacceptable expansion of federal power.

Remember, it's not paranoia if they really are out to get you.



What if?.....then we could be like Cuba...eventually....BUT...NO ONE WOULD DIE IN A HURRICANE..THANK CASTRO..
Link Posted: 9/9/2005 10:51:42 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Brohawk:
Hey guys,

I appreciate the input, but can we have a Civil War debate in another thread?

The intent of this one is to discuss the aftermath of Kristina being used as a rationale to expand federal powers.

Thanx.



As you wish.

BTW, and FWIW, the Lincoln comment was just an observation that if the feds work decisively, it doesn't really matter what the law is, it's going to happen.

I shall now back out of the thread.
Link Posted: 9/9/2005 11:29:40 AM EDT

Originally Posted By CITADELGRAD87:

Originally Posted By Brohawk:
Hey guys,

I appreciate the input, but can we have a Civil War debate in another thread?

The intent of this one is to discuss the aftermath of Kristina being used as a rationale to expand federal powers.

Thanx.



As you wish.

BTW, and FWIW, the Lincoln comment was just an observation that if the feds work decisively, it doesn't really matter what the law is, it's going to happen.

I shall now back out of the thread.



I wasn't asking you to leave, I just wanted the discussion to stay focused on the central topic.

FWIW, I was raised in PA, have lived in the South since 1982, and have come to see myself as a Reconstructed Yankee.

Link Posted: 9/9/2005 11:33:09 AM EDT
We must breed them out.

When all of these idiots die...we will be free.
I'm doing my part
Link Posted: 9/9/2005 3:32:19 PM EDT

Originally Posted By distributor_of_pain:
We must breed them out. When all of these idiots die...we will be free. I'm doing my part

We should stop welfare payments for unwed mothers in the ghetto. Plus, no more conjugal visits.
Link Posted: 9/9/2005 3:45:17 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ryann:

Originally Posted By Brohawk:
Consider that federal resources (FEMA, military, etc.) were ready to roll in the wake of Katrina, but were not able to because the governor of Louisiana hesitated giving her approval.

This was not a breakdown of the “system” per se, but rather the problem lay with people within the system. If she had said, “Yes! Send your aid!” who knows how much suffering, and even death, could have been avoided?

Our federal system prevented the central government from moving into a state without the governor’s approval and invitation. This in itself is a good thing. Limiting the powers of the central government is an essential element of liberty.

When I pointed out to a coworker the failure of the governor to approve the influx of federal resources, she replied, “The president should have assumed absolute authority and ordered them in anyway.” I tried to explain the arrangement of our government, Constitutional issues, and why we don’t have a king, but she was more concerned with compassion than our future liberty.

Thought: What if the government use this incident and the results of the governor’s reluctance or indecision, to pass legislation that would empower the federal government to mobilize forces within the US without the assent of the governor or citizens of the affected state?

I think that we who treasure our liberty should be on the lookout for such an unacceptable expansion of federal power.

Remember, it's not paranoia if they really are out to get you.


Not trying to steer too far off topic, but this whole fiasco exposes the "big lie" of the Civil War revisionists here that maintain the American Civil War wasn't about slavery, but "states rights."
Katrina demonstates that the states maintained their rights, all their rights, except one upon cessation of hostilities.




look at the medicinal marijuana ruling. One state wanted to make something legal that everyone else thought was illegal. The Supreme Court said that they couldn't do that. Now, where in the Constitution is the FDA? No where. The 9th Amendment, the one dealing with states' rights is dead. California was told that the federal government's ruling is more important than theirs...
Top Top