Please realize I'm partially joking

[pc486]

Yes, I do believe that the President should be able to use the law at hand to give out perfectly legal orders. What's wrong with that Deacon?

BTW, I support military spending. I can be critical at times (like the infamous $600 toilet-seat and $400 hammer) but I have no problem with spending money to protect America at home and abroad.

[Deacon]

[quote="pc486";p="541646"]Yes, I do believe that the President should be able to use the law at hand to give out perfectly legal orders. What's wrong with that Deacon?[/quote]
Two things. First, is sending in a military force to take over an American city without a request to do from the governor of the state legal? Second, do you want it to be?

[pc486]

[quote="Deacon";p="541650"]Two things. First, is sending in a military force to take over an American city without a request to do from the governor of the state legal?[/quote]
The governor/president can take such actions if he or she declares a state of emergency. In such a case the National Guard can assume police status.

Without a request, no, it is not legal as far as I know and I sure hope it isn't. Only the governor, congress, and the president should have the power to move military forces, each of them limited in options of course.

Second, do you want it to be?

If there is a real emergency then sure. New Orleans is a good example as there was a real emergency and from several reports the city's police force was inadequate and known to be as such. I understand the point that allowing the military to attain police status is real close to full-out martial law; a dangerous place to be. But, there are many situations where if they do not assist then the situation is worse of than if they did. In these situations I believe sending in the National Guard or some other military unit to assist is the correct action to take.

[Rileyrat]

I had a bunch of stuff quoted and responces all set, then I steped out for a bit and it logged me out, so I'll try to cover what I can again.

The military can never fully take over. They will also never be more than a class III officer (think armed security guard). For the most rapid use of the NG, the governor must do the order issuing. If the president does it, the time line for response becomes larger. the NG tends to get about 2/3 of the money they need to operate properly during non activated times, due to this alot of the personel info, shot records, and all sorts of other stuff is very out of date. These things have to be up to date before that soldier can do anything. The soldiers also have to be atleast trained in safety issues before they walk into a situation otherwise you just end up with more people that need rescuing. Again, the NG doesn't have enough money to train in war time missions and stateside problems. They go for the bigger picture, they prepare for a more real and present danger, war/overseas peace keeping(very different from stateside peace keeping). You are talking with the assumtion that the NG is still what it used to be, not what it really is. The old school NG used to do almost no war time training and focus on disaster readiness, these guys were all to prepared to respond to a locally common disaster, the current NG trains for war as they have more combat units than the Reserves who are federal soldiers. The NG is more likely to be called overseas than to respond to stateside issues. In other words, the NG is now what the Reserves were, and the Reserves mostly just do "chump" jobs like working at GITMO and whatnot.

Example, the Colorado Reserves has Army Space Command, a hospital, a engineer unit (construction not demolitions), and a maintenance unit doing regular weekend drills even post 9-11. The Colorado NG is 2 battalions of rocket artillery, and 2 batallions of Military Police, all preparing to head to Iraq and Afganistan. The 2 artillery abtallions have spent the better part of the last 5 years activated. None of the Reserves have been activated. It is like this in most states yet the Reserves have not and probably will not take over the stateside missions for the NG. All of this took place because most states decided they wanted more federal assistance for certain things, so they asked for most of the NG units to become combat units. More blame lies on the state side than the federal side if you ask me. In all acctuality the presedents hands are pretty tied in a situation like this.

[pc486]

Thanks for that info RileyRat. It makes me kinda sad though because it's really unfortunate that in a worst-case scenario we are unable to respond adequately. What happens if a large terrorist attack happens? What about a major earthquake in California? Will there be quick relief or not?

[Deacon]

[quote="pc486";p="542031"]Thanks for that info RileyRat. It makes me kinda sad though because it's really unfortunate that in a worst-case scenario we are unable to respond adequately.[/quote]
In this specific case, I think it's more sad how the residents of New Orleans rejected a slight tax increase that would fund the efforts to shore up the levies--which should've been done 50 years ago and should've been kept up the whole time if they expected to come out with only scratches--only about a year before, saying it was fine like it was. I think it's sad that it came to this in the first place. I think it's sad that the governor of LA was shown to be almost as thoroughly incompetent as the mayor of NO. I think it's sad that opportunistic hate-mongers like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and the ACLU, who all thrive only when they can create or at least significantly magnify racial tension, have made the hurricane out to be a racist. I think it's sad that people like Kanye West would say the kinds of things he said, that Oprah Winfrey would have the audacity and self-righteousness to say that the entire nation owes the "hurricane victims" an apology. I think it's sad and revealing that violence and lawlessness--the least of which was looting--became so immediately the norm in these allegedly innocent and peaceful communities. I think it's sad that so many people are so ready to suggest that the results of the hurricane are Bush's fault.

There are lots of things that are far sadder than conjecture regarding "worst-case scenarios" and "adequate responses."

What happens if a large terrorist attack happens? What about a major earthquake in California? Will there be quick relief or not?

The answer to your first question depends entirely on the specifics of that case. Very few terrorists can control the weather. A major earthquake in California will always be a concern, just like a hurricane in NOLA has always been a conern, but unlike NOLA, California tends to take action on those concerns rather than to just ignore it.

[amlthrawn]

[quote="Deacon";p="542049"]Very few terrorists can control the weather. [/quote]

I love you Deacon.

I tend to be more hesitant on the point about the tax increases, however. If the NO city government was as wasteful as some are purporting, a great deal of the blame has to be levied (no pun intened) against the inefficient (if not corrupt) bureacracy.

[Silux]

It's called mother fucking accountability!!! Where is it? Nowhere. We don't want to play the "blame game" remember. Heads must roll.

Get off the goddamned political partisanship bs and show some fucking outrage at this gigantic clusterfuck of a national catastrophe.

And donate!

[Rileyrat]

Jesus, what do you want? Every frigging thread about Katrina to be about donating? We already have one of those, go read it.

[Deacon]

I think he's saying that he's tired of the "The hurricane is Bush's fault" and "Bush doesn't care for black people" and "Bush has dropped the ball by not violating law and the Constitution" and such.

[Rileyrat]

Yeah but my feeling on what are being discussed here right now is more or less a few people gathering info from each other.

I know I haven't said much about it but I do agree with Deacon on the fact that soldiers in a stateside city is a really bad idea. If we did let the president bend the rules on this, who is to say that later leaders couldn't use soldiers in more and more situations. Eventually getting to the point where soldiers are doing the law enforcement and many other tasks. I know the idea sounds far fetched but much more has come from much less in other parts of the world, we are not immune to these things.

[quote="Deacon";p="542049"]Very few terrorists can control the weather.[/quote]

I have heard accusations of such things... On the radio at work, we listen to a talk station (I don't know what one) and they like to get ahold of some of the biggest idiots in the US and laugh at them. They had a caller on one of the shows that swore up and down that terrorists could control the weather

[pc486]

[quote="Deacon";p="542049"]In this specific case, I think it's more sad how the residents of New Orleans rejected a slight tax increase that would fund the efforts to shore up the levies--which should've been done 50 years ago and should've been kept up the whole time if they expected to come out with only scratches--only about a year before, saying it was fine like it was. I think it's sad that it came to this in the first place. I think it's sad that the governor of LA was shown to be almost as thoroughly incompetent as the mayor of NO.[/quote]
I totally agree that it's a damn shame that the New Orleans residents rejected a tax hike that would help keep the levies active. For a storm of Katrina's size though I'm not sure how much that would have helped, but it possibly could have prolonged the evacuation time or reduced the damage.

I think it's sad that opportunistic hate-mongers like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and the ACLU, who all thrive only when they can create or at least significantly magnify racial tension, have made the hurricane out to be a racist.

While I disagree that the ACLU is a hate-monger I do agree that it's sad opportunists use disasters to push their line.

I think it's sad and revealing that violence and lawlessness--the least of which was looting--became so immediately the norm in these allegedly innocent and peaceful communities.

Unfortunally I think the same would have happened in any large city, be it San Fransisco, Los Angeles, New York, Seattle, Huston, or just about any place with more than a million or two residents. No matter how many good apples you pick there will always be a few bad ones.

I think it's sad that so many people are so ready to suggest that the results of the hurricane are Bush's fault.

Bush's alone? Most people I've talked to about this think it's a massive failure on all part parts of government from prevention to immediate recovery.

There are lots of things that are far sadder than conjecture regarding "worst-case scenarios" and "adequate responses."

And our questions have absolutely nothing to do with each other. My questions were not "oh, lets think of sad things" but rather "shoot, if it can happen in New Orleans what's preventing it from happening here?"

What happens if a large terrorist attack happens? What about a major earthquake in California? Will there be quick relief or not?

The answer to your first question depends entirely on the specifics of that case.

Of course it does depend on the variables much like any problem. That's why techniques like cost-benefit analysis exist. There are people who devote their lives to this stuff.

Very few terrorists can control the weather.

Many terrorists have improvised bombs which can blow up leviees. I know a specific place near where I live that if they blow would would flatten all buildings in a one mile radius and start fires within 5 miles. Just because they arn't the weather does not mean they cannot inflict widespread harm and that's what I ment when I seperated those sentences with that silly questionmark punctuation.

A major earthquake in California will always be a concern, just like a hurricane in NOLA has always been a conern, but unlike NOLA, California tends to take action on those concerns rather than to just ignore it.

Well, sort-of. Major inforstructures and buildings are retrofitted for earthquakes but not many people have provisions to survive without electricity, gas, or water for a few days.

[Silux]

[quote="Deacon";p="542111"]I think he's saying that he's tired of the "The hurricane is Bush's fault" and "Bush doesn't care for black people" and "Bush has dropped the ball by not violating law and the Constitution" and such.[/quote]

Actually I'm tired of the mother flubbin pass the buck specialists saying "It's not my fault, look over here" and "Let's not play the blame game" and "There will be plenty of time to figure out what went right and what went wrong". I'm tired of people having the gall to say Bush and his administration is not accountable because it's up to the state. Hang em all I say; city, state and federal. This was such a huge fuck up on all levels. Don't dare defend him because he sits on your side of the political spectrum. I'm tired of blame-the-victim tactics being used. And nobody is blaming the hurricane on Bush. But to say he did all he could is a fucking insult. Get people in these positions that know what the fuck is going on and what the fuck needs to get done.

It's absolutely ridiculous.

[Deacon]

I'm amazed and depressed at how many people are so ready to say that "This was such a huge fuck up on all levels." It's a natural disaster. I don't know what people expect, but whatever It is, it's getting extraordinarily frustrating. WHY do we immediately assume that if everyone doesn't come out of a fuckihg CATEGORY FIVE HURRICANE unscathed, the government fucked up? Why do we have to look for someone to blame? What the fuck do people expect? Part of me wishes all those fuckers had just died instead of demanding to know why they weren't being immediately taken care of and coddled when they managed to intentionally play their cards in such a way as get them bitten in the ass. I'm so sick of people.

[SunTzu]

Deacon, you *know* he's not talking about the actual hurricane, but the complete clusterfuck that was the followup. Compare it to the tsunami, and you see why they fucked up.