Brown not completely honest?

[AWMac]

Nash I really hope you lie awake each night worrying about America's Homeland Security.

[Raider179]

Originally posted by Nash
It's been 4 years since 9/11. What's changed? Well for one, Homeland Security was created, and FEMA was rolled into it.

So lets imagine that it wasn't NOLA the last couple of weeks. Lets imagine instead that it was Los Angeles. And lets say that it wasn't a flood, but some catastrophic terrorist attack. Nukes or germs or something.

Now, what would all the finger pointing about jurisdiction sound like to you? What would blaming a mayor sound like to you? What would the excuses for five days of inaction sound like? How to account for the near total breakdown of communications, command and control? How to account for the lack of any meaningful leadership?

Would it be enough to say "Well yeah, Homeland Security tried to do its job, but the damned Mayor screwed it all up!"  Would that really fly? I hope not.

So four years after 9/11, what is the lesson of NOLA?

Said about the same exact thing to my brother. It shows me we are nowhere near prepared for any large scale terrorist attack and if one occurs you will have a repeat of NOLA. You would have thought they would be ready for any large scale disasters/attacks, but obviously we are not.

[Clifra Jones]

Yeah, the biggest flaw in the H.L.S's plans was their relience on the local 1st responders to handle the situation in the 1st few hours/days after the event. Not taking into account that those same 1st responders would have been evacuated or in the case of say a nuclear attack, they'd be dead.

We now know that in disasters, as in warfare, the plan seldom last long after the event/battle begins. What we need are leaders that will make decisions and get it done and damn the concequences. (and damn the lawyers also!)

[Munkii]

Originally posted by Clifra Jones
We now know that in disasters, as in warfare, the plan seldom last long after the event/battle begins. What we need are leaders that will make decisions and get it done and damn the concequences. (and damn the lawyers also!)

Bingo.

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by Nash
Well good luck to ya then.

If Homeland Security hasn't already worked it all out with the various states when it comes to getting in there and averting compounded disaster, then what good are they?

Are we to assume that Homeland Security is gonna do its job, so long as all the phones work, and an amicable solution can be reached within 48 hours of the event on the questions of jurisdiction; upon such time resources will be freed up and allocated?

This is a response to disaster?

Dunno about you. Seems weak to me. If this stuff aint figured out in advance then why even bother?

Lets say Im a fireman and your a homeowner.

Now lets say that by law even though your house is in fire I cannot enter your home to put out the fire without your expressed consent.

Now lets say your house is on fire and I ask you to let me into your house to put it out and you say "No" untill the house is half burned down.

Who's fault is it your house burned up?
Mine for following the law?
Or yours for refusing to let me in until it was already half destroyed?

[vorticon]

"
Lets say Im a fireman and your a homeowner."


which completly misses nashs point.

if that were the case, people would be required to sign a paper saying "if i *** up and burn down the house, you can save my stupid ass" while there buying said house...

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by vorticon
"
Lets say Im a fireman and your a homeowner."


which completly misses nashs point.

if that were the case, people would be required to sign a paper saying "if i *** up and burn down the house, you can save my stupid ass" while there buying said house...

and if Bush had sent troops into LA. without permission from the gov. she and other dems. would have been screaming bloody murder.

not to mention he would have broken the law.

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by vorticon
"
Lets say Im a fireman and your a homeowner."


which completly misses nashs point.

if that were the case, people would be required to sign a paper saying "if i *** up and burn down the house, you can save my stupid ass" while there buying said house...

Perhaps you should reread the rest of my post.

Nash, and perhaps you  miss the point that the federal government has to follow the law with respect to states rights
Although the changing of that law may be debateable.
Until it is. Its not even a subject thats debateable.

If it were to happen again tomorrow in lets say Ga. and the governor there said "no you cant come in" the federal government is obligated by law not to.

thats just the way it is


Point is the feds BY LAW. cannot just go into a state and take over without the consent of said state.

The Governor refused to give that consent until the damage was already half done.

Now whos fault was it that the feds didnt get in there sooner?
the Feds for obeying the law? Or the governor for not giving concent till after it was already too late.

Yes I will agree the fed bungled it once they did get in. But the situation was made far far worse then it needed to be by the governors refusal to allow the feds in.

the only way the feds could legally go in is if there was in insurrection and that wasnt the case. Looting does not an insurrection make.

And even if they had gone in federal troops are not allowed BY LAW to do policework.

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
and if Bush had sent troops into LA. without permission from the gov. she and other dems. would have been screaming bloody murder.

not to mention he would have broken the law.

Exactly.

Yea maybe the "right" thing to do was to say the hell with the consequences just go in and do it. But the would also be setting a very dangerous precident

[Nash]

Oh?

-- All necessary conditions for federal relief were met on August 28. Pursuant to Section 502 of the Stafford Act, "(t)he declaration of an emergency by the President makes Federal emergency assistance available," and the President made such a declaration on August 28. The public record indicates that several additional days passed before such assistance was actually made available to the State;

-- The Governor must make a timely request for such assistance, which meets the requirements of federal law. The report states that "(e)xcept to the extent that an emergency involves primarily Federal interests, both declarations of major disaster and declarations of emergency must be triggered by a request to the President from the Governor of the affected state";

-- The Governor did indeed make such a request, which was both timely and in compliance with federal law. The report finds that "Governor Kathleen Babineaux Blanco requested by letter dated August 27, 2005...that the President declare an emergency for the State of Louisiana due to Hurricane Katrina for the time period from August 26, 2005 and continuing pursuant to (applicable Federal statute)" and "Governor Blanco's August 27, 2005 request for an emergency declaration also included her determination...that 'the incident is of such severity and magnitude that effective response is beyond the capabilities of the State and affected local governments and that supplementary Federal assistance is necessary to save lives, protect property, public health, and safety, or to lessen or avert the threat of disaster."

What now, folks?

[DREDIOCK]

If thats true then thats not the way I heard it.

New news to me.

I suspect in the comming months we will be able to peice together what really happened