Objectivity During Crisis

[cadillac1234]

Stop citing PC as a reason active military could not go in. They are there now without Bush invoking a formal exception to the Act.

As long as active military are doing humanitarian and rescue operations they are allowed to be inserted. It is not a violation of PC.

BTW the one person with the authority to overide the PC Act is the President. I think if there was ever a time to do it, NOLA on Thursday would have been that time.

Once again, a very basic civics principle is being totally distorted by right-wing apologists.

[cardcounter0]

There are exemptions to The Posse Comitatus Act in times of national calamity. Posse Comitatus doesn't apply in a catastropic situation.

[SheetWise]

[ QUOTE ]
Stop citing PC as a reason active military could not go in. They are there now without Bush invoking a formal exception the Act.

[/ QUOTE ]

My understanding is they were invited. We don't have that timeline yet. The point of the OP was to discuss and understand what the rules are/were before we get that information. Then let the chips fall where they may.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

[ QUOTE ]

My understanding is they were invited. We don't have that timeline yet. The point of the OP was to discuss and understand what the rules are/were before we get that information. Then let the chips fall where they may.

[/ QUOTE ]

A good governor would make sure the federal response would be good and complement the state's response, a good president would make sure the state's response would be good and complement the federal response. A bad governor or president would just take care of their part and cooperate poorly. They are in the mud together.

[SheetWise]

[ QUOTE ]
A good governor would make sure the federal response would be good and complement the state's response, a good president would make sure the state's response would be good and complement the federal response.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree with your first conclusion, but not the second. Think about it like a fire. When there is a fire, one fire company responds and assesses the situation. If they need help, they call for it. If they don't call for help, other stations don't respond. That doesn't mean they can't see the smoke -- it simply means that they trust the department on the scene to know what they're doing. It wouldn't be proper for other fire companies to call and ask if they need help -- it's up to the people on the scene.

[OtisTheMarsupial]

[ QUOTE ]
The United States are not run like a corporation. The States are not subsidiaries of the Federal government. The President does not have 50 Governors who answer to him -- and he did not appoint them -- he has 50 Governors that he answers to. The power structure, as our founding Fathers saw fit, is from the bottom up. It is illogical to think that the President should dictate or unilaterally act in an issue involving a State. The President has more latitude in Afghanistan than he does in Louisiana. It's the residents of Louisiana who have power in LA -- and they have elected their leaders.

So wherever the blame lies, if mistakes were made, it's important to remember that the Mayor and the Governor are on the south end of the State line, closest to the people, and directing the peoples Federal Government.

[/ QUOTE ]

You've framed he question well...for your perspective. If I stay within your frame, my response will never be adequate in your eyes. Therefor, I must change direction and look at the picture through a different frame.

******THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE****
*****I DO NOT RECOMMEND BREAKING THE LAW******

Legal power to act is not the only kind of power people have. Granted, FEMA may have been limited legally. But they were not limited physically. Their excuse that they couldn't go in and act because they didn't have the legal power is simply inexcusable (and, probably not even totally true). They had the power to act, to save lives, along with the duty to save lives, and they just sat back and acted like they didn't have legal authority.

Think about it. A baby is crying inside a building on fire. The mother is outside the building saying, "do not go in, I donn't give you permission to enter." You have been fire trained and know you can save that baby's life. You have ALL the resources to save that baby, an ambulance, fire suits, etc. The mother has nothing. She keeps yelling at you to stay out.

Do you just sit and let the baby die?
NO, you bust down the door and save the baby, despite what the mother wants.
You figure out the legality of it later.

Please! Don't give me this BS. Anyone who plays online poker
knows that it's a legal gray area and they're willing to take the risk because it's worth a lot to them.
All FEMA had to do was take a risk. I am confident the legal barriers would have disappeared.

******THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE****
*****I DO NOT RECOMMEND BREAKING THE LAW******

[Arnfinn Madsen]

[ QUOTE ]

I agree with your first conclusion, but not the second. Think about it like a fire. When there is a fire, one fire company responds and assesses the situation. If they need help, they call for it. If they don't call for help, other stations don't respond. That doesn't mean they can't see the smoke -- it simply means that they trust the department on the scene to know what they're doing. It wouldn't be proper for other fire companies to call and ask if they need help -- it's up to the people on the scene.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is how well-functioning organisations work, but in reality, in many situations, that kind of approach often falls short. Good managers are aware of this and actively checks if the department on the scene knows what they are doing.

[cadillac1234]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A good governor would make sure the federal response would be good and complement the state's response, a good president would make sure the state's response would be good and complement the federal response.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree with your first conclusion, but not the second. Think about it like a fire. When there is a fire, one fire company responds and assesses the situation. If they need help, they call for it. If they don't call for help, other stations don't respond. That doesn't mean they can't see the smoke -- it simply means that they trust the department on the scene to know what they're doing. It wouldn't be proper for other fire companies to call and ask if they need help -- it's up to the people on the scene.

[/ QUOTE ]


If the Fire Chief turns on the TV and sees Engine 5 fighting a 10 alarm fire by themselves he has a duty to overide scene command and insert any forces he deems necessary. Basic operating principle and chain of command.

In your above analogy, the fire chiefs (Chertoff and Brown) would've been drunk at the strip club, blowing tax payers money on lap dances with their pagers turned off.

[SheetWise]

[ QUOTE ]
If the Fire Chief turns on the TV and sees Engine 5 fighting a 10 alarm fire by themselves he has a duty to overide scene command ...

[/ QUOTE ]
If it's a 10 alarm fire, that means that they've already requested help from 9 other stations. Duh.

[cardcounter0]

What if the 9 other fire depts. are waiting for paperwork and a formal invitation before responding? Should the fire chief play another round of golf?