Federal Response to Katrina FASTER than to Andrew, Hugo & Others

[BCPVP]

If you're referring to the "federalizing" argument you and I had before, then I'll tell you that the only way I've found (so far) for the President to federalize the Nat'l Guard would be for the governor to request such a move and/or a state of martial law would have to exist. Neither of these is the case in LA, so I believe Bush cannot federalize the Guard.

[slamdunkpro]

[ QUOTE ]
Neither of these is the case in LA, so I believe Bush cannot federalize the Guard.

[/ QUOTE ]

Only by implementing the insurrection act – imagine the howls in liberal land if he did that!

[twowords]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Neither of these is the case in LA, so I believe Bush cannot federalize the Guard.

[/ QUOTE ]

Only by implementing the insurrection act – imagine the howls in liberal land if he did that!

[/ QUOTE ]

So you believe Bush decided against this drastic option which would enable a faster federal response and result in lives saved because he was afaid of "howls in liberal land"?

I mean just listen to yourself...

[slamdunkpro]

[ QUOTE ]
So you believe Bush decided against this drastic option which would enable a faster federal response and result in lives saved because he was afaid of "howls in liberal land"?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, the point is.......sigh....never mind, that would be a waste of time - just keep on chanting "It's all Bush's fault".

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
So you believe Bush decided against this drastic option which would enable a faster federal response and result in lives saved because he was afaid of "howls in liberal land"?

[/ QUOTE ]
That's not what he said and you know it.

I guess this would be the section regarding sending troops/Guard:
Quelling Civil Disturbances: The Insurrection Act (10 U.S.C. § 331 et seq.)

* State and local governments have primary responsibility for quelling rebellions (32 C.F.R. § 215.4(a).
* The President may use the military (including the Federalized National Guard) to quell (1) civil disturbances in a State (upon the Governor's request), (2) rebellions that make it difficult to enforce Federal law, or (3) any insurrection that impedes a State's ability to protect citizens' constitutional rights and that State is unable to unwilling to protect these rights.
* Before committing U.S. troops, the President must issue a proclamation for rebellious citizens to disperse, cease, and desist.
* Some government attorneys believe that the Insurrection Act is subject to a very liberal interpretation.

I don't think Bush could even use the Insurrection Act, under these circumstances, as it's not clear to me that the tests established for invoking it would be met. But I'm not a lawyer...

The Op-Ed writer made some good points. Much of the federal response was great, especially from the Coast Guard. This was a massive undertaking that no other nation could have accomplished.

Much of the criticism has also been partisan anti-Bush cheap shots, but if the Bush administration was satisfied with FEMA's response Brown would still be in charge.

[cardcounter0]

STILL WRONG!

First the lie is he can't do it, then the lie is he can only do it to quell insurection.

WRONG!

Look at the SOP in case of National Disaster. When there is a National Disaster declared the President can summon the troops, no permission needed. That is why it is called a NATIONAL disaster. It has been that way every since the great San Fransisco Earthquake in, I believe, 1906.

I think you will see this ability for the "Commander in Chief" to control his forces was further strengthed in provisions of the Patriot Act, and the formation of the HomeLand Security Dept.

What is the sense of having a National centralized HomeLand Security Department if it is hamstrung by the will of 50 different State Governors.

BUT THANK YOU! You point out the fallacy of the great "President can't send troops without permission" lie by pointing out one of the many means in which he could have done it.

Funny, the President only worries about what the "liberals" will think when it agrees with something he wants to do or not do. He wasn't worried about what the "liberals" thought with any of his appointments, his tax cuts, his invasion of Iraq... But when it comes to saving American lives, better not offend the "liberals".

[cardcounter0]

Hmmmmm... 1992 was how many years before 9/11, the formation of the HomeLand Security Dept., the spending of billions for domestic protection, the election of the President wanting to make us all safer?

I think the response to the Great Chicago Fire was really slow too. Should we hold our modern fire fighters to this same reponse time that they exhibited 100 years ago?

Gee... this response was almost as fast as a response to a smaller event when Daddy was in charge. Good job, George.

[twowords]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So you believe Bush decided against this drastic option which would enable a faster federal response and result in lives saved because he was afaid of "howls in liberal land"?

[/ QUOTE ]
That's not what he said and you know it.

I guess this would be the section regarding sending troops/Guard:
Quelling Civil Disturbances: The Insurrection Act (10 U.S.C. § 331 et seq.)

* State and local governments have primary responsibility for quelling rebellions (32 C.F.R. § 215.4(a).
* The President may use the military (including the Federalized National Guard) to quell (1) civil disturbances in a State (upon the Governor's request), (2) rebellions that make it difficult to enforce Federal law, or (3) any insurrection that impedes a State's ability to protect citizens' constitutional rights and that State is unable to unwilling to protect these rights.
* Before committing U.S. troops, the President must issue a proclamation for rebellious citizens to disperse, cease, and desist.
* Some government attorneys believe that the Insurrection Act is subject to a very liberal interpretation.

I don't think Bush could even use the Insurrection Act, under these circumstances, as it's not clear to me that the tests established for invoking it would be met. But I'm not a lawyer...

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, that's a fairer argument, thank you. Don't give me whining about "liberals" like BCP did. You guys just love to pretend liberals=micheal moore, who might very well attack Bush no matter what he did. I'll try not to treat you like Sean Hannity and you try not to treat me like Micheal Moore.

As for your fair argument, intrestingly it seems to contradict what Bill O'Reilly just stated on the factor. He said that he admits Bush was at fault for not using an executive order to mobilize the guard the day the levies failed and NO went underwater. Bill is with me!

So the Governor and mayor are overwhelmed, incompetent, and have lost significant capability for action? Well, beg the governor to call for feds, use an act loosely (insurection), write an executive order, and save some lives. Save lives first, ask questions later! I PROMISE you, I would not be whining in the face of such bold leaderhip.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Look at the SOP in case of National Disaster.

[/ QUOTE ]
Could you provide this, please? I don't feel like an easter egg hunt today.

[ QUOTE ]
When there is a National Disaster declared the President can summon the troops, no permission needed.

[/ QUOTE ]
Prove it.

[ QUOTE ]
I think you will see this ability for the "Commander in Chief" to control his forces was further strengthed in provisions of the Patriot Act, and the formation of the HomeLand Security Dept.

[/ QUOTE ]
The Nat'l Guard are not "his". They belong to the state.

[ QUOTE ]
What is the sense of having a National centralized HomeLand Security Department if it is hamstrung by the will of 50 different State Governors.

[/ QUOTE ]
There's way more to the DHS than just federalizing the Guard.

[ QUOTE ]
BUT THANK YOU! You point out the fallacy of the great "President can't send troops without permission" lie by pointing out one of the many means in which he could have done it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Many? There are very few circumstances in which the President can do this and I've yet to see one that applies. I'd like to see you back up your claim that POTUS can do this under the circumstances.