|
Serious Problems are Afoot in New Orleans (pg. 17)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Fir3start3r |
Great article Shakka, and this is what I've been pointing out before,
| quote: |
The local officials who knew about that problem didn't do anything about it - and then were furious when Mr. Bush didn't solve it for them. Why didn't the man on the mound come through for them?
It's a fair question as they go door to door looking for bodies. But so is this: Why didn't they go door to door last week with Magic Markers?
|
The Federal government is involved in helping with the disaster (insert obvious tag here) but only AFTER the local and state governments, which be default, should be MUCH quicker to respond than the federal expectations of emergency assistance from Bush's end.
Why is that so hard to understand for some people? :conf: |
|
|
| donnybrasco |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
Why is that so hard to understand for some people? :conf: |
Because blaming Bush even for things like natural disasters is not outside the realm of un-educated people from around the country...including one physically large and un-affluent lady from New Orleans, who looked in to a Fox News camera a few days ago and stated in a thick accent; "George Bush; You ain't gettin' my vote (emphasis added), no way, no how!"
Um, I'm sure it really matters to him now, genius. :haha: |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by donnybrasco
Because blaming Bush even for things like natural disasters is not outside the realm of un-educated people from around the country...including one physically large and un-affluent lady from New Orleans, who looked in to a Fox News camera a few days ago and stated in a thick accent; "George Bush; You ain't gettin' my vote (emphasis added), no way, no how!"
Um, I'm sure it really matters to him now, genius. :haha: |
What's the point? It's already a Democratic state and besides, that genious can't vote for him in the next election even if she wanted...:rolleyes: |
|
|
| donnybrasco |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
What's the point? It's already a Democratic state and besides, that genious can't vote for him in the next election even if she wanted...:rolleyes: |
Yes, I know...there-in lies the humor, and at the same time, sad-irony of those who would assign sole responsiblity to Bush for this somehow.
I thought her statement was the quintessentual example of the mis-guided blame-placers. ;) |
|
|
| St_Andrew |
| quote: | Originally posted by josh4
what the hell happened to independent committees? |
Hehe, this is what I was thinking too, bush is to lead an investigation of what he, and others, did wrong. I can only imagine what that will lead to... |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by St_Andrew
Hehe, this is what I was thinking too, bush is to lead an investigation of what he, and others, did wrong. I can only imagine what that will lead to... |
a committee on the committee? |
|
|
| St_Andrew |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
a committee on the committee? |
Something like that!
Much better to do an "independent" at first, something similar to the 9-11 commission, since that seemed to work quite well. |
|
|
| ogvh5150 |
A friend of mine made an interesting point.
NO was declared to be under martial law. Correct? Correct.
Martial law puts FEMA in charge. Correct? Correct.
Does the president have authority when martial law is in effect?
No.
Does any government official have jurisdiction in an area declared under martial law?
No.
FEMA is in charge when there is martial law.
This is what is called a federal coup d'état.
Get used to it.
And people were GLAD and HAPPY to see the troops march in. They practically begged for them to come in.
See how it works. People would be doubleplus happy to see troops quell a disturbance and will gladly give away their liberties for sake of security.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Benjamin Franklin |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by ogvh5150
A friend of mine made an interesting point.
NO was declared to be under martial law. Correct? Correct.
|
Actually, Wrong.
New Orleans was not declared under martial law. It is illegal for the state of Lousiana to delcare martial law according to their state constitution.
| quote: | Wiki's take:
Hurricane Katrina
Contrary to many media reports, martial law has not been declared in New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, because no such term exists in Louisiana state law[4]. Rather, a state of emergency has been declared, which does give some powers similar to that of martial law. On the evening of August 31, New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin did declare "martial law" (in name at least) in the city and said that "officers don't have to worry about civil rights and Miranda rights in stopping the looters." Another common rule during riots and disasters is a curfew from sunset until sunrise.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_law#The_U.S._State_of_Louisiana |
| quote: | Law site's take:
On 8/26/2005, in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, New Orleans was placed under martial law after widespread flooding rendered civil authority ineffective. The state of Louisiana does not have an actual legal construct called "martial law," but instead something quite like it: a state of public health emergency. The state of emergency allowed the governor can suspend laws, order evacuations, and limit the sales of items such as alcohol and firearms. The governor's order limited the state of emergency, to end on 9/25/2005, "unless terminated sooner."
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_mlaw.html |
Furthermore if martial law is declared by the govenor it is that state govenor which has authority not the federal government (unless the US President declares martial law). |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
Actually, Wrong.
New Orleans was not declared under martial law. It is illegal for the state of Lousiana to delcare martial law according to their state constitution.
Furthermore if martial law is declared by the govenor it is that state govenor which has authority not the federal government (unless the US President declares martial law). |
Interesting.
So I guess a couple of questions then; Can the president order martial law just for "a" State? Do he have the authority? |
|
|
| kush paintings |
| He declared war, why can't he declare martial law. |
|
|
| metalgearsolid |
| If he were to declare Martial Law people will react in hostility toward the government. They will also get paranoid and than start accusing the government of infringing on thier rights. Well Martial Law is meant to take a lot of rights away for the safety of the people. But I doubt many would see it that way. |
|
|
|
|
